• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

After 50 years, Ellen Burstyn returns as Chris MacNeil in new "Exorcist" sequel

Wolseley

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu
Feb 5, 2002
21,817
6,485
64
By the shores of Gitchee-Goomee
✟348,849.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

article said:
The Exorcist: Believer is a new horror film that features the return of Ellen Burstyn as Chris MacNeil, the mother of the possessed girl from the original film.

article said:
The Exorcist: Believer is expected to be one of the most anticipated horror films of 2023. It is scheduled to hit theaters on October 13th, 2023, just in time for Halloween. It is also the first of a planned trilogy of new Exorcist films that will continue the legacy of the original film.

Looks interesting.


 

Gnarwhal

☩ Broman Catholic ☩
Oct 31, 2008
20,836
12,554
38
Northern California
✟491,054.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican


Looks interesting.


Saw the trailer tonight in the theater when I went to Oppenheimer, super creepy. I'm not a fan of horror and I really can't handle horror films that deal with the demonic.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Petros2015
Upvote 0

Petros2015

Well-Known Member
Jun 23, 2016
5,201
4,423
53
undisclosed Bunker
✟317,293.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Saw the trailer tonight in the theater when I went to Oppenheimer, super creepy
Yeah same experience here, I did not appreciate that trailer. It was long and my wife had her eyes closed through it, which didn't really help much.
"Thanks!" I yelled sarcastically after enduring it.
 
Upvote 0

Wolseley

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu
Feb 5, 2002
21,817
6,485
64
By the shores of Gitchee-Goomee
✟348,849.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The original Exorcist didn't scare me that much. The make up they put on Linda Blair seemed fake to me.
Well, I didn't find it that terrifying either, but bear in mind that I was way too young to see it when it first came out. I don't think I actually saw the film until 20, 25 years after it was released. I had read the book, however, back in the mid 1980s. From what I understand, the movie was quite a sensation when it was released in 1973, but the stuff that's come out in the 50 years since then has rendered the original rather tame by comparison. I don't say that as a positive development, but there it is.

What I find interesting is the difference in the stance of the Church between then and now. In the book (released in 1971), and the film both, exorcism is treated by the institutional Church as a kind of an embarrassing remnant of medieval superstition; something grouped in with witch burnings and magic circles to ward off evil spirits. In both the book and the film, when Chris MacNeil approaches Father Karras and asks him how she would go about obtaining an exorcism, the priest looks at her like she has two heads and says, "Well, first of all, you'd have to build a time machine and go backwards about 500 years. That sort of thing just doesn't happen any more, Mrs. MacNeil." He then advises her to take Regan to a psychiatric hospital, and Chris responds by screaming in despair, "I've taken her to every [expletive] hospital, shrink, and witch doctor in the world---they sent me to you! Now you want to send me back to them! Isn't there anybody who's willing to help me?!?" It's only after this outburst that Fr. Karras agrees to check into the case.

And at the time, that viewpoint was fairly prevalent; this was less than ten years after the end of Vatican II, remember, and the Church was trying to "modernize" itself, at least in the social consciousness of the public, and belief in things like demonic possession was at pretty low water. In 1971, Sigmund Freud probably held more sway in the minds of most bishops than Thomas Aquinas; odd behavior was something to be treated in a psychiatric hospital, rather than by a priest with a blessed candle and a vial of holy water. A lot of young priests at the time literally didn't even believe there was an actual devil; asking the Church for an exorcism was like asking a chemist to turn iron into gold.

You find that same attitude reflected in a lot of the other accounts at the time, as well: the situation faced by Jack and Janet Smurl in their West Pittston, PA, home in 1974 was pretty much the same thing---foul odors, loud disruptive noises, physical attacks, destruction of items in the home, levitating mattresses, and, in the case of Janet Smurl, invisible rape, caused the family, devout Catholics, to seek an exorcism for the home. The Diocese of Scranton steadfastly refused to accept that there was anything amiss in the house, and more or less dismissed the family as being slightly odd. Fr. Alphonsus Trabold, OFM, a theology professor at St. Bonaventure University, dryly opined that there were probably "other, less demonic" explanations for the disturbances. The only thing the Church ever did was send out a few priests from time to time to bless the house, but every one of them stated that they noticed nothing unusual while they were inside the home. Professor Paul Kurtz of the State University of New York, Buffalo, characterized the Smurls' claims as “a hoax, a charade, a ghost story,” and offered his opinion that the family's claims were possibly due to delusions, hallucinations, or brain impairment, and advised that they submit themselves to psychiatric and psychological examinations. Robert Gordon, a prominent Allentown, PA, psychologist, commented that “people often look at demonology to explain many tensions that they experience as individuals and within their families”.

Contrast that with some of the cases that have come along in the last twenty years or so, however, and you see a sea change in the attitude of the clergy, at least in the Catholic Church. Exorcisms, once looked at with distaste and embarrassment, are now openly acknowledged, and, while not common, every diocese under the amended 1999 Rites of Exorcism is required to have at least one priest who is specifically trained to deal with cases of demonic activity. Psychiatric examinations are still required to rule out non-malignant causes, but the days when an exorcism was nearly impossible to obtain seem to be long gone. Ironically, in some cases, like the 2011 Latoya Ammons case in Gary, Indiana, the local Catholic priest, Father Michael Maginot, was the only one who agreed to help the family, eventually performing a total of three exorcisms, even though the family wasn't even Catholic. The Ammons family met with the same type of institutional stonewalling that the Smurls did nearly 40 years before: their family physician believed the children in the family acted "delusional", and claimed he experienced nothing in the home when he stopped by there.

Eventually, after the children missed a good deal of school due to the upheavals in the home, the Indiana Department of Child Services got involved, with the state's psychologists dismissing the children's accounts as "deceptions, delusions, and hallucinations". The landlord of the property said he believed Latoya Ammons was "perpetrating a hoax". The police officers who had been called to the home stated they experienced nothing out of the ordinary while there, although Captain Charles Austin, a 37-year police veteran, was definitely unnerved by the atmosphere he felt while inside the house. The Department of Child Services determined that the children were "performing for their mother" and that nothing unusual was going on, even though there were sworn witnesses who observed such phenomena as the 12-year old daughter levitating above her bed while completely unconscious, and the youngest boy, while in a hospital waiting room, walking up the side of a wall backwards, an event that was actually seen by DCS personnel, but never officially commented on. After the exorcisms performed by Fr. Maginot, the disturbances ceased; and a year later the family moved to Indianapolis.

That just kind of shows you how the viewpoint with regards to exorcisms has changed over the years. :)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

RileyG

Veteran
Christian Forums Staff
Moderator Trainee
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Feb 10, 2013
34,041
19,809
29
Nebraska
✟702,153.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
The original Exorcist didn't scare me that much. The make up they put on Linda Blair seemed fake to me.
The book was much more graphic. I love the movie though, except for the crucifix scene.
 
Upvote 0

Wolseley

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu
Feb 5, 2002
21,817
6,485
64
By the shores of Gitchee-Goomee
✟348,849.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The book was much more graphic. I love the movie though, except for the crucifix scene.
Yeah....the crucifix scene was a shade over the top. But, not all that unusual, though, in actual cases of demonic malignancy; desecration of sacred objects is part and parcel of infernal infestations.

Just as a coda to the Ammons case, it did lead to a lot of fallout. The DCS agents who visited the home both later left the DCS; one because she suffered severe physical accidents and ailments, and the other (who saw the son walk backwards up the wall) was so completely freaked out by the whole business that she couldn't work in child protective services any more; she left her job and eventually left the state of Indiana entirely. One of the nurses in the hospital who witnessed the same thing eventually left her job, as well.

A documentary film crew working inside the house a couple of years later had a lot of problems, too: unexplained illnesses, crew members going off the deep end, crew members getting spooked and quitting; there's quite a list. Many of the cops and other people who'd been involved with the case while it was going on refused to set foot inside the place. The filmmaker had actually bought the house in order to do the documentary; he eventually brought backhoes in and tore the house down---razed it completely. This was after he himself suffered permanent eye damage while in the house, and he decided that nobody else should be exposed to whatever might still be in there.

Crazy stuff. But, bear in mind, most of these people were not even Christians, let alone Catholics, so they were really going in unprotected by the strength and power of Christ. My conclusion is that all those kinds of places are real good locations to avoid, IMHO. :)
 
Upvote 0