A response to Okie Traditionalist's post "Fr. Ripperger RIPS a Fellow Exorcist Priest": https://okietraditionalist.blogspot.com/2019/01/fr-ripperger-rips-fellow-exorcist-priest.html
Update: It seems Okie Traditionalist has blocked me from accessing his blog and also not posted my response, despite claims that the comment box would be open for thoughts about this issue. Comments were welcome except the unwelcome ones such as the one below. Seems only a further proof of what I was saying: too sensitive. This isn't an ad hominem. I address each of his points with a reasoned argument. It's a response given in good will and intended for constructive consideration.
---
I can't tell if this is a joke or serious, but will respond as if it is serious.
My opinion is you seem to be way too sensitive to Fr. R's comments. It was a joke, an obvious joke. Everyone in the recording took it as a joke—they laughed. Should they apologize too? Did it use hyperbole to make its point? Yes, but jokes often do that. Honestly, this type of reaction to a joke is what you see with stereotypical SJWs and snowflake liberal millennials. Was it a joke made in poor taste? Was it even particularly funny? Ok fine. But honestly, shameful behavior? If this is shameful behavior, then what would you call how Catholic prelates have dealt with the sex abuse scandals, going all the way to Pope Francis himself? What would you even call the behavior of actual celebrity priests like Fr. James Martin, SJ? Shouldn't we reserve words like "shameful" for behavior that is...well, actually shameful?
There's nothing unusual about Fr. R's tone here; he's speaking with the same cadence he always brings to his talks. Maybe that tone annoys you, but to each his own in that case.
Your first paragraph doesn't make much sense. You admit Harry Potter has witches, witchcraft, etc., and then say so does a lot of other children's books, thus repeating one of the objections Fr. R has already responded to—yet as if he hadn't responded to it.
There is a world of difference in the atmosphere that surrounds the use of magic between classical children's fables and literature and modern, post-New Age portrayals of magic. Even secular critics have pointed this out. It's not the result of navel-gazing, overly sheltered, tin foil hat wearing, conspiracy theorist types. Aside from Harry Potter, another clear example of this difference would be iterations of Sabrina the Teenage Witch. Now with the Netflix version, the dangerous use of magic is part and parcel of empowering women in the age of #MeToo. It is also tied explicitly to satanic practices. It's blatant propaganda and garbage with serious spiritual effects.
But where your paragraph is contradictory is that you end it by saying: "While talking about such a serious subject?" But you just dismissed the issue as non serious because of the presence of witchcraft in lots of literature. This is an obvious strawman. The issue isn't whether a witch is present; it is how the magic is portrayed that is problematic.
And this leads to the problem with your analogy: it's too weak. If witchcraft is indeed a serious issue as you somewhat suggest in your first paragraph, then it would be more correct to compare it to medical professionals discussing a very serious health issue, such as a life-threatening cancer. And if the vast majority of the medical profession, having studied the issue, concludes that the issue is serious and life-threatening in the vast majority of cases and give us a series of steps to prevent said issue and maintain good health, we the laity would be the worse off for ignoring them. If one such professional disagreed with the established majority, we would have to see if there is legitimately good reason to do so.
If magic is not a serious issue, then this is like doctors discussing the health impact of eating too many potato chips. In such a case, obviously for one doctor to accuse another doctor of "not being worth his weight in salt" would be a bit extreme and certainly unprofessional. Would that be a "rip"? Well, it depends on context, such as when and where and how the statement was made. Between two friends and colleagues, it might be a lighthearted jab, etc.
Is this really a way to disagree with a fellow exorcist? If the issue is serious, that is, may even affect salvation of souls, then YES. In fact, Fr. R could have been a lot more serious and heavy about it. Charity would demand it. In the context of the audio, and from how the audience responded, it's clear that Fr. R was not "ripping" (to make a bad pun off his name), but merely "ribbing." It was clearly a joke that charitably covered over the fact that, if this is a potential salvation issue practically for people, then Fr. R could have skipped the joke and stated the plain truth, as a serious and ethical medical professional would tell the plain truth about the seriousness of a life-threatening health issue.
As Aquinas says: The salvation of the multitude is to be preferred to the peace of any individuals whatsoever. Consequently, when certain ones, by their perverseness, hinder the salvation of the multitude, the preacher and the teacher should not fear to offend those men, in order that he may insure the salvation of the multitude (Summa Th. 3.42.2).
If Fr. R uses his "celebrity" status to promote the right view of the issue, we should praise his proper use of his reputation for promoting the truth and well-being of souls. I find it strange that you would call him a celebrity, importing very problematic secular notions into his ministry as a traditional priest. By any conscientious conservative analysis, celebrity culture and status are overwhelmingly negative and problematic. Even from a Marxist point of view, there is much to be criticized. Hence why would you attach that label to Fr. R? Or to any good priest for that matter? Rhetorically you seem to be implying an ad hominem here, that perhaps his celebrity status has gotten to his head, or that good theologians shouldn't be well known? I don't know what you're going for by calling him a celebrity, but I can't see where the charity is in that.
Fr. R says almost every exorcist he knows agrees that Harry Potter is dangerous and should be avoided. If this is a serious issue, if it is dangerous, and if the exorcists are in agreement, it seems incumbent on Fr. R to be as clear as possible on this issue. He is doing the public good by making this clear, especially for laity who need the authority and expertise of such priests. He would in fact be acting in an objectively shameful way if he HID the truth because he was embarrassed to point out that there are naysayers, even among exorcists, about the spiritual harm of magic.
Is this "shameful" behavior? Even if it's granted that Harry Potter is not a serious source of harm, at most Fr. R is clearly making a passing joke that lasts less than five seconds. And what is the name of the priest mocked? I don't know from the audio you shared, which comes from several years ago. Who is seriously going to take the time to look that priest up and them continue a smear campaign? What have been the negative consequences of Fr. R's passing joke on this priest's ministry? Anything at all? But here you are publicly blowing up a passing joke Fr. R made several years ago? It's easy to find faults in the person in the limelight.
But regardless, what Fr. R said hardly counts as "ripping." To suggest so reminds me of the increasingly frequent clickbait titles one finds in the media and on Youtube of some person "ripping apart" some opponent, and the disappointment that half of these titles are greatly or fully exaggerated. Retract and publicly apologize? To whom? The priest in question? Then why does the apology have to be public? And how do you know that Fr. R hasn't apologized? Do you keep close tabs on his private and public life?
To repeat, if the matter is serious, it's best that we laity know about it since we are the ones raising families and determining what our children will be exposed to. If anything, it would be a shame if that one exorcist who said Harry Potter isn't dangerous led other parents and children into spiritual harm! So I say, good for Fr. R for warning us. This is serious stuff. We should firstly be disposed to listen to someone like Fr. R who has training and experience.
Finally, what seems shameful is to open up speculation in a relatively well-known blog about private matters, i.e. about Fr. R's exorcist society, especially based on one person's overly sensitive reaction to a passing joke made years ago! Isn't this a textbook example of gossip?
