Talk:Gabriele Amorth

Number of Exorcisms

At 17:05, 15 September 2005, an anonymous user at IP address [[User:128.231.88.4|128.231.88.4] entered the following in the text of the article:

"So, 30,000 exorcisms in 20 years...wow..that ammounts to 4 exorcisms per day continually during the last 20 years...and no wikipedian challenges this ridiculous number...what demonstrates that wikipedia sucks!!! anyway...have a good day..."

His approach is hostile and it was promptly removed, However, he did the math and got it right. Average 4 a day seven days a week, no breaks. Any comments? -WCFrancis 22:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, his first book states that he has performed over 30,000 exorcisms. That is Father Amorth's claim. Where are you getting this four a day business? How can the math be correct when you don't even know how many people he sees in a day? Have you read his book? He describes them as not hours and hours a day on one person but talks about appointments and it sounds like he goes through more than four people a day. Driving out the Devil

Dwain 20:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The math is simple...he's been an exorcist since 1986, that's 20 years...30,000 exorcisms in 20 years is 1500 per year, giving an average of about 4 per day. That does seem like a lot to me...I didn't imagine exorcisms were so routine.

There are some rites in Catholicism that can be done for large groups at once; blessings are the most common, but I vaguely recall going to a mass annointing of the sick when my great aunt was seriously ill. The article on exorcism would suggest this shouldn't be the case for this rite under canon law, but it may be wrong, or the rules may have changed since Amorth started. He may not always have done them one at a time.

That said, I feel compelled to give my (unsubstantiated) opinion: he sounds like a real whack job. Abb3w 16:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of how Satan works! Dwain 16:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

How? by using arithmetic? Serendipodous 13:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Duh! No, by saying that the guy sounds like a "real whack job"! How would you like to be called a whack job? To call someone a whack job based on the fact that they are a priest who does exorcisms is a perfect example of Satan working through humans. Dwain 14:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

We find it difficult to believe a priori that a single person can, without vacations nor even a day of rest, perform constant exorcisms enough to constitute 4 per day for 20 years, assuming individual and not mass exorcisms. Skepticism is a hallmark of scholasticism more often than Satanism. Heartofgoldfish 04:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Skepitcism aside, I'm talking about labeling a person a whack job. There are two types of exorcisms a long involved affair and a shorter version. If anyone writing here has actually read Amorth's book they would know that. A lot of the people he helps he sees for a short period of time. He schedules appointments and performs the lesser form or exorcism and they go on their way. Sure people can be skeptical about the number he reports or about exorcisms. But to attack a person because he's a priest and an exorcist is an obvious work of the devil. The person even said that he felt "compelled" to give his opinion. That is called temptation it's too bad he was unable to fight the urge to do the Satan's work. And, of course, here again the doubters and unbelievers who are more likely to believe in the power of rocks than in God or Satan can call me names. I gist is, Amorth reports this number in his book. Dwain 13:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of you seem to forget, he also mentions in his book that one excorcism is often not enough and sometimes it requires daily rites that last for years. It could be the case that the last few years he has simply spent seeing the same people and spending maybe 1 hour or even less. He also mentions that he occasionally sais a silent exorcism during confession when he hears a particularly bad sin. Lastly i believe he may have been rounding- like estimating. I would also like to add that this is not a forum for discussing whether a priest is to be believed or not. In his book he has stated a number and in this wiki page it mentions this. Hypothetically even if he is incorrect, this wiki page is simply reporting the number he has stated. This seems more to me like an attack by posters who dislike the Catholic church, and if this is the case then i would suggest finding a religious forum as wikipedia is supposed to be neutral!

Stupid comments like accusing people who are legitimately sceptical about the claims of Amorth as doing the work of the devil are not going to get you anywhere. How do we know you aren't doing the work of the devil by defending this guy? In any case, you're right that this is not the place to discuss personal opinions of Amorth but you should just emphasise that talk pages are for discussion of ways to improve the article not for comments on the subject of the article and that for BLP reasons, people definitely shouldn't be making personal comments about living people. However you didn't help your case by your devil comments or your getting defense about it being an attack on the Catholic church (opinions of the Catholic church aside, it's entirely resonably that people will criticise this person's comments). Incidentally if there were referenced criticisms of Amorth claims then we would probably include that in this article regardless of your opinion of the devil and motives of such criticism Nil Einne (talk) 07:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I would venture that it violates WP:CIVIL by saying someone is "doing the work of the devil" by having an opinion contrary to ones own. Religious convictions aside, we should tread lightly with accusations of this sort. Guldenat (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? Many Wikipedians proudly proclaim that they do the work of the devil. Dwain (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe... there are wikipedians who claim to be vandals too, that doesn't mean we label people as vandals just because we disagree with them. Its insulting and not constructive. Guldenat (talk) 07:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

An Exorcist Tells His Story, ISBN 0-89870-710-2: Page 53, Those actually possessed are few, but these unhappy with the effects of evil are many. Page 78, an exorcism can last few minutes or many hours. Page 169, in over thirty thousand exorcisms Father Amorth lists only ninety-three who were accually possessed. Page 172, Father Amorth has exorcised people from all over Europe because they can not find an exorcist in there own country. What is so unbelievable about these numbers? 71.126.64.227 (talk) 06:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)From nobody in Pennsylvania—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.64.227 (talk) 06:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

All that calculation nonsense does not belong in this article. Neither does the rather questionable conclusion that some number of exorcisms per day is "conceivable." That conclusion is someone's personal opinion, not fact. (I saw the movie The Exorcist, his favorite movie, and I know damn well that he is not doing 8 of those a day.) Please stick to verifiable facts. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a research or analysis paper. If the guy claims to have performed 5 million exorcisms, then document that he claims to have performed 5 million exorcisms. That's it. You don't go and try to make sense of it with further personal in-article research. Now, if there is a significant body of external criticism of his claims that can be referenced, then by all means create a criticism section and reference the independent research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.49.116 (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with 76.167.49.116 only. The number 8 exorcisms per day should be obvious. Although I'm not sure whether the accounting is undue synthesis, it expresses some kind of ironic non-neutral point of view, which should be up to the reader. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 16:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The number of exorcisms is a claim, not a fact. See article: Amorth believed that a person may be possessed by more than one demon at once, sometimes numbering in the thousands, which is what accounts for the high number of reputed demons exorcised. If we accept his number as a fact, we accept his basic claim that demons exist as a fact, which would violate WP:NPOV. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Official exorcist

All exorcists who are priests are official. No priest can made an exorcism without the permission of Vatican, except in particular situations. --Ilario 12:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Not every archdiocese has an exorcist. In those cases when one is needed an available priest may be granted permission to perform an exorcism. When it says "official exorcist" in the article it is refering to the fact that he was officially made the exorcist of Rome. I do not see any problems with how it is written. Dwain 21:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Also be aware that 1.)all bishops have the power to perform an exorcism and 2.)any diocesan ordinary can appoint a priest of his diocese to be an exorcist. Exorcist do NOT have to be appointed strictly from the Vatican, only by the ordinary (bishop in charge) of a particular diocese. Guldenat (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

An Exorcist Tells His Story, ISBN 0-89870-710-2: Page 44, Two types of exorcism, the sacrament of Baptism(simple exorcism), and the sacremental reserved to exorcists, which is called a solemn exorcism(CCC 1773). Page 67, A Priest who has the courage to perform quality preaching and confessions does more in the battle with against evil than any exorcist.71.126.64.227 (talk) 06:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)nobody from Pennsylvania

An address for Father Amorth

I wish to write to Father Amorth if anyone can give me an address for him. goddarda@email adressed removed 23/3/2006

Reference section is horrible!

I do not like the currect reference section it is terrible! It is hard to read cluttered with unnecessary stuff like "HTML" and when something was retrieved! Then of course this "a.,b.,c." nonsense. Why can't this be an ordinary reference page instead of this cluttered mess that is currently there now? I know that not every article has this mess for a system. Dwain 16:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Having information like when the reference was retrieved (for online references) is considered good practice. The a,b,c is so that people can identify when a reference was used multiple times. We should know include the same reference multiple times without distinction (if it's a book and specific page numbers are mentioned that is fine). In any case, while the referencing section isn't perfect it follows the established conventions resonably well. You might want to check out a FA like Religious debates over Harry Potter to get an idea of what good referencing entails. Bear in mind wikipedian pages ALWAYS emphasise the reader over the editor. In otherwords even if you find something difficult to edit, it's not going to change if it's better for the reader Nil Einne (talk) 07:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not better for the reader, that was why I complained. It is muddled with a., b., and c. notations and I stand by my original opinion, it looks like crap when it's used. Dwain (talk)

Controversies Section

Of what use is a Controversies section that doesn't state any opposing viewpoints? Downstrike (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Having seen video of his blanket style, I have no reason to doubt these quotes, which are some of the worst blanket-absolutes most people have ever heard. While there's no rebuttal, there is (perhaps more usefully) a psychoanalysis. But by way of rebuttal, the idea that "magic is always a turn to the devil" ignores the fact that Jacob and other Bible figures used natural magic and were never rebuked by a prophet or anyone. The notion that "all eastern religions are based on a false belief in reincarnation" is preposterous, since reincarnation isn't mentioned in the Rigveda. Also, Christianity is an eastern religion clearly rooted in the older, farther-eastern religions that Amorth, other Italians, and other Western European chauvinists seem obsessed with hating, probably in Amorth's case out of a survival instinct for job security, God rest his soul. And speaking of both Hinduism and magic, check out Joe Doležal's presentation titled "The Upanishads and Magic", which is one of the most mind-blowing, theology-demolishing thing you'll ever hear, short of Elaine Pagels' books. Happy truth hunting! Johnpfmcguire (talk) 02:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Edits

In the last few weeks, User Complainer deleted some sections because he thought some citations were of, including the whole Harry Potter controversy. I reverted the edits because they are well sourced. If there are problems, please discuss here before deleting parts of the article --Michael Sch. (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue is clear: you read the sources, which are online, and you don't find the facts mentioned. Some of the sources, actually don't exist: there is no such thing as "Catholic Telecommunication". You are welcome to browse through the source material and, if you find something I have overlooked, fix it; the Harry Potter controversy, e.g. it turns out, is actually sourced, but the source reported after its mention is not the right one. However, reverting all my edits uncritically is not constructive behaviour and, since most of the material removed appears fictional, certainly doesn't help the article. As for discussing, deleting unsourced, sidesourced and fringesourced material in BLP is encouraged on wikipedia with a shoot-on-sight policy (you can get the details here; notice the expression "without discussion"). complainer (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

For the Harry Potter claims, from this cathnews page (with a Catholic Telecommunications logo) I found this lifesitenews page which refered to this New York Times coverage and linked to a now dead Gazetta di Modena page. The "cathnews" page was dated 2002-01-04 and not 2000 as used in the article. Now, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard has never looked at cathnews but has looked at lifesitenews.com here giving a general note of caution - I guess we could ask their opinion for these specific claims. Alternatively we could reword that section using the New York Times article. (Also, [1] is a short Gazzetta di Modena article from 2011 quoting Amorth's views pn yoga and Potter. -84user (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC) (I've made two edits here to partly cleanup the sourcing, but more work is probably needed. -84user (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC))

Complainer: As you may have noticed, I added a different source to the Harry Potter controversy. It's the original article, where the quotes came from. The Harry Potter claim is easily to verify with a simple google search (Gabriele Amorth + Harry Potter). Deleting it without trying to find a new source is not ok. This also applies to this edit. Yes, the original interview is down and it's a archive.org mirror, but there is no evidence, that the "source is seriously fringe". You can find the same interview with the same source (Sunday Telegraph) on a few different sites. Those were the two edits I reverted, because you removed important parts of the article --Michael Sch. (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but we disagree here: the burden of matching the sources with the statements is on the person who makes such statements; if the sources do not say what he/she claims they say, the edit can be deleted and, in the case of BLP, must be deleted (as a side note, I opposed this policy when it was proposed; I am sticking to it now because wikipedia seems to be extremely touchy about it). Albeit we are certainly welcome to, we do not have the duty to find actual sources for a falsely supported claim. Rather, editors have the duty of not making such claims: it is disruptive behaviour, it makes it very hard to assume good faith and it can, in many cases, be libellious. Editors who do not have sources to support something they seem to remember always have the option of posting it unsourced, with or without a "citation needed" tag. As for the seriously fringe source, as I was referring to http://www.tldm.org/News6/exorcism1.htm, which, imho, should be in the "External links" section of the fringe article. complainer (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Possible ITN Candidate

If anyone is interested this article might make a good candidate for a WP:ITNC (linked on the main page in In the News) nomination under the recently died (RD) heading. However it would need cleanup and improved sourcing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gabriele Amorth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070105172804/http://ncregister.com/site/article/508 to http://ncregister.com/site/article/508

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)