http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1497645/posts
Interview with an Exorcist: Fr. James Lebar talks about 'The Exorcism
of Emily Rose'
October 6, 2005
Angelo Matera
Posted on 10/06/2005 6:54:00 AM PDT by NYer
Editor's Note: This interview discusses key details of scenes crucial
to the plot of 'Emily Rose,' which may spoil the movie for you if you
haven't seen it yet.
GODSPY: Fr. Lebar, did you find the movie convincing?
Fr. James Lebar: Yes, I would say so. I thought the movie was good; it
presented things fairly. I didn't see anything in the movie that didn't
belong there.
How do you think it compared to The Exorcist?
That was an entirely different situation. This move didn't show all the
grim and gory details ... it did show the attacks by the devil, but I
think this was a more cerebral movie in that it was trying to find out
how the girl died, and whether the priest was guilty of negligence.
The devil doesn't just test people who want to be tested.
I'd like to ask you about some key points in the movie-for instance,
the question of the priest's possible negligence hinged on the fact
that he took Emily off her medication for "psychotic epilepsy." Was
that realistic? Would an exorcist ever do that?
I certainly wouldn't delve into an area I didn't know anything about. I
wouldn't do something like that without consulting a psychiatrist.
One of the most commented on and controversial aspects of the movie was
that Emily seemed to be a pious girl who hadn't done anything to open
herself up to demonic attack. No dabbling in the Occult, no playing
with Ouija boards. Can demonic possession happen without some sort of
consent on the part of the person, can it happen against her free will?
Oh sure. The devil doesn't just test people who want to be tested. He
wants to test everybody, especially people who aren't asking to be
tempted.
In what ways does possession happen?
It can happen in one of two ways. A person can open the door to evil
through crime, sin, unholy practices, or hatred of God. There are
people who never participate in a satanic cult who make a pact with the
devil, who give themselves over to evil.
The other way is when the devil wants someone for a specific purpose,
and he initiates the possession to induce fear or despair in the
person, or for some other reason we don't know about. These people
don't realize what's happening, and are caught up in the whole thing
without warning.
Another interesting twist in the movie was that the medication was
blamed for blocking Emily's free will during the ritual, which is why
the exorcism didn't work. Is that accurate?
Not being a psychiatrist, I don't know; On a certain level the free
will of the individual is working no matter what. And within an
exorcism itself, the devil does so many different things, that because
of the stress and strain it would be hard to determine what the subject
was really willing...
The movies implies that the possessed person has to consent to the
exorcism.
When a person does their best to conform to the will of God they can
put up with a lot...
More than likely the person needing an exorcism would not agree to one.
They're so wound up by the devil that he overpowers their mind. That's
why we have legal guardians to make decisions when the person can't. So
if the person is so wound up because of the presence of the devil
another person can say this is what's needed.
What about the emphasis, during the exorcism in the movie, on finding
out the demon's names. What's that about?
In Old Testament times it was always thought that if you knew the name
of your adversary you had more control over them, so that it was always
thought that it was important to know the names of the demons...
The climax of the movie is the scene where Emily has a vision of the
Blessed Virgin Mary, who gives her the choice whether to continue her
possession. She chooses to stay possessed, which eventually kills her.
She martyrs herself as a witness to the reality of Satan. Is there a
theological basis for this? Many have asked, "Why would God allow a
pious young girl to suffer so much?"
To strengthen her spirituality. To strengthen her love of God. Look at
someone like . The Nazis threw him in a concentration camp against his
will, but while he was there a situation presented itself where he
freely chose to plunge deeper into that horror, to suffer and die in
place of someone else. That man he replaced lived to see Kolbe
canonized as a saint, someone who gave good example, who was a witness
to love's triumph over evil.
So we should see this as a version of the "dark night," the absence of
God experienced by saints such as St. Therese, and even Mother Teresa?
Was it a bad thing that Kolbe was sent to the camp? Of course. Did it
have another purpose? It certainly did. It made him a saint. What made
him a saint was not going to the concentration camp-it was conforming
to God's will and doing his priestly work inside the camp, in helping
people as best he could. In retrospect, what he did inspired many
others to go on.
You're saying that St. Maximilian can help us understand Emily Rose's
situation-both were faithful believers who were subjected to evil
against their wills, and both situations ended in their freely choosing
to lay down their lives for God's sake?
Right.
So to ask why God would permit Emily to die this way is just part of
the larger mystery of why God permits suffering in general?
Yes. God sees the greater good.
And the idea that Emily could be a saint-which is what the priest in
the movie suggests-that's far-fetched?
No.
Look, if the devil is possessing a person, who then gets into the
presence of the Blessed Sacrament, the devil ain't happy about it!
The director, , said that what helped him come to terms with the
tragedy of Emily was that "God Himself endured that-if you believe in
the Incarnation." Do you agree with that?
I guess I would say yes to that, although I might say it differently.
We should also remember that when a person does their best to conform
to the will of God they can put up with a lot, and it's not masochistic
or self-destructive. God doesn't abandon the person who undergoes these
things.
In the movie, Emily runs into a church, where she is subjected to a
very physical, demonic attack. Her back arches way back, and she's in
great distress. That surprised me...
I'm sure you've heard or read stories of people going into a Catholic
church and having to leave because of the presence of the Blessed
Sacrament, and other things as well. Let me give you an example.
Recently in another part of the country, a priest was working on a case
where a woman who was being oppressed would meet him in a church. A
point came when she didn't want to go into the church anymore-she'd
try to go in, but she'd get agitated, as if there was a plexiglass
shield at the entrance. So the next time the priest arranged for her to
wait in the lobby while he signaled another priest to remove the
Blessed Sacrament from the church. She didn't know this was happening.
The priest then told her to try again, and she went in and sat down and
they talked for an hour. That's an indication that the devil is
involved because he doesn't want to be in the presence of the Blessed
Sacrament.
In the movie I was surprised that she could be attacked right in front
of the altar.
She went in the church for help. She didn't know that was going to
happen to her.
Wouldn't she have been protected there?
Look, if the devil is possessing a person, who then gets into the
presence of the Blessed Sacrament, he ain't happy about it. That would
account for that reaction.
God doesn't abandon the person who undergoes these things.
A lot would depend on whether Emily at that point was oppressed or
possessed. An oppressed person can go to mass sometimes, other times
can't. Because of that, very often they'll fool the exorcist, if you're
only depending on that sign.
From the movie, I don't know whether Emily was a normal everyday
person, whether she did something bad and got possessed, whether the
devil went after her because she was good ... a lot of things follow
from the answers to those questions. She knew enough to go into a
church when she was attacked. The attacks before then could have been
oppressions, not possessions. But at one point the devil possessed her
so when she went into the church he had an adverse reaction of the
worst kind.
So we shouldn't view it as "the demons are getting their way even in a
church," but that they're having an adverse reaction to the Blessed
Sacrament...
Yes. The devil doesn't want her there at all. He'd want to get her out
of there.
What do you think about the media attention that movies like Emily Rose
bring to the subject of demonic possession? Isn't there a danger that
it will lead people to see demons where none exist?
One of the reasons I'm willing to do interviews like this is so that
this phenomenon comes to the attention of people, Catholic and
non-Catholic, and they will be informed that a: The devil exists, b: He
tries to trouble people, and c: If he troubles people so much that he
possesses them, they can be helped through exorcism.
The movie suggests that the reason for Emily Rose's martyrdom was to
demonstrate to the world that the devil exists. You could say that,
like the crucifixion, an apparent victory for Satan was turned to
defeat. Does evidence of real demons lead people to believe in God?
Yes. I've heard of many cases where people who didn't have any strong
belief in God, who became possessed or oppressed themselves, or knew
someone who came into that condition, from that came belief in the true
God.
.
|
