In case you missed it on Friday, feel free to perform an exorcism without fear of being sued for your efforts!
Justice David Medina, writing for the majority, said that while Schubert’s argument regarding physical injuries might be tried without mentioning religion, her case was mostly about her emotional or psychological injuries from a religious activity that was sanctioned by the church.
For the court to impose any legal liability for engaging in a religious activity “to which the church members adhere would have an unconstitutional ‘chilling effect’ by compelling the church to abandon core principles of its religious beliefs,” Medina wrote.
“Religious practices that might offend the rights or sensibilities of a non-believer outside the church are entitled to greater latitude when applied to an adherent within the church,” Medina wrote.
He went on to say that when claims involve “only intangible, emotional damages allegedly caused by sincerely held religious belief, courts must carefully scrutinize the circumstances so as not to become entangled in a religious dispute.”
Interesting.
Filed Under Front Page ·







If you don’t pay your exorcist do they repossess you?
#1 weak.
This whole story is just weird.
Yeah, I’d have to agree. Weird. And I’m a mackerel snapper. But the whole concept of exorcism is really misunderstood by everyone, including Catholics. There are rites performed on Catholics in preparation for many sacraments that are basically exorcisms. They are nothing more than the congregation praying for you. The faith healers in some protestant sects are closer to what the public believes, and how the movies portray exorcisms. I guess they might exist like that but I think its mainly a Hollywood invention. Father Marin ain’t got nothing on Ernest Angley!
This is a strange one. My curiousity meter is up, but not enough to delve into it. I suspect the case received the attention it did because the word “exorcism” is so loaded, print media editors just couldn’t resist the story.