Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 4.djvu/792

 DKMONIACS

712

DEMONIACS

of the evil spirits in another sphere. But with a happy inconsistency, many who rejected as supersti- tious all other alleged cases of obsession still professed their belief in the Gospel narrative, with its nvnnerous demoniacs and its miraculous exorcisms. Of course it was possible, at least in the abstract, and without making a too curious examination of the facts, to hold a theory that possession had really happened of old and had since ceased altogether. For all must admit that in any case it does not occur with the same fre- quency in all ages or in every land alike. But it is one thing to dispute the fact and another to deny the pos- sibility of demonic possession in medieval or modern times. It may be a great mistake, but there is no con- tradiction involved in saj-ing that obsession did happen of old but does not happen now; it is surely another matter if we say that these things cannot happen now, that they are intrinsically impossible. And though they may not be fully conscious of their own motives, it is to be feared that this is really the position adopted by those who reject all cases of demonic pos- session except those that are recorded in the New Testament. It is true that some are provided with a theological, or Biblical, reason for this limitation. For they tell us that possession w;is indeed possible before the Death of Christ, but that since that great victory the power of Satan has been broken, or, in the language of Scripture, he has been bound, so that he can no longer gain possession of the bodies of men. It may be freely allowed that there is no contradiction or inconsistency involved in admitting the Gospel cases of obsession and denying the others, if this be the real reason for making the distinction. But it is difficult to believe that this is really the ground on which all later instances are rejected as unreal. For, after all, this doctrine about the binding of Satan and the consequent ceasing of obsession is at best a theo- logical conjecture (see Devil) and a plausible inter- pretation of a mysterious text, and as such it can hardly afford a basis for a certain conclusion. And it may be safely said that those who deny all modern or medieval cases of obsession are generally very cer- tain of their conclusion. There is a further difficulty in the fact that cases of obsession are recorded in the New Testament as having taken place after the death of Christ.

It was no doubt due to the force of these objections, or to a desire to find some means of meeting or evad- ing them, that the Rationalistic school of German Biblical criticism set about the task of providing a new interpretation of the Gospel cases of demonic possession. Older free-thinking philosophers and as- sailants of revealed religion had bhmtly denied the fact of obsession, and asserted that the demoniacs were merely madmen, that they were suffering from epilepsy, or mania, or some other form of mental alienation, and that Jewish superstition had ascribed the disease to the presence of an evil spirit. The earlier school of German Rationalist theologians en- deavoured to modify this view of the matter and so interpret the Sacred Text as to reconcile the natural- istic explanation with due reverence for the Gospel and for the wisdom of the Divine Redeemer. Thus they accepted the ^^ew that the demoniacs were merely lunatics, and that it was only popular superstition that imagined that they were possessed by devils. So far these theologians agreed with the infidel writers. But, instead of making the confusion between lunacy and possession a ground of attack on the Gospel, they went on to explain that Clirist indeed knew the truth and only aceommodateil Himself to the ideas of His ignorant hearers, who were incapable of grasping the true facts, and that this was the wisest way to lead them on to the truth. One of these interpreters seeks to explain the answers to the evil spirit at Caphar- naum by the method adopted by doctors in dealing with those who are suffering under a delusion. The

best means of curing them is often found in an affected adoption of the patient's delusion, e. g., if he imagines that he has to imdergo some operat ion, the doctor will pretend to perform it. In the same way it is sug- gested that the superstitious belief in demonic posses- sion prevailed among the Jews in the time of Christ (and whether true or false it certainly did prevail among them), and in these circunxstances a lunatic might very well be under the delusion that he was a subject of this imaginary obsession; and thus a wise physician might cure the delusion by means of an affected exorcism of the non-existent evil spirit.

The fallacy of this crude Rationalism was search- ingly criticized and exposed by Strauss in his critical Life of Chi ist more than seventy years ago ( Das Leben Jesu, ix). He points out that such interpretations not only have no basis in the text, but that there is much there that plainly contradicts them. The critic, he observes, is really ascribing the ideas of his own time to those who lived in the first century. And indeed a closer scrutiny of the evidence may well be enough to show that this Rationalistic exegesis is in- consistent in itself and in conflict with the testimony of the very documents on which it professes to be founded. It may be admitted that there is an ele- ment of truth in the general notion that there may be some condescension or accommodation where an en- lightened teacher is addressing a rude and uncultured audience, and one who cannot in some measure adapt himself to their crude conceptions and habits of thought and expression might as well address them in a foreign tongue. It may be added that in the case of a Divine teacher there must needs be some condescen- sion or accommodation to the lowly ways of men. And for this reason St. Gregory Nazianzen likens the inspired words of Holy Scripture to the simple lan- guage in which a mother speaks to her lisping little ones. It need not surprise us, therefore, did we find that Christ accommodated His words to the limita- tions of those who heard Him. But this principle will not serve to explain His manner of speaking and act- ing in regard to this matter of demonic possession, for it simply will not fit the facts. It is not a question of some isolated and possibly ambiguous action or utter- ance, but of many and various acts and utterances all consistent with each other, and with the belief or knowledge that there is real demonic possession, and utterly incompatible with the interpretation that has been put upon them by these critics. It may be a wise course to humour a madman who imagines him- self to be possessed, by pretending to accept his belief and bidding the devil depart from him, and in the case of some modern missionary, of whom we knew no more than the fact that he had used some words in a case of supposed possession, there might be room to doubt whether he himself believed in the possession, or was merely seeking to pacify a lunatic by making use of his delusion. But it would surely be otherwise if we found the same missionary speaking in this way about demons and demonic possession to others who were not lunatics suffering from this painful mono- mania: if we found him teaching how evil spirits enter into a man, and how, when they are cast out, they wander in desolate places. Yet this is what we actu- ally find in the Gospels, where Christ not only ad- dresses the devils and bids them depart or be silent, and thus treats them as personalities distinct from the man who is the subject of possession, but speaks of them in the same way to His disciples, to whom he teaches a doctrine about demonic possession. So again, it may sometimes be a wise course for a religious teacher to deal gently with the beliefs of the ignorant; he may feel that it is impossible to do all at once, and that some errors can only be destroyed by gentle means and gradual enlightenment. It may be that the best and most enlightened teacher, who found him.