Catholic vs. Evangelical Exorcism

Exorcism in the Catholic and Evangelical Traditions by Aiden Carter In the past fifty years there has been a renewed interest in exorcism in North America. A practice that had largely fallen out of use and been ignored by the church at large, exorcism began to receive a great deal of attention in the 20th century. This is especially noticeable in the explosion of movies and books about possession ever since The Exorcist was released in 1973. This paper seeks to examine and analyze the practice of exorcism as it has developed in the past fifty years, primarily with regard to the differing beliefs and practices surrounding it in the Catholic and Evangelical church traditions. Possession in the Catholic Tradition At its core, exorcism is the process of expelling a demon from a human being. Catholic and Evangelical Christianity teach that demons, which are fallen angels, are active and attempt to harm people. Gabriele Amorth separates demonic activity into two categories: ordinary and extraordinary (1999). Ordinary activity is something everyone suffers from and is the most common kind of demonic activity. It is the temptation to sin that all people experience; in the Bible even Jesus experiences this kind of temptation when he is sent into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan. Amorth (1999) and other Catholic theologians place extraordinary demonic activity into six different categories. The first, external physical pain, is when demons are said to beat and physically harm people. This is noted in the lives of people such as Saint Paul of the Cross and Padre Pio (Amorth, 1999); not much is said on the topic other than that it does not require any form of exorcism because the soul is not affected. Diabolical obsession involves an “intense and persistent attack on the mind of the victim” (Baglio, 2009, p. 49) which is often accompanied by depression and nightmares. This is followed by diabolical infestation, where a house, location, item, or animal is inhabited by a demon. Amorth also includes diabolical subjugation, which occurs when people voluntarily submit to Satan or make a blood pact with him. Diabolical oppression is closely related to possession, but varies in intensity and does not involve a bodily takeover by a demonic presence. Job suffered demonic oppression when he lost his family and his goods, and the sick that Jesus healed in the New Testament were afflicted as well. Amorth and Baglio both state that Saint Paul was oppressed by some kind of demonic force, and that this is the “thorn of the flesh” he mentions in his writings (Amorth, 1999; Baglio,

2009). Healing an oppression related illness is no easier than diagnosing and curing someone who is fully possessed, and the time involved can be just as great (Amorth, 1999). The final category, demonic possession, is the most well-known and most studied form of demonic activity. Possession occurs when “Satan takes full control of the body…he speaks and acts without the knowledge or consent of the victim, who therefore is morally blameless. It is the gravest and most spectacular form of demonic afflictions” (Amorth, 1999, p. 33). Malachi Martin describes possession as “an attack simultaneously on the source of humanness, Jesus, and on the humanness of an individual man or woman. The process of possession in any individual consists of an erosion of the humanness Jesus confers” (1976, p. 411). Matt Baglio further specifies that “this [physical] control [of the possessed person’s body] doesn’t last indefinitely, but rather only occurs during ‘moments of crisis’ in which the victim enters a trance state” (2009, p. 49). Identifying Demonic Possession Demonic possession manifests itself in many different ways, some natural and other distinctly supernatural. The natural manifestations often go unnoticed and are rarely associated with possession, but they are important nevertheless. Possessed people often experience nightmares and outbursts of anger that do not seem to fit with their character. Religious symbols and topics irritate them, they behave erratically and begin to take less interest in their families, and oftentimes they refuse help or lash out at those who attempt to help them (Peck, 2005). Even with clearly supernatural manifestations of possession people rarely consider the possibility that they may be possessed; it is almost always family members or friends that bring them forward (Martin, 1976). Supernatural signs of demonic possession are varied, dramatic, and one of the primary reasons movies about exorcism are so popular. Malachi Martin writes: Objects fly around the room; wallpaper peels off the walls; furniture cracks; crockery breaks; there are strange rumblings, hisses, and other noises with no apparent source. Often the temperature in the room where the possessed happens to be will drop dramatically. Even more often an acrid and distinctive stench accompanies the person. (Martin, 1976, p. 10) Amorth also includes speaking in tongues, abnormal strength, and knowledge of secret things that the person has no way of knowing (1999), and Martin adds levitation, facial

distortions, and the opening and slamming of doors (1976). In The Rite, Matt Baglio writes about the most infamous manifestation of possession, usually caused by a curse: supernatural vomiting. As in The Exorcist when the young possessed girl shoots her vomit as if it were a projectile, exorcists often tell of victims vomiting either strange objects or copious amounts of fluid. Blood, sperm, nails, glass, black goo, or even live animals are all dramatic indications of possession. Exorcists “believe these objects don’t necessarily come from the person’s stomach, but instead materialize in the mouth. In this way, such people are not harmed physically” (Baglio, 2009, p. 151). The issue of possession is almost always accompanied by strict warnings and regulations regarding mental health. Especially with the advent of psychology in recent centuries it has become evident that certain abnormal behaviors have psychological causes and should not be treated with an exorcism. The Catholic Church requires an in-depth examination process to make sure that a person is indeed possessed and not merely suffering from some kind of mental illness. In the past, “a victim of disseminate sclerosis, for example, was taken to be possessed because of his spastic jerkings and slidings and the shocking agony in spinal column and joints” (Martin, 1976, p. 11). Gabriele Amorth takes issue with this position because, while care should certainly be taken to make sure the victim is actually possessed, “an unnecessary exorcism never harmed anyone; all the exorcists whom I questioned agree with me”, whereas mistakenly denying an exorcism has led to cases where “a much more entrenched demonic activity was later detected” (Amorth, 1999, p. 45). Who can be Possessed and Why Accounts of demonic possession cause fear because they raise the questions of who can be possessed and why. Most Catholic theologians agree that the most common causes of possession are involvement in the occult or spiritualism. Visiting psychics, practicing witchcraft, consulting mediums, and eastern forms of meditation are all seen as extremely dangerous and likely to lead to possession or oppression. Amorth blames Western consumerism and the abandoning of the Christian faith in popular culture as well as the increasingly violent and sexual nature of the entertainment industry (1999). Even committed Catholic believers may be possessed, as is seen when Baglio narrates the story of a nun who was possessed because of her father’s involvement in satanic rituals (2009).

More specifically, Amorth and Baglio list three ways people become possessed or fall prey to other demonic activity. First is with God’s permission, as in the cases of Job, Saint Paul, Padre Pio, and Giovanni Calabria. Nothing happens without God’s permission, and so the demonic activity in these people’s lives must have been allowed by God to serve his greater purpose (Amorth, 1999). The second way is by being on the receiving end of an evil spell such as the evil eye, binding, a curse, or sorcery. God is not obligated to intervene in these cases, just as he would not be obligated to intervene if someone hired a hitman to commit murder. However, those who live in a state of grace, those who pray most fervently, have a much better chance of obtaining divine intervention against the evil one than those who do not practice their faith or, worse, who live in a habitual state of mortal sin. (Amorth, 1999, p. 58) Baglio agrees that curses are one of the primary causes of possession and that they can also “break up marriages, cause businesses to fail, induce illness, invite possession, and so on” (2009, p. 60). The third cause of possession is living a life of hardened sin, a cause which is on the increase in modern society (Amorth, 1999). Judas Iscariot is a primary example of this, as the Bible says that the Devil entered him after betraying Jesus, an action that was the culmination of his greed and dishonesty. Malachi Martin states that a person is perfectly possessed when they are completely unwilling to give up their sinful ways and therefore cannot be exorcised, because exorcism requires some degree of cooperation from the possessed person’s will (1976). Demons can also latch on to a particular sin that, unless the person renounces it, will prevent the person from being liberated (Baglio, 2009). It should also be noted that possession, contrary to how it is portrayed in the media, is not contagious. It is not like the common cold and cannot be spread through close contact (Baglio, 2009). Amorth fully mirrors this belief, stating that, “diabolical possession is not a contagious disease, neither for the relatives nor for those who witness it, nor for the places in which exorcisms are held” (1999, p. 84). This erroneous belief irritates many exorcists who encounter difficulty receiving aid from family members and friends who are too scared to come near the possessed person. Authority to Exorcise

One of the key principles in Roman Catholicism is that of authority. The hierarchy of the church’s government, how it structures its services, and the source of much contention with other faiths are all rooted in its view of authority. The Roman Catholic Church holds that it is the one true church descended from the first Pope, Saint Peter the Apostle. As such it is the supreme authority on all matters, from interpreting the Bible to ordaining priests. In light of this focus on authority, the church instituted a specific sacrament of exorcism which may only be administered by “bishops and priests (therefore, never by lay persons) who have received specific and direct license to exorcise” (Amorth, 1999, p. 43). The reasoning behind this is that the laity must be protected from charlatans and magicians who could imitate the practice and thus diminish its effectiveness. The effectiveness of an exorcism depends in great part on it having the full authority of the church behind it. An exorcist “must have official Church sanction, for he is acting in an official capacity, and any power he has over Evil Spirit can only come from those officials who belong to the substance of Jesus’ Church” (Martin, 1976, p. 12), otherwise he will most certainly fail. In the past there was no official appointment of exorcists, but in 2004 the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith sent out a request to Catholic dioceses around the world requesting that every bishop appoint an official exorcist (Baglio, 2009). Now that there is an official position it is absolutely prohibited that anyone other than an ordained exorcist examine and exorcise a possessed individual. The Ritual Up until now this article has only touched upon the precursors to an exorcism, but not the process itself. In the Roman Catholic Church, the process for conducting an exorcism is described in depth in the Ritus Exorcizandi Obsessos a Daemonio – the Rite of Exorcism, almost universally referred to in Catholic texts simply as The Ritual. It was originally compiled and published in 1614, solely in Latin, but vernacular translations are now readily available. Following the Second Vatican Council it was revised and re-published, again in Latin, although most of it was left largely unchanged from the original version. Malachi Martin, when describing the Ritual, divides it into three chapters. Chapter one contains general instructions for exorcists, chapter two is the actual ritual for exorcising people, and chapter three is meant for the exorcism of places (1976). Martin is quick to point out that the efficacy of the ritual does not depend “on the rigid use of an unchanging formula or on the

ordered sequence of prescribed actions. Its efficacy depends on two elements: “authorization from valid and licit Church authorities, and the faith of the exorcist” (Martin, 1976, p. 459). While Amorth disagrees with Martin and does view exorcism as sacramental, he does agree that “it may not be necessary to intone all the prayers in the Ritual, or it may be necessary to add many other prayers” (1999, p. 44). Baglio quotes Father Amorth as encouraging exorcists to find their strengths and weaknesses and see what works best for them, a practice that the International Association of Exorcists somewhat frowns upon. All Catholic theologians would agree that the Ritual must never be treated as if it were a magical incantation to be repeated meaninglessly, for that would void its power and discredit the church (Baglio, 2009). The Ritual itself is a mixture of instructions for the exorcist, Psalms, prayers to Jesus, Mary, angels, and saints, as well as commands directed at the demonic presence and excerpts from the Gospels regarding Jesus’ ministry of exorcism. Interspersed are prompts for personal and group prayer, times to make the sign of the cross, and instructions regarding the usage of holy water and other elements (Weller, 1964). The prayers directed at demons themselves are divided into two types, “deprecatory” and “imperative”, and exorcists say that the difference between the two is very important. The deprecatory prayer asks God to intervene on behalf of the person, “while in the imperative prayer, the exorcist himself commands the demon to depart in the name of Jesus Christ” (Baglio, 2009, p. 74). Due to their highly suggestive nature, imperative prayers are only to be used if the exorcist is absolutely certain that the person is possessed. Demons usually want to avoid exposure at all costs. In the initial stages of an exorcism the number one tactic used is to hide and make the exorcist believe there is no demon to deal with. But, as one exorcist describes it, demons are like boxers. They can take a lot of hits without actually giving in, but their endurance will eventually collapse. When this finally occurs, the possessed person falls into a trance and the demon assumes complete control of the body. This is often accompanied by the eyes rolling up or down, the hands clenching into claws, and a violent rage towards holy objects and words (Baglio, 2009). The duration of the exorcism and its effectiveness vary wildly in the Catholic tradition. According to Martin, “rarely is an exorcism shorter than some hours – more often than not ten or twelve hours. Sometimes it stretches for two or three days. On occasion it lasts even for weeks” (1976, p. 16). Amorth also affirms this, stating that most exorcisms begin with people who have already been possessed for a great deal of time and hence have very deeply entrenched demons

within them. Multiple sessions are usually required for these people, often lasting for years. Baglio lists numerous cases of people going to an exorcist weekly for years, including a woman who had been undergoing exorcisms for 9 years (2009). While Martin argues that the success of an exorcism depends on the faith of the exorcist, Amorth firmly states that “He who frees is the Lord” (1999, p. 48) and that the faith of the exorcist, prayers by others, holy water, etc. are secondary to this. One unique aspect of Catholic exorcism is the emphasis on praying to angels and saints for aid. Much of the content of the Ritual consists of long lists of saints that can be implored for aid in casting out a demon. Exorcists quoted in Baglio’s book mention particular saints that help them in unique ways but produce no visible reaction when called upon by others (2009). Amorth agrees that, “the power of the Rosary and devotion to the Virgin Mary are well documented. Less powerful is the intercession of angels and saints” (1999, p. 49). Angels are great allies in the fight against Satan and his demons, and every believer has a guardian angel that can protect against demonic forces (Amorth, 1999). Another well-known element of Catholic exorcism is the use of “sacramentals, such as exorcised water, holy water, exorcised oil, and exorcised salt” (Amorth, 1999, p. 48). Amorth lists these elements as extremely beneficial when combined correctly with the prayers of the Ritual. Amorth is quick to clarify that without faith these elements are absolutely useless, but he does affirm their great effectiveness, and Martin agrees. Baglio takes a slightly different view and argues that the objects have no intrinsic value but rather serve as effective symbols. But all agree that when used in exorcisms alongside the Sign of the Cross they often cause possessed people to wail or manifest their demonic presence (Martin, 1976; Amorth, 1999; Baglio, 2009). Exorcised water is widely used in many different liturgical rites and is viewed as a means of imparting grace, forgiveness of sins, and protection from Satan. Exorcised oil is used almost exclusively in exorcisms because of its unique ability to dispel the power of demons. Amorth adds: “there is one property that is particular to exorcised oil: that of separating impurities from the body” (1999, p. 118). It is especially useful against curses and spells as it helps separate cursed objects from the victims. The use of exorcised oil often leads to people vomiting strange objects or spitting “grainy pap” (Amorth, 1999). Finally, exorcised salt functions specifically as a purifier and protector of places from demonic occupation; it is placed at the threshold and corners of homes to ward off spirits.

While vernacular translations of the Ritual exist, most exorcists prefer to read it in the original Latin. Martin gives no particular reason for this preference for the Latin, simply stating that, “there seems to be a persuasion born of experience that the Latin text has some special unction and disruptive value for Evil Spirit” (1976, p. 460). Baglio on the other hand says that many exorcists prefer using Latin to avoid auto-suggestion. They argue that if the person cannot understand what is being said then there is no chance of stimulating them to act possessed, but that if there is a demon present it will understand no matter what (2009). Possession in the Evangelical Tradition Evangelicals in general avoid using the term “demon possession”. Ed Murphy argues that this term is not an accurate translation of the Greek term found in the Bible and that “demonized” is a much better word to use (1992). Respected biblical scholar Merrill Unger agrees with this, stating that, “daimonizomai [means] ‘being demonized’, i.e., under the control of one or more demons…All demonic invasion is demonization of whatever degree of mildness or severity” (1977, p. 86). Murphy also dislikes the term possession because it implies an all-ornothing split, as opposed to a broader view of spiritual warfare, and because it seems to place total responsibility for human evil on the demonic (1992). Thomas White, similarly to Amorth, splits the influence of the demonic into three levels, the first of which “General Warfare Against the Believer”. This consists of temptation to sin as well as attacks (“flaming arrows”) on a believer’s ministry or personal weakness. The next level up is oppression, where the victim experiences persistent, continuous affliction of their body or soul, either outward (vexation) or inward (demonization). Lastly, control is the complete dominance of a soul by the Devil either through subtle means or the direct intervention of demons (White, 1990, p. 42-43). Most Evangelicals who specialize in this field agree with Catholics on many of the manifestations of demonic activity. However, in general Evangelical literature is more reserved and shies away from the most dramatic examples seen in Catholic counterparts. Arnold argues that focusing on the dramatic manifestations obscures the more subtle ways in which demons can affect people’s lives (Arnold, 1997). Symptoms of demonization are approached more from the viewpoint of the demonized then those around them. Evangelicals see deception as being Satan’s main tool for causing harm, and this seems to be affirmed by the negative voices that demonized

people hear. These voices often council the victims to do evil deeds or constantly tell them degrading things that lead to depression and suicidal thoughts. “Mild” symptoms include extreme distraction during devotional times, strong feelings of irrational anger or bitterness, and night terrors. Who can be Demonized and Why While in popular Evangelical culture it is believed that Christians cannot become possessed (or demonized), the majority of respected authors on the subject and most “deliverance ministries” affirm the opposite. In accordance with his previously mentioned scale, White affirms that Christians may be demonized but never fully controlled or owned (1990). Neil Anderson argues that the idea of Christian immunity weakens the church and allows people to become complacent: If Satan can’t touch the church, why are we instructed to put on the armor of God, to resist the devil, to stand firm, and to be alert? If we aren’t susceptible to being wounded or trapped by Satan, why does Paul describe our relationship to the powers of darkness as a wrestling match? (Anderson, 1990, p. 22) Arnold agrees that the popular Evangelical view is inaccurate. He mentions that Merrill Unger originally held to this position but later changed his mind; experience and a reevaluation of biblical texts had led him to the conclusion that true believers could indeed be demonized. During the past twenty years there has been a reaction against the idea that Christians can be demonized, largely because of the belief that Christian cannot be inhabited by both the Holy Spirit and a demonic entity. But this conflict is mainly rooted in the misuse of the term “possession” as mentioned earlier (Arnold, 1997). Evangelical scholars agree that true Christians can never be controlled or owned by Satan because they are God’s children. “[True believers] can be demonized. Such demonization can range from mild to severe. I am not affirming that true believers can be demon possessed. They cannot be. Satan does not truly possess anything but his own kingdom of fallen spirits” (Murphy, 1992, p. 430). For the most part Catholic and Evangelicals also agree on the causes of possession/demonization. Murphy gives two explanations for the demonization of Christians. The first possibility is that they were demonized before conversion and have yet to experience deliverance. The second is that they were demonized after conversion because of serious sin committed by them or against them. The major sin areas that occasionally bring about

demonization are: generational sins, child abuse, social sins (anger, bitterness, rage, rejection, and rebellion), sexual sin, curses, and occult practices (Murphy, 1992). However, these are often interwoven and cannot be arbitrarily separated. While Evangelical scholars admit that there is no direct scriptural evidence of demonic transference across generational lines, there are a multitude of passages that discuss the fact that sin has consequences that are passed down the familial line. Arnold calls this a familial spirit and argues that it is almost always tied to a family because of previous involvement in the occult or false religions by an authority figure (1997). Child abuse is also seen as a primary cause of demonization because of its incredibly sinful nature. When children are physically, sexually, emotionally, and spiritually abused by those in authority, the gravity of the sins committed against them and the negative attitudes it produces in them later on often lead to demonization. Arnold also affirms that a life of unrepentant sin and involvement in the occult are primary causes of demonization and that they give demons a “legal right” to be present in the victim’s life (Arnold, 1997; Kraft, 2010). Authority to Cast Out Demons One of the primary differences between Catholics and Evangelicals pertains to their views of authority. The Evangelical church places much less weight on the institutional church and has no unified hierarchy with a figure like the Pope at its top. Doctrinal and practical questions are decided by an examination of the Bible, and very little weight is given to church tradition. As such, Evangelicals do not limit the practice of exorcism to approved members of the clergy. They argue that the New Testament clearly delegates Jesus Christ’s authority over Satan to all believers, and that the commands to cast out demons do not only apply to a select few. When Jesus sent out his disciples to cast out demons he did not only give authority to his 12 apostles, but also to the 70 others who followed him and who would now be called “laymen” (Murphy, 1992; White, 1990, p. 57). Avoidance of Ritual The main point of contention between Catholics and Evangelicals revolves around the process of exorcism itself. While Catholics follow the prayers and practices codified in the Roman Ritual of Exorcism, Evangelicals abhor this practice and want nothing to do with it. Arnold severely criticizes almost every aspect of exorcism that Catholics use in the Ritual and compares them to the syncretistic magical practices found in early Christianity. First he maligns

the emphasis on formulaic prayers, whether they are found in the Catholic Church or any others. He argues that: “[they give] the impression that the power resides in the prayer rather than in the one the person is praying to…rather than seeing these prayers as models, some people erroneously take them as powerful formulas”. Catholic exorcists argue that the church has found the most effective types of prayers over centuries of experience dealing with the demonic, but Arnold also criticizes “an overemphasis on ‘what works’” and says that it devaluates the person of Christ by putting technique above relationship (Arnold, 1997, p.132). The practice of invoking angels and saints is also offensive to Evangelicals for multiple reasons. Early Christian magic was obsessed with invoking angels, often through ritualized prayer, and Evangelical scholars argue that Paul’s letter to the Colossians clearly forbids this practice and instead urges believers to rely on Christ alone. This is also seen as applicable to the invocation of saints or Mary, along with the fact that in Protestant tradition any prayers that are not directed to a member of the Trinity are viewed as idolatry (Arnold, 1997). Examining the larger worldview of Evangelicals also shows a dislike of items such as crucifixes, holy water, or any other kind of symbol that Catholics see as powerful or effective. While there are very few written explanations as to why this dislike exists, it is most likely due to a general wish to disassociate from the Catholic Church and any of its practices that Evangelicals see as magical, ritualistic, or idolatrous. The same can be said for the use of Latin in the exorcism ritual. Evangelicals have long objected to the use of Latin in Catholicism in any context because of the belief that people must be taught in their mother tongue. The multiple arguments listed earlier as to why the Ritual should be prayed in Latin are not convincing to Evangelical scholars. Evangelicals strongly believe that there must be cooperation from the demonized person for deliverance to be possible. They must repent of their sins and sever all ties that could leave them open to further attack, and to do this they must completely understand the process that is going on. To an Evangelical, praying in Latin would most likely render the exorcism completely ineffective (Anderson, 1990; Arnold, 1997; Murphy, 1992). The length of the deliverance process is another point of contention between scholars of the two churches. While the length also fluctuates on a case by case basis, in the Evangelical tradition there are no accounts of exorcisms lasting years. Most accounts describe the actual amount of time spent confronting a demon as quite small – usually no more than a few hours and

oftentimes only minutes. However, the process of confessing hidden sin, breaking addiction, changing sinful attitudes, and achieving complete “freedom” does often require many sessions over the course of several months. Still, the concept of exorcisms going on for years due to the strength of the demon is nowhere to be found in evangelical literature (Murphy, 1992; Kraft, 2010). It must be mentioned that there is some disagreement in Evangelical circles as to the most appropriate way to deliver demonized individuals. The first view advocates a “truth encounter”; Neil Anderson and Mark Driscoll are strong proponents of this view, arguing that confronting a demonic presence only makes matters worse. Instead the victim should be taught the truth of their situation, be converted if they are not already, confess hidden sins, and recognize their freedom in Christ (Driscoll, 2008; Anderson, 1990). The second view advocates a “power encounter” in certain situations: a power encounter is a crisis point where the exorcist directly confronts a manifested demon and commands it to depart in the name of Jesus Christ. But even this approach must always be paired with the truth encounter approach as neither one is effective on its own. Ed Murphy states that: “casting out demons always involves power encounter, even where truth encounter is the approach used” (Murphy, 1992, p. 342). Conclusion It is evident that Catholics and Evangelicals have much common ground when it comes to the rising issue of possession and exorcism. When it comes to matters of definition, manifestations, and effects, both sides can find points that they agree with and appreciate. There is variety within both sides, and some scholars are more open to members of the other side than others. But the two parties are obligated to part ways with regards to putting into practice the biblical command to “cast out demons in my name” (Mark 16:17).

Works Cited: 

Amorth, G. (1999). An exorcist tells his story. San Francisco, Calif.: Ignatius Press.



Anderson, N. T. (1990). The bondage breaker. Eugene, Or.: Harvest House Publishers.



Arnold, C. E. (1997). 3 crucial questions about spiritual warfare. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.



Baglio, M. (2009). The rite: the making of a modern exorcist. New York: Doubleday.



Kraft, C. H. (2010). Two hours to freedom: a simple and effective model for healing and deliverance. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Chosen Books.



Martin, M. (1976). Hostage to the devil: the possession and exorcism of five living Americans. New York: Reader's Digest Press :.



Murphy, E. F. (1992). The handbook for spiritual warfare. Nashville, Tenn.: T. Nelson.



Peck, M. S. (2005). Glimpses of the Devil: a psychiatrist's personal accounts of possession, exorcism, and redemption. New York: Free Press.



Prayer After Low Mass. (n.d.). Sancta Missa. Retrieved December 4, 2012, from www.sanctamissa.org/en/resources/prayers/leonine-prayers-after-low-mass.pdf



Prayer of Exorcism. (n.d.). Catholic Doors Ministry. Retrieved December 4, 2012, from http://www.catholicdoors.com/prayers/latin/latin040.htm



Unger, M. F. (1977). What demons can do to saints. Chicago: Moody Press.



White, T. B. (1990). The believer's guide to spiritual warfare. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Vine Books.



Weller, P. T. (n.d.). The Roman Ritual. EWTN: Global Catholic Network. Retrieved December 4, 2012, from www.ewtn.com/library/prayer/roman2.txt