Talk:Gabriele Amorth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Catholicism Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the Project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)