The man’s name was Angel; for fourteen long years
He’s been home to some demons, or so it appears;
The exorcists tried to remove them, but nope—
And they even (the demons) resisted the pope.
They must have some purpose, or something to say;
For so many years, treating Angel this way
The Vatican exorcist (yes, that’s a thing)
Has deciphered the message he’s claiming they bring:
The devils inhabiting poor Angel’s bod
Are delivering—really—a message from God
The last fourteen years are a warning from heaven
Regarding a law passed in 2007.
When Mexico City made legal abortion
God’s go-to response is a form of extortion
Possession, of course, is a cruel thing to do
But the exorcist told us—it has to be true
So please, heed the demons, they’re really God’s voice,
The message is clear—deprive women of choice!
(If you’re looking for meaning, continue your search:
They don’t have to make sense—they’re the catholic church)
I was wrong about the pope’s exorcism business. The kid was clearly not mentally ill, and not a kid. He’s a 43 year old father of 2, and he’s been possessed by demons since 1999. No, really. (Hey, that’s the Christian Post, so you can trust it.) 30 exorcism attempts, by 10 different exorcists (and to think, before that Linda Blair movie came out, the last exorcist school was about to close!), and Angel V. was still possessed.
Must be a reason. Something important enough that the God team loses 30 matches in a row. Well, the Vatican chief exorcist figured it out:
Chief Vatican exorcist, Amorth, argues that Angel is undoubtedly possessed but his possession comes with a message from God on Mexico’s abortion laws.
“Not only is he possessed, but the devil who lives in him finds himself obliged by God to transmit a message,” said Amorth.
“Angel is a good man. He has been chosen by the Lord to give a message to the Mexican clergy and to tell the bishops that they have to do an act of reparation for the law on abortion that was approved in Mexico City in 2007, which was an insult to the Virgin,” said Amorth. “Until they . . . do this, Angel will not be liberated.”
Extortion. Or, more charitably, incompetence.
The Decalogue wins, by one point o’er a draw.
Possession, remember, is nine points of the law.
So he was possessed eight years before the law was actually passed? What, were the pre-2007 exorcists asleep at the job or something?
(One also would wonder what demonic possession has to do with abortion, though my morbid sense of humor would note that if they must be connected, it seems like it would go the other way.)
Now I’m imagining God as Dinsdale Piranha…
My bruvver Doug, ‘e feels the same.
Your friend, right ‘ere, I ‘ardly knew ‘im.
“Such a lovely Angel. Shame
If sumfin’ were to ‘appen to ‘im.”
And Gee, I thought demonic possession was supposed to be a bad thing. Except, apparently, when it isn’t.
One often wonders
Is demonic possession
Nine-tenths of the law?
“Angel is a good man. He has been chosen by the Lord to give a message to the Mexican clergy and to tell the bishops that they have to do an act of reparation for the law on abortion that was approved in Mexico City in 2007, which was an insult to the Virgin”. Why? The Popes never told the Mexican clergy that they were supposed to be anti-choice?
Meanwhile, the “good man” is being held and tortured by a demon, controlled the Papacy’s good god, who finally, after 14 years, delivered his ransom demands through this failed spellcaster. And what were the first eight years before the offending law was passed? Torture for the fun of it?
Does the Vatican state anywhere what the approximate percentage is of human possessions by demons who are directly controlled by their good god, as opposed to those who are supposedly controlled by their bad god? Or as in this case, can they only rarely tell the difference?
So he was possessed eight years before the law was actually passed?
Them damn demons time-travel nearly as well as Obama………
I wonder what sort of act of reparation woluld be considered acceptable to God? Might the offending bishops each have to threaten a quota of Mexico City politicians with excommunication, perhaps, for the heinous sin of representing their constituents?