When Psychiatry Faces the Inexplicable. Two Doctors Delve Into Exorcisms; Both Confirm What the Church Says: The Devil Exists
The latest voice to enter this difficult territory is José Miguel Gaona, a Spanish forensic neuropsychiatrist whose recent book, Possession, is the result of five years of research and runs to almost 1,000 pages
2 months ago
When psychiatry confronts cases that defy conventional explanation, two physicians turned to the practice of exorcism and reported findings that align with the Catholic Church’s declaration that the devil is real. Their investigations suggest that some phenomena labeled “psychological” may involve forces beyond scientific understanding, prompting a call for collaboration between mental‑health professionals and religious authorities.
The doctors describe patients exhibiting extreme agitation, aversive behaviors, and sensory experiences that resist standard psychiatric diagnoses. Conventional treatments often failed, leading the clinicians to consider alternative explanations rooted in spiritual oppression.
Both physicians participated in formal exorcism rites conducted by trained clergy. They observed rapid symptom relief following the rituals, noting improvements that surpassed those achieved with medication alone. The practitioners argue that the exorcism’s structured prayers, sacramental symbols, and authoritative presence may address underlying spiritual disturbances.
The Catholic Church maintains that demonic activity is a genuine reality and that exorcism is a sacramental act intended to combat it. The doctors’ conclusions reinforce this doctrine, asserting that the devil’s influence can manifest in ways that intersect with mental health symptoms.
The findings encourage psychiatrists to remain open to spiritual dimensions when evaluating resistant cases. They suggest establishing protocols for referral to qualified exorcists, ensuring that patients receive comprehensive care that respects both medical and religious perspectives.
By documenting the therapeutic impact of exorcisms, the two doctors provide empirical support for the Church’s stance on the devil’s existence, highlighting a potential bridge between psychiatry and faith‑based interventions for the inexplicable.
Assess Catholic doctrine on exorcism versus psychiatric explanations
Catholic doctrine does not set exorcism and psychiatry up as rivals competing to “explain the same thing.” Instead, it treats them as addressing different questions: exorcism is a prayer of the Church against the power of the devil, while psychiatric/medical care addresses illness, including psychological illness. The Church therefore calls for prudential discernment—including medical and psychiatric evaluation—before anyone proceeds to a (major) exorcism.
In Catholic teaching, an exorcism is what happens when the Church, “with its authority in the name of Jesus,” asks that a person or object be protected against the “power of the Evil One” and withdrawn from the devil’s dominion.
It matters that this is liturgical and authoritative—not merely personal religious improvisation. The Church also distinguishes forms:
The Ukrainian Catholic Catechism states the same basic structure: an exorcism (as a rite for casting out the devil) is performed only by a priest designated for this service by the blessing of the bishop, and through the exorcist’s prayer divine grace frees the person from the devil’s power.
The Catechism draws a sharp boundary:
“Illness, especially psychological illness, is a very different matter; treating this is the concern of medical science.”
So, Catholic doctrine does not propose exorcism as a replacement for psychiatric diagnosis or therapy. Rather, exorcism is the Church’s response when there is credible reason to believe demonic domination is present—and that is precisely why the Church insists on discernment steps (next section).
The Church explicitly teaches that before exorcism is attempted, the situation must be assessed. The U.S. bishops’ “Questions about Exorcism” states that, as part of the evaluation process, there should be a thorough examination, including “medical, psychological, and psychiatric testing,” and that only after such examination might someone be referred to the exorcist for a final determination regarding demonic possession.
The Catechism similarly says it is “important to ascertain that one is dealing with the presence of the Evil One, and not an illness.”
Catholic teaching does not allow simplistic “either/or” thinking. The exorcist must maintain balance:
This is consistent with earlier Catholic reflection on discernment: Christian faith insists on the reality of evil and demonic action, but also demands critical assessment so that people do not get carried away by imagination, inaccuracies, or misinterpretation—and so that there remains room for research and its findings.
The Church uses the concept of “moral certitude” for discerning possession. The U.S. bishops’ text explains moral certitude as something between absolute certainty and mere probability; it is reached through weighing evidence according to conscience, using available resources including input from medical and mental health professionals.
This matters for your question about psychiatry: psychiatric assessment may contribute important data, but the Church’s discernment about demonic possession is not reducible to psychiatric labels.
The Church’s norms are meant to protect the afflicted and to prevent harm from misattribution or superstition.
These points highlight a key Catholic doctrine: spiritual warfare practices must be conducted in an ordered, ecclesial way—precisely to avoid the drift from religion into something like superstition or theatrical spectacle.
John Paul II’s remarks to psychiatry leadership underline human dignity, freedom, and the moral demand for truth in therapy; they also note the delicacy of healing and the need for wisdom alongside knowledge.
At the same time, John Paul II recognized that psychiatric/psychological categories have limits and that transferring frameworks without adjustment can be dangerous—for example, in juridical contexts. He cautioned that “psychological concepts do not always correspond with canonical [categories]” and that experts should go beyond symptom-description to underlying causes and processes for the judge’s purposes.
Taken together, these support a Catholic “harmonizing” approach:
Catholic doctrine supports the following framework:
From the Church’s perspective, symptoms that resemble “demonic activity” may also arise from illness. Therefore, the correct Catholic posture is:
The U.S. bishops’ guidance notes that the rites should be administered faithfully as the Church provides them; excessive mystery or misinformation tends to produce “magical and superstitious” perceptions.
It also warns against sensationalism and “sideshow” mentality; exorcisms are rare and must be addressed with utmost care for the afflicted person.
Catholic doctrine treats exorcism as an authorized sacramental prayer directed against the devil’s power, and it insists that psychological/psychiatric illness is a different domain properly handled by medical science. Before any major exorcism, the Church calls for thorough medical and psychiatric evaluation and uses disciplined discernment (moral certitude) to distinguish illness from possible demonic possession—while avoiding both credulity toward sensational spiritual claims and dismissiveness toward spiritual reality.