▲ 40 points
back
35 comments
The headline makes it sound like he believes there's a mole within the Vatican, but reading the article it sounds like he means that there's an "elegant demon" living within each of us that may tempt us to judge others too harshly.
I know this is what he meant, but I wanted to believe it was indeed a mole. It would have been much more exciting, like a Catholic themed version of Among Us.
> It would have been much more exciting, like a Catholic themed version of Among Us.
Do you want the Spanish Inquisition? That's how you get the Spanish Inquisition.
> The headline makes it sound like he believes there's a mole within the Vatican
Not a problem Francis is unfamiliar with, though his predecessor was more directly affected.
He's talking about religious hubris, not an actual demon.
That this needed to be said on HN speaks volumes to how shallow we are.
Does the Catholic Church not still practice exorcisms and a belief that demonic possession is a real thing? Last I checked, they do… I think a reasonable person, who is somewhat familiar with the centuries of ridiculous proclamations of the Catholic Church, would not be unreasonable in thinking it was reference to a real (imaginary) demon.
If the choice were between {evolution, exorcism} and {}, I think I'd take the extreme catholic set including evolution, not the extreme protestant set, denying it.
I'm also pretty sure Francis doesn't have any problems with a 4,5 billion-year old earth.
I think they would be unreasonable.
A reasonable person familiar with the church would know that 99.9% the talk of demons is metaphor and analogy these days.
Fear of demons, fear of God, fear of what happens after death, fear of having a thought which may be construed as dissent or heresy, fear of speaking out against their fellow church leaders for pedophilic behaviors. The Catholic church is all about fear as a form of control.
I'm not a Catholic but I've been to a number of services and that is not my experience. Not saying those things haven't happened, but I don't think claiming that they are 99.9% is honest conversation.
Maybe you should look at what elegant demons you have embraced, as we all should
I think 99.9% is an extreme claim. I only know a few catholics but several of them have mentioned truly seeing/hearing demons or evil spirits and based on their secondhand accounts, multiple of their friends and family members make the same claim.
It is an extreme claim, but when was the last time the Pope openly spoke of physical demons walking the earth.
Demons are a thing in catholic religion, and they do get talked about, usually in the past tense. Sermons claiming that physical demons from hell walk among us like some sci-fi fantasy are very rare.
I agree lay people might talk of demons more, the way people talk about ghosts or aliens. I was thinking more in terms of Sermon.
I personally judge a church by its authorities and foundational texts, and the authorities and foundational texts of Catholicism are uncontrovertibly in support of the notion that demons and exorcisms are real things. Heck, one of the taglines for Jesus is that he “casts out demons.”
Edit: spelling (and deleted and responded to the correct comment).
I do agree on judging an establishment by its foundational texts, at least in part - also considering modern actions are important too to consider evolution of understanding and concepts.
On the point of "casting out demons", these are old texts translated from heavily evolved languages. Literal translations are often lost (eg today how we greet others "what's up?"). However taking it on its literal meaning, if the act of casting out literal demons to make one a better person is not outdated today, is the end result not still worthy? Doctors used to bleed patients to heal fever. While that act is outdated, is trying to cure the fever no less important?
(full disclosure, I am catholic, but I'm not sure what I'm trying to say)
If you want to think that the pope was talking about a demon that is taking human form as an imposter in the Vatican, then I can't stop you. I think that the context of the quote clearly proves that this is wrong.
Don’t get me wrong, I know that demons aren’t real and that anyone that thinks they are is a buffoon. But let’s not pretend the Catholic Church (the authorities and foundational texts) is not all in on believing in demons:
“Chronic mental and emotional problems may be exacerbated by demons,” he says, “because the devil likes to attack us where we’re weakest. But not every problem has a demon behind it.” https://www.catholic.com/news/the-truth-about-demons
“Demons are fallen angels under the command of Satan, those who are still free after the Gen. 6 affair. Satan is called the Prince, or Ruler, of all demons in Matthew 9:34; 12:24; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15. Demons are also called the ministers, or ambassadors of Satan, Luke 4:35; 9:1,42; John 10:21. Satan is brilliant, an administrative genius. He has an excellent organization, mentioned in Eph. 6:10-12 (READ) The Bible also makes a distinction between demon possession and demon influence.” https://www.catholic.org/saints/angels/fallen.php
“This essay discusses the nature and behavior of demons, demonic possession, and the effects of demonic activity. Rev. Michael P. Orsi provides specific indicators of demonic possession and ways to rule out mental illness and / or the free will actions of a bad person.” https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?rec...
“Church officials say that rediscovered obsessions with the occult, such as with Ouija boards, paganism, and Satanism, are causing people to suffer demonic possessions at an unparalleled rate.
Priests can cast out demons by the rite of exorcism, but it requires special training that few priests have. Several dioceses, particularly in Spain and Italy, are sending priests to train for spiritual warfare unlike that seen in ages - if ever.”
and
“We would do well to remember that Pope Francis warned, "there are those that belong to him" (referring to Satan).” https://www.catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=53779
Edit, to add: my only point is that it is not unreasonable, given what the Catholic Church actually preaches (see above), to think it was a reference to an actual demon.
Primary source:
https://www.osservatoreromano.va/en/news/2022-12/ing-051/in-...
With some context:
Our initial conversion follows a certain pattern: the evil that we acknowledge and try to uproot from our lives does indeed leave us, but we would be naïve to think that it will long be gone. In short order, it comes back under a new guise. Before, it appeared rough and violent, now it shows up as elegant and refined. We need to realize that and once again to unmask it. Let me put it this way: they are “elegant demons”: they enter smoothly, without our even being conscious of them. Only the daily practice of the examination of conscience can enable us to be aware of them.
[EDIT: the reason I can't reconcile the next bit is because I was confused. Ignore it.]
The next paragraph cites a nun who became a heretic (on a rather abstruse piece of doctrine). That's really a problem in that she was a TV personality, for a group of conservative Catholics who push a culture-war approach that often puts them at odds with the Vatican, especially the comparatively liberal Francis.
And I'm not quite sure how to reconcile that. I'm quite certain that Mother Angelica did examine her conscience quite closely. In many ways Mother Angelica was quite inelegant, and rather outspoken. Perhaps she was listening too closely to an "elegant demon", but I'm not sure if any amount of introspection would have revealed flaws to her.
I think you're confusing two different Mother Angelicas: https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2022/12/pope-francis-slams-mothe...
To be fair, Google's results also mess this up. Pope Francis is referring to a heretical abbess from the 17th century.
Ah, fuxxor. Thanks.
> In the seventeenth century, for example, there was the well-known case of the nuns of Port Royal. One of their abbesses, Mother Angelica,...
I'm having a hard time reconciling XVII with "TV personality", unless you mean this is a veiled reference to a different, XXI, personality?
Apparently the introspection that would have revealed the flaws is directly quoted: “pure as angels and proud as demons”. A little introspection might have suggested that Pride was not in keeping with her confession.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins#Christian_se...
Yep, I conflated it with somebody else. Thanks; I've pointed that out in my original post.
In another life I was a practicing Catholic and if you haven't, the book of Revelation is an actually interesting sci-fi post-apocolyptic fan fic, especially the dramatized renditions like the Left Behind book series (movies are terrible).
Revelation describes the anti-christ in a similar fashion. Is the Pope implying Lucifer has returned? I wonder if the Vatican even takes Revelation as true dogma in practice too, since it is somewhat off-the-wall.
Seems unlikely.
The notion of rapture as commonly concieved of is in conflict with the amilennial doctrine of the catholic church. Any pope would be very well aware that dispensationalism/premillennialism is a mostly modern American idea. [1]
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20060513181209/http://www.cathol...
Not really religious these days, but I concur about the Left Behind books. Fascinating interpretation of the end times story, placing it firmly in today's world. I still remember how it described dealing with "boiling seas" plague, how the main character captured condensation from the AC unit to survive. In all the "sci-fi" I've read through the years, there aren't many stories that stick with me like that did.
> Revelation describes the anti-christ in a similar fashion. Is the Pope implying Lucifer has returned?
The article clearly explains what the Pope is talking about and no, that isn't it.
He's quoted saying "...because we are beset by the ‘elegant demon,’ who does not make a loud entrance, but comes with flowers in his hand". Sure you could take this as metaphorical but it's also, almost verbatim, the opening act of Satan's return to Earth. Idk it's more interesting rhetoric and at the end of the day, arguing semantics than anything, speaking as a non-believer.
Headline is clickbait tbf
For anyone not aware, this is standard stuff for many Catholic parishes.
Every blessed Sunday, in addition to the other Mass rituals, the content is a few readings from the Bible, capped by a homily (a lecture the priest has written) about how to improve as people, or to do some good.
(Not that I'm advocating Catholicism or any other kind of organized religion. Just mentioning it because I know a lot of people weren't brought up in a tradition like that, and the external news is going to give a distorted picture. Just like a lot of people brought up sheltered in a religion have a distorted idea of people not in that one. This gap of understanding can be funny, in that you have a lot of, say, Christians and secular liberals, who're suspicious and critical of each other, when in some respects they have especially strong overlap of values, such as helping those less fortunate. Recognizing those overlaps seems like it might help speed up finding more common ground on the actual differences -- of which there are some whoppers, but there's slow progress.)
The Pope sounds wise, but yes, title leads me to think there is a mole.
That you Catholic church for providing us a modern day example of how people in the middle ages thought.
A lot more enlightened than we give them credit for? Perhaps more enlightened than we are today?
I wonder how much "modern thinking" leads us to repeat mistakes of the past. (Dostoyevsky certainly thought it did).
The Pope is talking about this guy: https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/pavone-s-dismissal-c....
As an outsider, I see the Church as moving away from the middle ages by degrees.
'Elegant demon' lurks there all right https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VABSoHYQr6k