Ep. 264: 'Does it count?' and the rise of the celebrity exorcist
A wedding sparks a conversation about anticipated Mass.
4 months ago
The article “Ep. 264: ‘Does it count?’ and the rise of the celebrity exorcist” was published on June 8 2026 and examines the growing public profile of a well‑known exorcist while posing the question “Does it count?” 1
The piece centers on a media‑savvy exorcist who has become a cultural figure, exploring how this visibility influences perceptions of exorcism.
It highlights the recurring query “Does it count?”—a phrase that frames discussions about the legitimacy and impact of the exorcist’s work.
Examine how modern celebrity exorcists reshape Catholic sacramental authority
Modern “celebrity exorcists” tend to move exorcism from a liturgical act of the Church with defined jurisdiction to a media-driven form of spiritual spectacle, where personal reputation and audience engagement can start to function like “authority.” Catholic teaching and Church norms, however, ground exorcism’s legitimacy in apostolic/clerical mission, diocesan permission, and fidelity to the rites—with safeguards meant to prevent superstition, doctrinal confusion, and unauthorized spiritual power.
The Catechism defines exorcism as what the Church “asks publicly and authoritatively in the name of Jesus Christ” to protect a person or object against the Evil One.
It also states that the Church has received from Christ the “power and office of exorcizing.”
Key point: the Church’s authoritative “public and authoritative” request is central; exorcism is not primarily a private claim of spiritual insight.
The Catechism distinguishes exorcism as simple form at Baptism from the “solemn exorcism,” a “major exorcism,” which “can be performed only by a priest and with the permission of the bishop.”
It further adds that the priest must proceed “with prudence, strictly observing the rules established by the Church.”
This matches the 1985 Letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), which cites Canon 1172: no one can legitimately perform exorcisms over the possessed unless he has obtained special and express permission from the local Ordinary, and such permission should be granted only to priests marked by piety, knowledge, prudence, and integrity of life.
The Catechism explicitly warns that “Illness, especially psychological illness, is a very different matter; treating this is the concern of medical science,” and therefore one must ascertain whether there is “presence of the Evil One, and not an illness.”
The CDF letter likewise calls for vigilance so that those without the due faculty do not conduct meetings where demons are directly questioned—especially because these can occur even in cases that do not concern true demonic possession.
Catholic sacramental practice is not a creative space for ministers or communities. The Catechism teaches: “no sacramental rite may be modified or manipulated at the will of the minister or the community,” and even the highest authority cannot change liturgy “arbitrarily.”
This principle directly undercuts the celebrity tendency to treat exorcism as a customizable “experience” rather than a Church rite with defined form.
Celebrity dynamics can change the social meaning of exorcism even if the rite itself is still nominally performed. The following mechanisms show how this can happen, using Catholic categories for what should and should not govern ministry.
In a Church-centered model, the legitimacy of exorcism flows from office + faculty/permission + Church-prescribed rite (priestly ministry, episcopal permission, and obedience to rules).
In a celebrity model, “authority” can drift toward what the public finds persuasive: personality, confidence on camera, storytelling, or reputation. But the CDF’s insistence on explicit permission and moral-spiritual qualifications exists precisely to stop unaccountable “spiritual authority” from forming outside Church structures.
So the reshaping is not only illegal or illicit acts (though those can occur); it is also a deeper transfer of perceived authority—from jurisdiction to visibility.
The USCCB’s guidance on exorcism highlights a pastoral problem: public perception gets shaped by exaggeration in entertainment. It notes that the “super abundance of confusing and inaccurate information” makes clear, faithful presentation crucial, because “the more obscurely and mysteriously the rite is portrayed, the more magical and superstitious the perceptions become.”
Celebrity exorcists often operate through the cultural logic of mystery and spectacle—dramatic settings, sensational claims, “inside knowledge,” and simplified narratives designed for audience retention. But the USCCB explicitly frames the Church’s response as catechesis-by-fidelity: the exorcist can be a catechist by “faithfully administer[ing] the rites as provided by the Church.”
Where media attention emphasizes effects over doctrine and discernment, the celebrity model directly contradicts the Church’s aim to prevent superstition.
Catholic teaching insists that one must distinguish demonic presence from psychological/medical illness and that illness is treated by medical science.
Celebrity outreach can blur that line in two ways:
The CDF’s concern about meetings where demons are questioned directly by the unauthorised adds another layer: it targets practices that can occur even when cases are not true demonic possession—exactly the kind of confusion that celebrity formats may encourage.
Even when the rite’s words are intact, “celebrity exorcism” may functionally modify it by altering surrounding elements: pacing, staging, selective disclosure, and theatrical emphasis. The underlying Catholic rule remains: sacramental rites may not be modified “at the will of the minister or the community.”
This is connected to a broader Catholic sacramental principle: sacraments are not figures in a cultural landscape; they are efficacious in the supernatural order. A drift toward “figures” and secularized “rites” undermines integrity of sacramental practice.
A useful way to analyze the celebrity shift is through the sociological idea of charisma—i.e., how public reputation and media impact become a form of “legitimating power.” One of the provided academic sources notes that “celebrity and enormous media impact” has helped shape how “charisma” becomes hegemonic in modern intellectual and popular life.
Catholic authority in exorcism is not denied to be capable of personal holiness; rather, the Church refuses to let media charisma replace juridical and liturgical authorization. That is why the CDF letter makes permission and moral-spiritual qualification central, and why the Catechism insists on episcopal permission for major exorcism and strict observance of Church rules.
The USCCB says the exorcist can serve as a catechist “by the way he faithfully administers the rites as provided by the Church.”
It also emphasizes that careful, straightforward presentation counters exaggerated entertainment portrayals.
So the Church’s intended pastoral response is not “silence,” but clarity and fidelity—especially to reduce superstition and confusion.
The CDF letter asks bishops to be vigilant so that those without due faculty do not conduct meetings where invocations are uttered and demons are questioned directly, particularly in cases that do not concern true possession.
Celebrity content can intensify exactly the kind of permissive culture that vigilance targets: people gather, expect dramatic deliverance, and treat “questioning demons” as entertainment or a shortcut to answers.
Without judging individuals not described here, Catholic teaching provides clear evaluative criteria:
Modern celebrity exorcists reshape sacramental authority primarily by transferring legitimacy from Church jurisdiction and liturgical fidelity to media-driven personal credibility and spectacle. Catholic sources respond by insisting that exorcism is an ecclesial act with strict requirements (priestly role, episcopal/Ordinary permission, prudence, and observance of Church rules), and by warning that portraying exorcism “obscurely” or in entertainment-like ways breeds superstition and confusion—especially between spiritual affliction and illness.