did the priest molest her?


anna, the girl, kept telling the men not to leave her alone with debalzac, the priest. i admit, the priest was creepy, but did he actually touch her as she claimed? now, some people will say she was posssesed and that was the demon talking, but honestly when someone is possessed the person does have small windows of opprotunity to act themselves. So did he? the "demon" per say only comes out at the right moments usually, i.e. when they get to the town with the friars. he could have very well hurt her when she was imprisoned. is that what she's talking about?

reply

No, but he did molest the young altar boy knight on numerous occasions...

"Nate Robinson (5'9 180lbs) would whip Pau Gasols (7'0 250lbs) ass"
-Douche Goon, moron of IMDB

reply

^

LOL, I knew somebody would answer that. I would, but you came first. XD

reply

"I would, but you came first."

That's what she said!

"Love keeps her in the air when she oughta fall down. Makes her home."

reply

"No, but he did molest the young altar boy knight on numerous occasions..."

Did he like it ?

reply

It was better than Robert Downey Jr. & Tobey Maguire in Satan's Alley :)

reply

From the brief scene in the dungeons, it looked more like he tortured her, she has red welts on her back. He wouldn't have molested her, he was a priest and therefore celibate, and there is nothing in the film to suggest that he would dishonour his vows that way. And yes, torturing a young girl doesn't sound like honourable conduct at all, but in the context of medieval Europe, its pretty much normal.

reply

i always wonder about idiots like you, it is perplexing. he was a priest, therefore celibate, so what? that doesn't mean there aren't imposters and corrupt people in any office. also, no matter what is considered common at a certain time doesn't make it any more moral or less heinous.

reply

In the dungeon we saw the markings on her back, but they might just have been devil created illusions to gain sympathy from the Nick Cage character who was looking for someone to save in order to make amends for his numerous acts of evilbaddiness.

reply

I think the intention of the film maker was for the demon to be in complete control of the girls body, and everything it did was to deceive each person in a different way.

If you watch throughout the movie, the girls face will often change between dirty / unattractive to pretty, sometimes this will happen in the same scene. It's already proven that it was able to make illusions, when it made the guy see his daughter.

reply

If you watch throughout the movie, the girls face will often change between dirty / unattractive to pretty, sometimes this will happen in the same scene. It's already proven that it was able to make illusions, when it made the guy see his daughter.


Yeah. That was one of the great things about this movie, the details in the girls face/appearence/state of mind changing like that. :)

reply

Next time try reading more carefully. Unfortunately you missed the point of that post and just made yourself look stupid.

reply

And I always wonder about rude idiots like you. 'Ifeldmar' said there was nothing in the film to suggest that he would or did break his vows of celibacy, and this is absolutely true.

Nowhere did he say something like 'Priests take vows of celibacy, so they couldnt have molested those altar boys'. Can you *beep* read?

*beep* rude internet *beep* I bet you were so smug when you wrote that, di-ckwad.

reply

They didn't say it specifically, but the implication is definitely there since they said that he took a vow of celibacy. The fact is, they brought it up as a reason for molestation not happening, but as we all know that vow means absolutely nothing. It's incredibly easy to break any simple verbal vow.

The really funny thing is how hypocritical you are. You get mad at the above poster for being a rude internet *beep* but you do the exact same thing to them. Not only that but your last sentence isn't even a complete thought.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

reply

oh yeah, duh, he's a priest, he's celibate he COULDNT have molested her. y didnt i think o that.

reply

He could, but nothing in the movie suggested he did it and so was the point of the post you reply to. Debelzac was presented as a man who keeps his vows and celibate is one of his vows. So we have no reason to believe (apart from the girl's talking) that THIS PARTICULAR priest did anything like that to her. Heck, even she never said this.

reply

He wouldn't have molested her, he was a priest and therefore celibate, and there is nothing in the film to suggest that he would dishonour his vows that way


AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I'm sorry but that has to be the funniest damn thing I've read today. Priests still take vows of celibacy, but some still molest kids or have other sexual desires. Taking a vow doesn't make it impossible to violate said vow.

That said, there is nothing to suggest he actually molested her as the OP suggested.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

reply

Priest molest all the time.

reply

"he was a priest and therefore celibate, and there is nothing in the film to suggest that he would dishonour his vows that way"

Seriously... did you live in a cave and missed out on all the news about priests molesting boys (in real life I mean)?
Just because someone is a priest and celibate and whatever doesn't mean he can't sin. Even the pope could be a sinner.

And I'm pretty sure that even in medieval Europe it wasn't normal for priests to torture. I think you missed the point of being a priest.

reply

What's a pederast?

reply

its a homosexual priest with a foot fetish.

reply

[deleted]

You know what's handy at a time like this? A dictionary:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pederasty

sexual relations between two males, especially when one of them is a minor.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

reply

A pedophile who only likes boys.

reply

Women, particularly young women, are often accused of being "possessed" or "insane" [in the language of today] because they accuse some man with status in society of having molested or raped or otherwise sexually abused them.

reply

But but but... she was indeed a demon (or the devil?).
So figures he didn't do such thing to her, well unless she wanted that because it was part of the plan.


No-one molest a demon.

---
Lincoln Lee: I lost a partner.
Peter Bishop: I lost a universe!

reply

For accuracy I suppose a priest would not have tortured her himself, but someone else would have. At the end of the movie, the girl says she never knew Behren, implicating that she was not once by her own senses during the entire trip, otherwise she would have known. It was the demon trying to trick everyone.

The movie was quite horrible though, so I wouldn't be amazed if she was actually tortured by him.

reply

Actually, no, it is accurate to say that the priest did in fact torture her.
Priests were trained to torture people, for example to break every bone in someone's body in order to drive the demon away from them. It was believed that if they broke every bone, then the demon would not have anything to hold on to and it would have to leave the body.
Don't take this as an attack on you, I just wanted to clear that up. It's just one of the many misconceptions many of us have about those heresy trials, until we read books or take courses that deal with this issue.
It's fascinating (as well as obviously *beep* scary) to realize how people thought in those times.
What we think, when we look at it through our modern day eyes, is just evil, hipocrisy or plain sadism from the priests or the people who gathered to watch the execution of "heretics", is actually a deeply-held belief that priests and the majority of people had. I already gave the example of the "reasoning" behind breaking every bone in someone's body. There would also be the fact that the priests were adamant on extracting a confession, but it was supposed to be a heart-felt confession. Even if they tortured them, they gave them time to heal before taking their confession.

reply

To throw in my opinion on the matter, while it is true that a vow of celibacy has meant nothing to many priests over history I think Debelzac was portrayed as someone who wouldn't. I personally think that the demon was trying to gain sympathy.

reply

I agree - well said anaconda89.

reply

Priests were trained to torture people, for example to break every bone in someone's body in order to drive the demon away from them. It was believed that if they broke every bone, then the demon would not have anything to hold on to and it would have to leave the body.

I'd like some sources on this, if you don't mind. Priests rarely did the torture themselves, and Catholic priests least of all. They were certainly not trained to torture people -- what's the point with that when you simply take the accused to the local henchman? The Catholics had the Inquisition, and not even the inquisitors performed the actual torture themselves. They oversaw it, supervised it, but torture was always left to the professionals. There are reasons why executioners were shunned by everyone, and torture is one of them. Priests, however, were not shunned, and would not have engaged in "unclean" tasks such as torture or execution. There were exceptions (I know of exactly one), but highly unlikely to have occurred among the Catholics, who were sticklers for red tape.

I have also never heard this nonsense about breaking every bone in the body. This was a secular capital punishment, called breaking on the wheel, but actually breaking every bone in the body was never done. What a tedious job that would be, and the condemned would be dead from internal bleeding and/or shock long before the last bone was broken anyway. And how would they go about with the vertebrae?

The policy of torture differed greatly from one nation to the next. Some places it was strictly prohibited. In Rome, torture could only be used if there was doubt as to the guilt of the defendant -- it was not allowed to be used to extract confession.

reply

What shocks me is how similar much of this thinking is to the thinking behind the medical and psychological professions up through today. Believing female "hysteria" i.e. any behavior that appeared strange to the men in her life, was caused by a 'wandering uterus', was accepted theory in the medical community until Freud disproved that in the early 1900s. Doctors treated "hysteria" with everything from the bizarre [putting smelling salts at a woman's vagina to "lure" the uterus back to where it was supposed to be] to the disgusting [forcibly masturbating women "hysterics"]. Undoubtedly, the 'hysterectomy' came about as part of this so-called "treatment process" as well.
Meanwhile, women to this day are over-diagnosed with subjective "diseases" at the hands of psychologists who use such diagnoses to justify all manner of invasive, brutalizing treatments. The fact that ECT, originating as a variety of torture, exists today as so-called "psychological treatment", really says it all.
The fact that ECT is primarily used to treat depression, which women remain diagnosed with 75% more than men do, says a whole lot more.

reply

" now, some people will say she was posssesed and that was the demon talking, but honestly when someone is possessed the person does have small windows of opprotunity to act themselves"

Care to explain how you know this?

reply

No the priest did not molest her. It was the demon simply trying to create strife between Behman and the priest. The demon knew Behman was upset over the atrocities the church had committed and was one way it might get to him.

reply

No, he did not rape her. If he would only try to touch her, she would kill him.

reply

[deleted]