I saw The Exorcism of Emily Rose last night. I went into it thinking it would be a thriller, but it really wasn't. The movie centered around the trial of the priest who performed the exorcism on Miss Rose. Rather than give you details about the movie itself, I will show you information I found about the REAL Emily Rose, whose name was Anneliese Michel.

Anneliese was born in September of 1952 in Bavaria. Her life was unremarkable in that she was a happy child, religiously nurtured, and in all other ways normal. However, at the age of sixteen, Anneliese was afflicted with the first of many of what her parents came to believe were demonic attacks. Her body went rigid, and she was unable to call out to her parents for help. She shook violently without control of her actions. Her parents took her to the Psychiatric Clinic in Wurzburg, where she was diagnosed with Grand Mal epilepsy. Medication was prescribed, and she was given treatments, but the attacks didn't stop.

She began seeing what she described as demons, visions of terrible creatures, during her everyday life. After a while she could hear them as well. She only spoke to her doctors about the visions once, telling them that the voices had begun giving her orders. For five years Anneliese went for medical treatment with no discernable benefit. In fact, the attacks were getting worse. Her behavior degenerated into something wholly unlike the child everyone knew. She insulted and beat other members of the family, often biting her three siblings. She refused to eat normal food, as the demons she heard would not allow it, and ate spiders and coal, often drinking her own urine. She slept on the floor and was given to fits of screaming and breaking religious icons such as the family's crucifixes and rosaries. Her behavior grew steadily worse as she began acts of self-mutilation. Tearing off her clothes and urinating on the floor became common occurrences in the Michel home.

In 1973 her parents began a fervent and desperate search for a priest to perform an exorcism. All the churches they approached denied their requests, explaining that the criterion of proof for possession had not been fulfilled. In order for a person to be deemed "possessed" and receive an exorcism, according to the Catholic church, there are a number of signs that must be observed. The afflicted person must exhibit at least three signs for permission to be granted. The signs of possession are varied, but among them are the afflicted displaying abnormal strength, paranormal powers such as levitation or telekinesis, and the knowledge of a language they've never studied.

By 1974 the Michel family won the sympathy of Pastor Ernst Alt, who believed the child was truly in danger from demons. He petitioned the Bishop of Wurzburg, Josef Stangl, with no success. The Bishop suggested that the child live a more holy lifestyle to find inner peace. Alt tried again a year later, this time providing verification of the signs of possession in Anneliese. Bishop Stangl relented and assigned Father Arnold Renz to perform the exorcism rite with Alt assisting. The rite of exorcism to be performed was the "Rituale Romanum."

Exorcism, though long considered one of the church's dirty little secrets, is neither a religious ceremony nor a sacrament. It is a rite in which the priests confront the demon in the afflicted's body and demand that it show itself. Once the demon is revealed, the priests attempt to use their own faith to drive it out of the innocent. The Rituale Romanum was first written in 1614 under the auspices of Pope Paul V. It remained largely intact and in use for exorcism with only minor changes in definitions to distinguish between possession and mental illness in 1952. Through repeating a set group of prayers, the Litanies of the Saints, Pater Noster, and the 54th Psalm, as well as the accompanying Gloria Patri, Anima Criste, and Salve Regina, two priests, a medical doctor, and members of the afflicted's family engage in a lengthy and often physically exhausting trial in which the priests attempt to expel the demon. The rituals are open to interpretation as exorcists are free to add in other aspects of the rite as they deem necessary.

Beginning in September of 1975 Anneliese endured two rites a week, during which time she exhibited violent behavior toward any within striking distance. She spit and bit, cursed and struck those around her, often having to be restrained by as many as three full-grown men. The rituals, however, seemed to be working. She was able to return to school at the Pedagogic Academy in Wurzburg and take her final exams. She even was able to return to church. However, as time passed, her condition deteriorated again.

During the final round of exorcisms Anneliese stopped taking food for several weeks. Though she grew emaciated, she still exhibited unbelievable strength and spoke in the voices of those she claimed inhabited her body. Among the demons who claimed residence were Judas Iscariot, Nero, Cain, Hitler, a disgraced Frankish priest from the 16th Century, a host of other damned souls, and even Lucifer himself. Her knees ruptured due to the more than six hundred genuflections she compulsively performed. By June 30th, 1976, she was so emaciated and weak that she could not stand. Her parents, however, held her up and helped her perform the genuflections.

It was late in the day on July 30, 1976, when Anneliese turned to the priests and said, "Beg for absolution." It was the last statement she would make to them. To her mother she simply said, "Mother, I'm afraid," and then collapsed and died. Her mother recorded her daughter's passing the next day while Alt informed the authorities. An investigation immediately began into her cause of death. Both priests and her parents were charged with negligent homicide.

Two years later the case was finally brought to trial. Nearly forty hours of audio tape of the exorcism was played before the court. Testimony was heard from witnesses who had no doubts of demonic presences in the girl. But in the end it was the coroner's report that Anneliese has starved to death that proved to be their undoing. It was determined that admitting her to a hospital where she'd have been fed through a tube, even one week before she died, could have saved her life. They also asserted that, by introducing the concept of demonic possession, the parents and priest provided a scapegoat for her behavior, which allowed her to misbehave all she wanted to without fear of consequence. Though convicted, her parents and the priests received a light sentence of only six months in jail and probation.

The story, however, continued to capture the imagination of those that knew the girl or heard of her plight. Many claimed that her body could not have been at rest after such an ordeal, leading officials to exhume her corpse eleven years after her death. When it was determined that it had, in fact, decayed at the proper rate for one dead eleven years, she was recommitted to the ground. Her grave became, and remains, a place of pilgrimage and religious importance to those who believe that the brave girl lost her life fighting the forces of darkness.

Following the death of Anneliese the church recanted their permission, stating that she was merely afflicted by mental disorders. In 1996 the Pope removed Rituale Romanum from the approved list of rites and replaced it with his own, called "The Exorcism for the Upcoming Millennium."

Anneliese Michel was a fresh-faced girl of sixteen when her life suddenly jolted out of her control and only twenty-three when she died. Whether or not she was possessed by demons is open to debate, but nothing can diminish the tragedy of her passing. While The Exorcism of Emily Rose bears the legend "based on a true story," respect must be given to the actual people and events on which the story is taken. Audiences should not forget, while they are being entertained, that no matter what their beliefs, Anneliese Michel, the real "Emily Rose," was no fictional character.

Someone remind me to pay them!!!

Jason

Since my comment left on their site will probably be removed...

Look what lil' ol' me did to poor innocent Uthman.

This blog entry was really quite foolish, Ed. Before going off about me being a Robertson acolyte, or attributing me to what Claybonga wrote about the Iraq war, or taking a blind shot at my own religious beliefs, you should have spent the few minutes it would have taken to read my own blog and find out how I feel about Robertson, zealous Christian assholes and the Iraq war. Everyone who regularly reads my blog knows that I think the Iraq war is wrong, and that Robertson and his ilk are a frightening bunch. They also know that I think taking the Bible literally is nonsense. You can manage to navigate Freedom Chat, so before lying to people about what I think go ahead and learn the facts.

What's even more disturbing than the shot-in-the-dark method of attacking me is this - The Beast, and Uthman in particular, use various levels of venom and "biting" humor when it wants to get a point across, but when someone calls Al Uthman a fat ass or says he would pay a price for saying the same things to someone's face you shrivel up and all of a sudden become hyper-sensitive. The really pointed way your publication approaches various subjects seems to be a point of pride, and yes it does differentiate you from the other Alternatives who are rather boring. If you can dish it out like you do, you shouldn't cry foul when one guy out of X Beast readers pipes up about one of your Editors. What's good for you is good for everyone else.

About your premise I am mad because Uthman challenges my religious beliefs - again you are horribly mistaken. Uthman isn't challenging my religious beliefs - he is challenging the beliefs of people who try to use the Bible as a science text! He isn't talking about the pros and cons of religious doctrine, he is talking about fundamentalists who use their doctrine in an attempt to describe something best left to scientific inquiry. I agree that people who use the Bible this way are awfully misguided and wrong.

So then what DOES upset me? The assumption that every person who calls themself "Christian" is a Jerry Falwell, or a religious zealot blindly doing Bush's bidding, or someone who is intellectually vacant. Learning even the smallest tidbit about modern Chrsitianity would lead you to the conclusion that "believers" are largely fragmented. There is very little unity at all among the various denominations. People who believe in a higher power aren't blindly following Bush, they aren't unified in their beliefs, and yes they do have a brain in their head. Not every person who believes in God is a Jerry Falwell, and that kind of narrow-minded thinking will turn people off to you when they might otherwise consider the things you say about social welfare, health care and other issues. When you say those kinds of things about people it shouldn't come as a surprise or a shock that someone would object.

About Uthman - Ed, you have twice failed to correctly process what I wrote, instead going for the sensationalized writing style The Beast is known for. I never overtly threatened the man. There was a condition attached which you conveniently ignore. What I wrote was, and you have it up on your own blog so you should be able to understand this - if the guy were to directly insult me in the same manner that he does when he is behind the safety of his typewriter he indeed would pay the price. It is my experience that pseudo-journalists with loud mouths fold like a cheap card table when they have to be accountable for what they say.

Anyway, is it really that upsetting and unacceptable to you that someone would take a shot at Uthman? Okay, you poor, poor, innocent publication which has never done anything to remotely upset anyone. I apologize.

PS - Yes I can co-exist with Uthman and the rest of you Beasties. I thoroughly enjoyed your beer and pizza at the last Beast Bash.

I have pics from the surprise ninja-photo op at Kuni's. Coming Soon!!!!

Jason

I had a dream about Carin last night. In the dream I was always close but could never catch her. I think that mirrors reality pretty well, although I don't know if I was ever close. After my Sidekick got destroyed I didn't have her number, and when I asked a friend for it she said "You never did anything with it anyway!" Now she has a boyfriend, but of course I am much more handsome and charming. When I had the chance and wasn't so jaded I should have just tried my best and seen how it would have turned out. Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-female by any stretch of the imagination, but I just don't want to deal with the hassle of a relationship. I'm turned off so much to the idea of having a girlfriend who would harrass me and make me feel like shit. I think maybe if I would have given it a chance back then I wouldn't be here writing about how maybe I would have turned out a different character than I am now.

Jason

I have ZERO respect for assholes who hide behind "Guest" and start bitching about the site. This moron said they were an adult - you know what adults do? They make their name public and stand up for what they say. That's what I did. Only a Grade A pencil-dick would hide themselves and get on with the hate. That's the same thing the suburbanite pussies do when they yell shit at me and then drive off in a hurry. They're not man enough to stand face-to-face with me and tell me what they think. So it goes with the anonymous hate in Freedom Chat.

This person bitches about Artvoice. So do I but I actually make arguments concerning what it is I'm complaining about. I'll bet that jerk works for The Beast, based on the extent to which they are intellectually cross-eyed and lacking in the guts department.

Jason

I've talked about this before, but I wanted to show you an article from Fox News about how female rapists and sex offenders get coddled by the government and the media:



Look at the example of the woman rapist who had sex with a 16 year old boy and received NO prison time, and did NOT have to register as a sex offender! Equal crime, Equal time? No. Whoever said it is a man's world LIED TO YOU. Who cares about the kids? They're just boys.

Jason

Yesterday I went to Gordon's to check out the Bills game with my man Kick Dawg. It was cool, but one thing I noticed is that there were lots of girls huddled around the TV as well. They were hanging with their boyfriends who were busy watching the game. The chicks were doing homework, chatting about makeup, talking about fashion and all kinds of other non-football related nonsense. One of the guys I sat with said "Damn, looks like it was Bring Your Girlfriend Day." LOL. They couldn't have cared any less about the game. Well except one of them, I saw one of them at the Green Bay preseason game so I know she's a fan. I just don't know why you ladies would want to go with your boyfriends to watch a game you're not interested in! I wouldn't want to bring a girlfriend to a bar to watch football if she didn't like football. I would just be like, "I'm sure there's something else you'd rather do. I'm going to hang with my buddies, call you later." Is that wrong?

Jason

I am at my father's house in Jamestown right now, and my family REALLY wants us to stay here another day. I'm really sorry I can't be at (e:theecarey)'s party tonight to chill with you all. I hope everyone has a good time. I'm also really sorry (e:Ladycroft), we'll have to chill sometime soon. I am cutting my hair then going to an event with Dad and (e:Joshua). Take it easy (e:strip)!

Jason

I was in a conversation today with various people, and a post from one of them shocked the hell out of me:

"The south wont vote for a Yankee but theyll take our money. Watching bushs speech it looks like he's gonna ask me and my people in the north to rebuild an area of the country that disrespects my area and wont even vote for a guy if he's from here. Screw em. I vote no. Maybe some other time."

After being called petty, he responds:

"Petty is why they wont vote for Yankees. My post is more of a vengeful post. Get it reicht"

I'm stopping it here for a minute to note how if you disagree with him he will bring up the Nazi card. Typical liberal debate strategy.

I say fine, no problem but now that you need us pardon me if I don't just jump up and throw money at them.

My response?

Nobody is obligated to vote for anyone from any particular region of the US. The argument is null and void. Clinton was a redneck, Carter was a redneck....it matters less where the person is from than who the person is and what they stand for. This "You won't vote for my guy so I refuse to help you" is some of the worst, petty political BS I've ever heard.

And if you want to know why nobody wanted anyone from Ohio, think back to Kucinich's idea to get rid of the Department of Defense and replace it with a Department of Peace. Yes! Get rid of the military! What a brilliant idea, especially now! He was and is a fringe leftist. Bring some better candidates to the table, jeez.

(After that I noted how Kucinich's idea to abolish the military and replace it with a "Department of Peace" was directly out of Howard Zinn's playbook from the short book Terrorism and War. Therefore it isn't surprising nobody would touch him with a ten foot pole)

But the bottom line is, Jesus Fucking Christ people - who cares what part of the country they are from! How can anyone be this petty!! I could slap the yellow off of that asshole's teeth.

Jason