In Catholicism it’s not always lay people who need exorcisms. From St. Colette of Corbie, for whom demons would appear in the guise of insects, snails, and reptiles, to St. Nicholas of Tolentino who was physically assaulted by the demon Belial, there’s a long history of saints having been allegedly tormented by demonic spirits. So when I saw a YouTube video with 1.3 million views titled “The Exorcism of Saint Mother Teresa,” I was intrigued. Here was a modern account of a revered figure within the Catholic religion having undergone an exorcism—presumably better documented than accounts from hundreds of years ago. If the Devil sent his minions after someone as important as Mother Teresa, they must’ve really pulled out all the stops, right? As I looked into the case further, reading news article after news article, my interest only grew as I came upon accounts where the archbishop who sanctioned the exorcism later denied that Mother Teresa had in fact been possessed. Why would the Catholic Church have performed an exorcism on someone whom they didn’t believe was possessed? What’s the truth behind the exorcism of Mother Teresa?

Mother Mary Teresa Bojaxhiu died on September 5, 1997. On the fourth anniversary of her death, in 2001, the Archbishop of Calcutta at the time, Henry D’Souza, revealed that in November of 1996 the nun had been admitted to the Birla hospital for angioplasty. During her stay, she suffered “two troubled nights” of sleep during which “She was totally restless. The doctor could not understand it. She was pulling all of her wires out.” D’Souza was aware of Mother Teresa’s trouble because he happened to be admitted to the hospital at the same time as her and, according to CNN, shared the same doctor. In the same CNN article, D’Souza explained he believed Mother Teresa “might be under the attack of the evil one” and elaborated further in a BBC article “When doctors said they could not find a medical reason for her sleeplessness, I thought she might be getting attacked by the devil.” Considering that Mother Teresa was 86 at the time with a myriad of health issues (and who feels comfortable staying overnight in a hospital anyway?) I don’t find it surprising at all that she was restless. Nevertheless, D’Souza arranged for a local priest, Rosario Stroscio, to perform an exorcism—something to which the elderly nun allegedly “happily agreed.” I believe there’s some reason to doubt whether or not Mother Teresa was truly of sound mind to give informed consent to the procedure, as Stroscio described her as “She was a little dazed and behaved strangely.” 

What I find particularly interesting is that an exorcism was proposed and sanctioned by the archbishop in the absence of not only a thorough investigation, but without any of the tell-tale signs of possession called for in De Exorcismis et Supplicationibus Quibusdam (Of Exorcisms and Certain Supplications), being exhibited, for example speaking in tongues, levitation, feats of superhuman strength, demonstrations of knowledge of future events or knowledge which would otherwise be impossible for the person to have, and aversion to holy objects or antipathy to the spoken name of Christ. Furthermore, despite being referred to as a “Catholic exorcist” in numerous articles, in every discussion of the life and work of Rosario Stroscio that I have read, I can find no mention of him having performed exorcisms except for the one on Mother Teresa. I believe it is reasonable to conclude that Stroscio was not in fact an experienced exorcist; consider the following conversation that D’Souza claimed he had with Stroscio in which he ordered him to perform the exorcism: “I told him, ‘Please say the prayer of exorcism over Mother Teresa.’ And he got a shock and said, ‘Shall I pray and should I drive out the devil if it’s there?’ I said, ‘Yes, you do.’ But he says, ‘What will the devil do to me?’ I said to him, ‘You command the devil to go if he’s there. In the name of the church, as archbishop, I command you to go and do it.’”

If Stroscio had performed exorcisms before, why would he ask the archbishop “What will the devil do to me?” The question seems to signal a certain trepidation and uncertainty that one would not expect of a seasoned exorcist. Furthermore, if D’Souza truly believed that Mother Teresa was possessed and warranted an exorcism, and if Stroscio was not in fact an ordained exorcist, why would D’Souza have asked him to perform the rite and not someone with more experience and confidence?  

According to the YouTube video, “there were no spinning heads or crosses falling from the walls, neither did Mother Teresa embarrass herself by using colorful language.” In every account of the exorcism that I’ve read online, both Mother Teresa and Stroscio “participated in a prayer of protection” after which she “slept like a baby.” So much for the Devil bringing his A-game to take down a venerated nun on the fast track to sainthood! The story might very well end here as otherwise unexceptional except for the fact that Archbishop D’Souza was also quoted later as denying that Mother Teresa was possessed, something which The Infographics Show video failed to mention. 

At the same time D’Souza was revealing to the world that Mother Teresa had undergone an exorcism shortly before her death, he told The Independent “Mother Teresa was not possessed” and that the exorcism was not carried out to “purge” her of any evil spirit, but rather to help her sleep. Likewise, a 2001 article from the National Catholic Reporter quotes D’Souza as saying “I did not think she was possessed by an evil spirit” although he still maintained he believed an evil spirit was troubling her. Curiously, Stroscio was quoted by the BBC as saying “Maybe Mother Teresa was under harassment from Satan. But after the prayers, she was quite calm.” Maybe? I can’t imagine an archbishop would ask for an exorcism based on a “maybe,” a sentiment shared by the Rev. Richard McBrien, former theology professor at Notre Dame University. “I cannot believe they would have allowed that to happen,” he stated. “They could have performed the rite of the anointing of the sick. That’s one of the sacraments. Exorcisms aren’t sacraments.” 

Nevertheless time and again D’Souza and Stroscio both refer to Mother Teresa having undergone an exorcism. It doesn’t seem reasonable to believe that both men, on multiple occasions, would confuse or mistake the rite of the anointing of the sick with the rite of exorcism when speaking to the media. So, what are we to make of the exorcism of Mother Teresa? I believe to get to the truth requires a closer examination of what exactly D’Souza said, as well as a better understanding of the Catholic rite of exorcism than journalists and the media might typically possess. 

D’Souza is on record as stating that he did not think Mother Teresa was possessed by an evil spirit, but that he believed “she might be getting attacked by the devil.” The Catholic Church distinguishes between demonic “possession” or “When a demon concentrates its activity from within the human body, so that a person’s body is not subject to their own free will bur rather is moved by the demon as if it were its master” and what is known as demonic “oppression” or “When demons exert concentrated external influence that causes physical harm or discomfort to a person (pushing or shoving, for example, or even strange illnesses).” 

Exorcisms (as performed by the Catholic Church according to the Ritual Romanum) are actually of two kinds. First, what’s called simple or “minor exorcisms” are performed before baptisms and may also consist of simple prayers that the faithful may recite. Solemn or “major exorcisms” are what are portrayed by Hollywood and therefore what most people understand exorcisms to be. Major exorcisms may only be performed by an ordained priest or bishop with the special and express permission of the local ordinary, the diocesan bishop, according to the Code of Canon Law. Major exorcisms are specifically designed to expel demons and liberate a demoniac, or possessed person. 

Given the seemingly contradictory statements of Archbishop D’Souza, I believe the most reasonable conclusion is that D’Souza believed Mother Teresa was the victim of demonic oppression—that her trouble sleeping, for which there allegedly was no discernible medical cause, was the direct result of demonic activity. D’Souza did not, however, believe that Mother Teresa was possessed by a demonic entity. Therefore, only the minor rite of exorcism would’ve been called for and would not have required a thorough investigation of the case, the case to meet the criteria set forth by the Code of Canon Law, or an experienced exorcist to perform.

When D’Souza assured the media that the exorcism “did not hurt her sanctity,” he was in effect saying that like other saints (at the time Pope John Paul II had already waived the usual five-year waiting period to begin the process of sainthood shortly after her death) had been assaulted by demons. Although she hardly needed the help, the story of Mother Teresa having undergone an exorcism probably helped establish her sainthood rather than hurt her case. I believe this account best fits the evidence and testimony of those involved and understanding how one could have an exorcism performed on themselves while not actually being possessed deepens and enriches our understanding of at least the Catholic interpretation of this ancient practice.