A response to Hichborn on Ripperger

Why do I even bother?

Crisis Magazine editor Eric Sammons should have waited just a few more days. On Thursday, as I was putting the finishing touches on my latest article about celebrity exorcist Fr. Chad Ripperger’s UFO theories and young Earth creationism (“Father Chad Ripperger versus the Little Gray Men”), Crisis published an article (“In Defense of Fr. Ripperger”) that sought to defend Ripperger against an article I wrote back in September, “The Bizarre and Dangerous Views of a Celebrity Exorcist.” (I recommend reading that article if you are unfamiliar with Ripperger and his beliefs.)

After reading Hichborn’s article, I debated whether a response was worthwhile. When I write about Ripperger, my primary audiences are (1) Church leaders and (2) ordinary Catholics who are unaware of Ripperger’s views and may be led astray from the truth of the Catholic faith by him or his followers. My writing is not directed towards Ripperger’s diehard fans. Michael Hichborn is a well-known culture warrior and conspiracy theorist, and he’s made it clear that his worldview is aligned with Ripperger’s fundamentalism. I don’t expect that anything I write could ever change such a person’s mind. I’ll leave that to God (and perhaps some skilled cult deprogrammers).

Hichborn accuses me of “cherry picking.” That was not my intention. I chose to highlight five specific beliefs that Ripperger has clearly articulated, in full context, with links to original sources, which I think any reasonable Catholic would find problematic:

1. The “Five Generals” — his claims about a hierarchy of 5 specific demons, each with a name and each associated with a specific type of sin;

2. His claim that bipolar disorder “is in fact demonic obsession”;

3. His claims about non-Catholic religions, specifically that:

   1. Muslims and Protestants do not worship the same God as Catholics,

   2. Catholics are prohibited from praying with Protestants (and even attending their weddings or funerals);

4. Generational demons and curses; and

5. Certain aspects of his Deliverance Prayers book.

In addition to these five main points, I provided some links and comments about other subjects Fr Ripperger has opined on, several of which Hichborn wrote about. Once again, my intention was to give readers as much information as possible and access to original sources. I have my opinions about Fr. Ripperger, but I want to provide readers with as much information as possible so they can make up their own minds.

I find it extremely frustrating when someone claims to have thoroughly debunked an article I wrote, while not landing a single punch and misrepresenting my arguments. I continue to stand by every word I wrote.

What follows is a list of Hichborn’s claims, each followed by my response. I am not going to meticulously cite my sources again because I already did so in my original article. Hichborn did not mention (and is perhaps unaware) that Ripperger already responded to my article four months ago at some length in a video with traditionalist Ryan Grant. I refer to this interview in my responses as well.

Here we go:

Hichborn: “He even accuses Fr. Ripperger of making statements that are ‘contrary to Catholic Tradition, doctrine, and theology.’ What he offers up as evidence are cherry-picked quotations from various speeches—often leaving off pertinent context—never once supplying any direct evidence to substantiate his very serious charges.”

Mike Lewis: “cherry-picked quotations from various speeches”: This claim is surprising. I went to great lengths to provide as full context as was possible. The article contains (by my count) 34 hyperlinks, the vast majority of which are either links to original sources (his own words) or contain direct quotes.

The original audio of many of Ripperger’s most absurd statements has been taken down, such as when he said, “Sometimes people actually will ask me about Harry Potter. Actually, every time I give a conference, they ask me about Harry Potter. J.K. Rowling went to witch school before she wrote the books.” Fortunately, Catholic Answers transcribed this comment before it was removed, so I linked to their article about it.

I wanted to provide as much context as I could so that readers could make up their own minds, rather than simply take my word for it. Some of the quotes I used were quite lengthy — 3-4 paragraphs — and I provided links to the original sources. This likely made Hichborn’s job easier because he didn’t have to look everything up (like I did).

“never once supplying any direct evidence”: This is an odd claim. Here Hichborn suggests that I never substantiated my assertion that Ripperger’s views contradict Catholic teaching. For example, early in my piece I provided a link to Adam Rasmussen’s article about Ripperger’s erroneous views on the Magisterium. Later on, when addressing Ripperger’s assertions that Catholics are forbidden from praying with non-Catholics and that “If you’re not in the Church any religious thing that you do — like baptize somebody — is actually offensive to God” I provided quotes from Nostra Aetate and other papal documents to substantiate my arguments.

Hichborn: “Mike Lewis took an email written by someone else and attributed its contents and its intentions to Fr. Ripperger.”

ML: This is a reference to this passage in my article: “Following the 2020 election, Marissa Nichols wrote about how members of her Catholic homeschool community were circulating a ‘Prayer of Command’ composed by Fr. Ripperger, who urged that Catholics recite it, asking ‘Jesus Christ to break any curses, hexes, or spells and send them back to where they came from’ in order to ‘Stop the Steal.’” (emphasis added)

Perhaps this sentence could have been broken up a bit for clarity. But this is what Marissa Nichols wrote in her article:

“I was startled to learn that members of our group were sharing a “Prayer of Command” by Fr. Chad Ripperger (whose theology was critiqued by Adam Rasmussen on Monday), along with the recommendation that lay people recite this prayer calling on Jesus to banish evil spirits in an effort to ‘Stop the Steal.’”

This was, in fact, a statement about the members of her group passing along Ripperger’s prayer and recommending that people pray it to “stop the steal.” This is a statement of fact, and doesn’t make assumptions about Ripperger’s intentions.

Hichborn sought Ripperger’s clarification. In his response, Ripperger clarified that someone else sent around the “Prayer of Command” and claimed that Fr. Ripperger had asked for it to be prayed to stop the steal (including prominent blogging priest Fr. John Zuhlsdorf).

That said, Fr. Ripperger apparently wrote another prayer about the outcome of the election. He told Hichborn, “I wrote a separate prayer (attached) which just tells people to say a prayer for the integrity of the election.” This is what Ripperger told Ryan Grant about that prayer (verbatim quote):

And so the original one that I put in the one in 2020 was because of the fact that the witches were publicly saying that they were cursing Trump and some of these other people and some other candidates, actually, um, and so I just put out a prayer that lay people can say asking our Lord to block those and if it's his will to send it back from once it came, that was what I was taught as an exorcist by other exorcists and most exorcists use those particular kinds of prayers. But that all being said, um, then the current one that I put out was just like, look, we're going to have to pray our way out of this situation because it doesn't matter how you dice it.

So it is false that Fr. Ripperger asked that people pray the “Prayer of Command” to stop the steal. It is true that Fr. Ripperger wrote another prayer for the outcome of the election “because of the fact that the witches were publicly saying that they were cursing Trump and some of these other people and some other candidates.”

Glad we set that straight.

Quick Rundown

It seems I’ve gotten much more wordy than I intended to, so going forward I will briefly respond to his claims about my examples of Ripperger’s bizarre views:

Hierarchy of demons:

“Here, Lewis quoted a criticism from Fr. Matthew Schneider, who asserted that Fr. Ripperger is 'making stuff up from nowhere' about the hierarchy of Hell ... what Fr. Ripperger said is indeed a part of the Church’s theological tradition and teaching."

This misses my point. I was not criticizing the notion of a demonic hierarchy altogether. I was criticizing Ripperger's hierarchy specifically. He called the demons in his hierarchy the “five generals.” He gave their names and listed the type of sin each was responsible for (including two kinds of lesbians). That is what Fr Schneider was saying was made up from nowhere.

I did research demonic hierarchies. I could not find these "five generals" listed anywhere. That's why I wrote: "Fr. Ripperger’s teachings on demon hierarchy appear to deviate from traditional views, which often either depict demons as chaotic without a clear hierarchy or align them with the seven deadly sins."

In his response video, Ripperger even admitted that he got the "five generals" from his discussions with exorcists (in other words, not from the tradition). Ripperger said:

"As to the five generals, well, over the course of during, doing exorcisms for 17 years and having discussed various demons with numerous exorcists, there's a general discussion among some of us about the hierarchy in hell, which demons are part of which choir, rank, etc."

Basically he’s admitting that he and/or his exorcist friends came up with it.

Bipolar disorder

“But this is the rest of what Fr. Ripperger said, which Mike Lewis conveniently left off, giving the impression that Fr. Ripperger is claiming that mental illness is only caused by demons..."

Once again Hichborn twists my motives with the words "giving the impression." That was not the impression I was attempting to give. I was very precise in my wording. Fr. Ripperger seems to have a problem with bipolar disorder specifically.

These are both direct quotes from Fr. Ripperger (emphasis added):

"There has not been a single solitary individual who has come to me that’s been diagnosed as bipolar that’s on meds that I haven’t been able to get completely off their meds and straightened out in three months if they do certain things.

Not one. And that is something that tells me — now there has been people that haven’t gotten straightened out, that’s because they didn’t do what I told them to do. But if, and what that’s a sign of is the fact that bipolar is actually a form of obsession, demonic obsession by the time it gets to the point where it’s diagnosable."

and

"Cases of bipolar are in fact cases of demonic obsession. I have always, every time I’ve listened to the explanation or the diagnostic from modern psychologists about a, um, bipolar, I just like, well, send the guy to an exorcist."

I don't know how else to read Ripperger's words. He said he believes every case of bipolar he's come across is "demonic obsession." And not a single defender of Ripperger on this point has attempted to justify these words.

Yet Hichborn twists my words and claims I meant something I didn't say:

"Mike Lewis may be aghast at the suggestion that a psychological disorder could be considered to be a demonic manifestation, it is equally dangerous for Lewis to dismiss the possibility that a demonic manifestation may be masquerading as a psychological illness."

For the record:

I do believe demonic possession/obsession are real and I do believe they can be confused with mental disorders. My concern is Ripperger’s view on bipolar disorder.

That said, in his interview with Ryan Grant, Ripperger did say:

Yeah, I mean, if you actually, okay, first of all, you have to, when I was speaking there, I was speaking very formally, in the sense that, first of all, I never said that all bipolar was demonic. What I said is, anybody who is bipolar can get off if they do certain things which I tell them to do, which we'll see here, I'm the answer to that here as we go along, why that is the actual case.

So I never said all bipolar is demonic.

Is Fr. Ripperger telling the truth? By “speaking very formally” does he mean “ignore what I’m saying”?

He doesn’t say he misspoke. He said he’s never made the claim. Admittedly, he did say that he believes bipolar disorder is demonic obsession when it’s “diagnosable.” But if it’s not diagnosed, how do we know that someone has bipolar disorder?

Make of that what you will.

Praying with non-Catholics

Hichborn writes: “Fr. Ripperger is upholding the pre-Vatican II authoritative teaching of the Church on prayer with non-Catholics, exactly as Pope Paul VI himself instructed bishops and theologians to do at Vatican II.”

This is a bit of sophistry by Hichborn. I know quite well that prior to Vatican II, Church law prohibited Catholics from praying with Protestants. That was never a question. The question is whether Ripperger rejects the teachings of the Catholic Church on other religions beginning with Nostra Aetate and afterwards. Ripperger asserts that Catholics may not pray with Protestants (or even permitted to go to Protestant weddings or funerals). That is not the current teaching or practice of the Church.

Hichborn doesn’t even attempt to argue that Ripperger grants assent to Nostra Aetate or the teachings of Pope St. John Paul II, for example, which are very clear. Hichborn attempts to dodge the question by arguing that Vatican II did not define any dogma. That is also not the issue.

Canon 752 states, “While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.”

Ripperger, in his interview with Ryan Grant, tries to minimize the importance of the teachings of the Council, saying:

So basically, with Nostra Aetate, the real question becomes what's its level of theological note, and does it compare to the theological note of the tradition of the past, and what's the correlation? So you can't just say, it's in the Council, therefore it's, it's, it's, that's not necessarily how that works either.

Fr. Ripperger’s point here is unclear. Is he suggesting Catholics should stack the teachings of ecumenical councils against earlier teachings, and toss out the conciliar teachings that aren’t identical to the past? If so, what’s the point of having ecumenical councils or hierarchical authorities at all? Where does this leave room for developments in doctrine or discipline? What if the individual Catholic disagrees with Fr. Ripperger on one of these questions? How is this not private interpretation?

Private interpretation of scripture and tradition is not how the Catholic Church passes down authentic teaching. As the Catechism (citing the Vatican II document Verbum Dei) teaches, “The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him” (CCC 100). Fr. Ripperger has veered far off course on something very fundamental the the Church’s understanding of the deposit of faith. (This is one reason I argued that his views are heterodox and contrary to Catholic tradition.)

Generational Spirits

Hichborn writes:

“While the question of generational curses is a relatively new concept, there is nothing in the notion itself which is counter to philosophy, theology, or Catholic teachings on metaphysics. Relying exclusively on one source to attack Fr. Ripperger’s writings and lectures on generational curses, Lewis merely pits one priest’s writings against another’s on a topic that has no particular doctrine attached to it.”

It seems odd that a “traditional” priest would adopt a “relatively new concept,” particularly one that originated in animism and was introduced to Catholics via Pentecostalism and the charismatic renewal. We have cited two prominent theologians on this issue: Fr. Peter Joseph of Sydney and the Mexican exorcist Fr. Rogelio Alcántara, both of whom have doctorates in theology (something Ripperger does not have). Fr. Joseph is the Censor for his archdiocese and Fr. Alcántara is director of the Commission for the Doctrine of the Faith in the Archdiocese of Mexico.

For the record, unlike Hichborn, Ripperger does not concede that generational spirits is a “new concept.” He told Ryan Grant:

It actually is part of the tradition. There is a layman by the name of Dr. Daniel Schneider. I can see if we can give those links to you. I don't know if we can give those links to you, Ryan, but they are two links. To some interviews that he actually did on the subject. He has thoroughly researched this throughout the course of the Fathers and shown that there is a consistent discussion about this particular topic, in the sense of that the effects of the sins of the parents pass on.

First, he is referring here to “effects of sin,” not to his claims about demons and spirits that pass from generation to generation. Second, there are no “links” that appear in the YouTube video’s description. Where are they?

Finally, in my correspondence with Fr. Peter Joseph, he made the following assertion (and gave me permission to post it):

If “the Fathers” taught about generational spirits, I am happy to be corrected. I have not read every line of every Father of the Church; no one has. If anyone claims that the Fathers teach about generational spirits, then he should name the Fathers and name the specific works and give exact references within those works, so we can verify it for ourselves, and also see the context of any such statements, in case that is relevant.

Perhaps someone can come up with 10 lines on that topic among 5 million lines of the Fathers – but that would not really prove anything, except that it was such a small thing – forgotten, left behind, not considered important, and so almost never quoted (until today!). You need more than 10 lines to show that we must follow this today. Anyone who has read large portions of the Fathers knows they gave all sorts of opinions that have been left behind or discarded by the Church and by Doctors of the Church since then. Some have been explicitly rejected, but many just ignored because regarded as strange or not considered helpful or enlightening. “De-emphasised” is another word for the same!

Not every sentence of the great Saint Augustine has to be followed; sometimes he made mistakes, as anyone can who writes so much. Not every single thing that St Thomas Aquinas wrote was correct. Sometimes, on subtle points, he takes up different positions at different times.

I have read and studied enough theology to know that some people say, “the Fathers (of the Church) taught …” – when it is simply 1 or 2 Fathers, and perhaps only once each. In other words, it is a misleading and exaggerated statement to say, “the Fathers taught” – when it is a tiny minority and, even then, not a major position of those Fathers, but only something said briefly and maybe only once.

Trent and Vatican I teach it is forbidden to interpret Holy Scripture in a sense contrary to “the unanimous consent of the Fathers” – which means you cannot re-propose some minority or exotic opinion of one Father or some Fathers as if it were revealed truth or obligatory.

“Generational curses,” etc. – why are they never spoken of in the Summa Theologica ? Why are they not mentioned in that major medieval work, the Sentences of Peter Lombard, or St Thomas’ enormous Commentary on the Sentences ? Where is that topic in the Roman Catechism of 1566, the writings of St Robert Bellarmine, St Teresa of Jesus, St John of the Cross, St Alphonsus Liguori, St John Henry Newman, Fr Garrigou-Lagrange O.P., Fr Antonio Royo Marin O.P., the Papal encyclicals, or the Catechism of the Catholic Church ? Amazing that such an important topic never gets even a mention from major documents and luminaries of the Church!

I will be happy to resume this discussion after Fr. Ripperger provides his sources and substantiates his claims.