Believe Not Every Spirit: Possession, Mysticism, and Discernment in Early Modern Catholicism (review)

Moshe Sluhovsky’s Believe Not Every Spirit: Possession, Mysticism, and Discernment in Early Modern Catholicism examines possession, mysticism, and the—typically female—body through the lens of changes in Catholicism in sixteenth-and seventeenth-century Europe, primarily France, Spain, and Italy. Demonstrating a knowledge of a wide range of primary records detailing what he identifies as varying degrees of possession, Sluhovsky also reveals a command of the previous critical approaches to this subject, employing them but not allowing his own work to be restricted by their weaknesses. Instead of focusing on purely psychological, anthropological, and sociological models of explaining either demonic or divine possession, this work analyzes specific cases, relating them to the evolution of Catholic belief and the anxieties between the Church and those who practiced a more interiorized system of spirituality.

The introduction to Believe Not Every Spirit, although occasionally difficult to follow, is effective in how it outlines the methodology and framework of the study. In particular, it defines how this work seeks to accomplish something different with a topic that has been researched extensively. Sluhovsky states that the three subjects of the book are the changing roles of exorcism, the definition of discernment methods, and the influence of mysticism. He convincingly argues that possession in early modern France, Italy, and Spain was unique and should be examined independently, with minimal interference from modern interpretation, which he seeks to do by reading “descriptions of possession straightforwardly, as objective descriptions of events that took place as they are represented,” and by “taking the possessed women’s demonic fears and their spiritual hopes seriously” (10). The Church was concerned with devising systems for validating or condemning the spirits invading human bodies and souls, but these practices, called discernment, were far from uniform, creating debate among all interested parties concerning the right of the individual to diagnose him-or herself. Sluhovsky approaches the concepts of demonic and divine possession as interrelated, identifying the act of discernment of possessing spirits as equally significant as the act of possession itself.

In the first chapter, Sluhovsky makes a distinction between possession of the body and possession of the soul. Before the early modern period, demonic spirits were perceived as attacking the body, a “mundane” occurrence, as he calls it, that could often be cured easily through the remedy of exorcism. Sluhovsky asserts that later, in the early modern era, possession became a matter of the soul, a reaction to the interiorization of spirituality exemplified by the mystic tradition. He does avoid here the error of absolutes and does not argue that perception changed completely from one century to the next. Rather, he points out that the trend seemed to change and that more possessions appeared to be attributed to the soul rather than the body, indicating the influence of the interiorized spirituality followed by practitioners of mysticism, which Sluhovsky groups into the broad categories of pre-Quietists and Quietists.

Sluhovsky clearly discusses the anxieties of the Church concerning both mystics and possession. There was a distinct concern with individuals, especially women, being able to interpret their own religious experiences. This concept of the Church suspecting mystics is not a new claim. What is interesting about Sluhovsky’s discussion is that he emphasizes that the mystics themselves were wary of their own experiences and worried that they might mistake demonic temptation for divine encounter. They often believed that they were prime targets of the devil, incurring his wrath by devoting their lives to the pursuit of a one-on-one relationship with God.

These concerns made discernment a primary focus. Yet the question becomes: What are the distinguishing signs separating diabolic and divine possessing spirits? And, additionally, who were qualified to be authorities of both discernment and exorcism? The answers to these difficult questions were the subject of much theological debate. In this undefined space, opportunities developed for individuals to step into new roles. In particular, [End...