Talk:Exorcism in the Catholic Church

Exorcism Pages

We should consider merging exorcism pages. for example, Exorcisms in Christianity and the catholic church — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysticalresearch (talk • contribs) 19:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

This is horribly written, with phrases like "With demonic possession on the rise..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.142.241.70 (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Warning: long quote

The "History" section currently contains clandestine, underground affairs, undertaken without the approval of the Catholic Church and without the rigorous psychological screening that the church required. In subsequent years, the Church took more aggressive action on the demon-expulsion front. The practice of exorcism without consent from the Catholic Church is what prompted the official guidelines from 1614 to be amended. The amendment established the procedure that clergy members and each individual who claims to be impacted by demonic possession must follow. This includes the rule that the potentially possessed individual must be evaluated by a medical professional before any other acts are taken. The primary reason for this action is to eliminate any suspicion of mental illness, before the next steps of the procedure are taken. Since demonic possession, according to Roman Catholic teachings, is extremely rare, and mental health issues are often mistaken for demonic possession, the Vatican requires that each diocese have a specially trained priest who is able to diagnose demonic possession and perform exorcisms when necessary.”[6] According to this edit, when the text was inserted into the lead, this was (correctly) copy/pasted from the offline source Cuneo, Michael W. (Jan 1999). "Exorcism". Contemporary American Religion. 1 (New York: Macmillan Reference USA): 243 using quotation marks. The quote is exceedingly long - but the book itself is presumably much longer, so there's likely no copyright violation, as the quote is likely a very tiny part of the book, and it was inserted as a quote.

However, someone inserted a double quote in the middle of the quotation, making it unclear what is a quote and what is Wikivoice - this is a long-term editing risk with such a long quote. The content of the quote does seem relevant, and summarising it would lose many interesting points. So I'm leaving it as it is. Providing an independent summary would require access to the book, reading and understanding it, and then summarising. Please do not paraphrase. Boud (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)