Exorcism in the Catholic and Evangelical Traditions

by Stephen Coombs

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 much attention in the 20th century, especially as seen 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 believe 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 exorcist 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

change 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 (“Prayer of Exorcism”). 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, 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-or-

nothing split as opposed to a broader view of spiritual warfare and 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 disliking exists, it is most likely due to a general wish to

disassociate from the Catholic Church and its practices that Evangelicals see as magical,

ritualistic, and 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 in most cases

(Anderson, 1990; Arnold, 1997; Murphy, 1992).

The length of the deliverance process is another point of contention between the two

churches scholars. While the length also fluctuates on a case by case basis, 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).

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