The pilgrim, said to be a 43-year old married man from Mexico called Angelo, convulsed briefly and emitted a long sigh. His body went limp and his mouth dropped open.

Precisely the same thing would happen, I reckon, if Justin Bieber were to lay his hands on a teenage girl – or even a boy.
But the head of the International Association of Exorcists – Father Gabriele Amorth – claims that the man had been possessed by demons, and that the Pope had carried out his very first exorcism.

And he’s angry that the Vatican downplayed the incident, although it used ambiguous language that did not deny altogether that Francis had tried to rid the man of evil.

Said Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi:
No, no, NO protested Amorth, who says the man was possessed by no fewer than four demons:
Amorth added that there was now, more than ever, a need for exorcists to combat people possessed by “sorcerers” and “Satanists”:
He acknowledged that many people, even Catholics, regarded exorcism as mumbo-jumbo but insisted they were mistaken.
He said John Paul II had carried out many exorcisms during his pontificate, but that Benedict XVI had not performed any, instead leaving it to bishops and priests.

John Paul II fought many times against Satan. Those battles continue, even though he is dead. In fact he is present today in many exorcisms. If you cite his name during an exorcism, the person who is possessed literally froths at the mouth in fury.

I would venture that it doesn’t take an exorcism to make people “froth at the mouth in fury” at the mention of John Paul’s name. After all, he failed miserably to respond to the sex abuse of children endemic in the Church, and his opposition to artificial birth control, including the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV, served to compounded poverty and was the direct cause millions of preventable AIDS deaths.

Atheism UK has a strapline – “Challenging religious faith”. In many ways it defines the purpose of our organization. While other groups may promote secularism, science and reason, humanist or other non-religious ethical systems or challenge religious privilege, we are the only national organization that specifically identifies religious faith itself as a problem in our society that has a deleterious effect on both its religious and non-religious members alike.

Before going on to offer evidence for our position it is important that we define the term ‘faith’ as used in a religious context. If you consult a dictionary you will see that the word ‘faith’ has a number of definitions, many of which are good and desirable. It can be defined as a confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea or thing. It can also be loyalty to a person or thing. To act in good faith is to be sincere or honest, to keep faith, or, be faithful is to be loyal, honourable or steadfast.

Doesn’t sound too bad, does it? No reasonable person would object to that kind of faith but English is a funny language; the same word can have a number of different meanings. The faith you might have that the sun will rise tomorrow, or in the Theory of Evolution, or in a friend’s good intentions are all based on evidence, your past experience, the fossil record, your knowledge of your friend’s character.