Post by depletedreasons on Mar 14, 2008 10:11:29 GMT -5
Exorcism: between religion and the law
07/03/2008
A botched exorcism in a Romanian convent has spurred a heated debate about the church's role in contemporary society.
By Paul Ciocoiu for Southeast European Times in Bucharest – 07/03/08
Father Daniel Petru Corogeanu, 31, was sentenced in court to seven years in prison for causing the death of a nun during her exorcism. Irina Cornici, 23, died in June 2005 at a secluded convent in the northeast Romanian village of Tanacu. [Getty Images]
The death of a young nun, Irina Cornici, during an exorcism ritual in the summer of 2005 made headlines for months in Romania. Two sharply opposed camps -- one condemning the Church for medieval practices, the other defending ancient Christian rituals -- clashed in media interviews, talk shows and internet blogs.
Earlier this year, the High Court of Justice and Cassation handed down verdicts in the case. Father Daniel Corogeanu was sentenced to seven years in prison. The abbess and other nuns at the convent where Cornici died received sentences ranging from five to six years.
The sentencing has reignited debate. In a recent article, Father Iustin Parvu -- a man popularly known as "Romania's father confessor" -- accuses the media and secular society of using the case to attack Orthodoxy.
"All those journalists who threw stones at him are not interested in the Father personally, but in what these monks pray for and that they shouldn't do it anymore," Parvu writes. "All these journalists have no clue what a Christian, moral and theological existence means … They try to hit as hard as they can the Orthodox tradition, as much as is left of it in these parts."
Commenting at tanacu.blog.com, Darius questions this line of argument. "It is absurd to treat the current situation as an orchestrated media attack. Father Daniel made a mistake and this is why he has to pay; these are the laws since the beginning of time and the Church has to assume such unpleasant situations. He who thinks the times should catch up with the Church and not the other way around is wrong and ignorant."
Another commenter, Socrate, also doubts that attacking religion is the real issue here. "If someone touched Father Daniel Corogeanu, he didn't do it to destroy Orthodoxy, but because [the monk] is a man and, like any other man, he is exposed to mistakes and the sin of pride."
Commenter Silvian takes Father Daniel's side. "The Church is a parallel world, in which we find ourselves spiritually. It's a refuge. This is why Father Daniel should be judged by clerics and not by laypeople."
"Why don't we go to the judge to forgive our sins then? Because we're all aware that when going to church we enter a different world and leave the other one behind," he concludes.
www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/blogreview/2008/03/07/blog-03
07/03/2008
A botched exorcism in a Romanian convent has spurred a heated debate about the church's role in contemporary society.
By Paul Ciocoiu for Southeast European Times in Bucharest – 07/03/08
Father Daniel Petru Corogeanu, 31, was sentenced in court to seven years in prison for causing the death of a nun during her exorcism. Irina Cornici, 23, died in June 2005 at a secluded convent in the northeast Romanian village of Tanacu. [Getty Images]
The death of a young nun, Irina Cornici, during an exorcism ritual in the summer of 2005 made headlines for months in Romania. Two sharply opposed camps -- one condemning the Church for medieval practices, the other defending ancient Christian rituals -- clashed in media interviews, talk shows and internet blogs.
Earlier this year, the High Court of Justice and Cassation handed down verdicts in the case. Father Daniel Corogeanu was sentenced to seven years in prison. The abbess and other nuns at the convent where Cornici died received sentences ranging from five to six years.
The sentencing has reignited debate. In a recent article, Father Iustin Parvu -- a man popularly known as "Romania's father confessor" -- accuses the media and secular society of using the case to attack Orthodoxy.
"All those journalists who threw stones at him are not interested in the Father personally, but in what these monks pray for and that they shouldn't do it anymore," Parvu writes. "All these journalists have no clue what a Christian, moral and theological existence means … They try to hit as hard as they can the Orthodox tradition, as much as is left of it in these parts."
Commenting at tanacu.blog.com, Darius questions this line of argument. "It is absurd to treat the current situation as an orchestrated media attack. Father Daniel made a mistake and this is why he has to pay; these are the laws since the beginning of time and the Church has to assume such unpleasant situations. He who thinks the times should catch up with the Church and not the other way around is wrong and ignorant."
Another commenter, Socrate, also doubts that attacking religion is the real issue here. "If someone touched Father Daniel Corogeanu, he didn't do it to destroy Orthodoxy, but because [the monk] is a man and, like any other man, he is exposed to mistakes and the sin of pride."
Commenter Silvian takes Father Daniel's side. "The Church is a parallel world, in which we find ourselves spiritually. It's a refuge. This is why Father Daniel should be judged by clerics and not by laypeople."
"Why don't we go to the judge to forgive our sins then? Because we're all aware that when going to church we enter a different world and leave the other one behind," he concludes.
www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/blogreview/2008/03/07/blog-03