Global Inventory: Which Countries and Denominations Officially Appoint Exorcists — A 2025 Audit
A 2025 audit of which countries and faith bodies formally appoint exorcists — comparing Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, Pentecostal and Islamic practices and state guidance.
Introduction — Why a 2025 audit matters
Interest in exorcism and deliverance ministries has remained prominent across media, pastoral ministries and public policy in recent years. This article compiles verifiable, contemporary information about which countries and religious bodies formally appoint or regulate exorcists, how that authority is conferred, and where alternative (non‑canonical) deliverance ministries are common but not formally appointed. The aim is practical: give clergy, clinicians, journalists and policy makers a clear, sourced snapshot for comparative doctrinal and regulatory reference.
Key takeaways: the Roman Catholic Church has the most formal, canonical framework for appointing exorcists (permission from the diocesan bishop is required); many Anglican provinces maintain diocesan deliverance teams or advisers; Eastern Orthodox practice is decentralized (priestly rites, local bishop oversight); Pentecostal/charismatic groups typically run informal deliverance ministries; and in several Muslim‑majority countries religious departments provide training/guidance for ruqyah (Islamic deliverance) though civil licensing varies by jurisdiction.
Catholic framework and state of appointments (summary)
The Roman Catholic Church provides the clearest canonical route for formal exorcist appointments: under Canon Law a solemn/major exorcism may be performed only by a bishop or by a priest who has received the bishop’s special and express permission. Dioceses commonly appoint one or more priests with that faculty and — where demand is high — maintain offices, centres or national associations to coordinate formation and referrals.
Institutional notes and examples
- International Association of Exorcists (IAE): an international body founded in the 1990s that provides formation, coordination and a network for canonically‑mandated priests; the Vatican formally recognized the group's statutes in 2014.
- Philippines: the Archdiocese of Manila launched and advanced plans for a dedicated Saint Michael Center for Spiritual Liberation and Exorcism (groundbreaking and press coverage in 2022), and the Philippine Association of Catholic Exorcists coordinates canonically‑mandated clergy. This is an example of a national church building formal infrastructure around exorcism ministry.
- United States: dioceses typically designate a priest as exorcist; one well‑documented example is Father Vincent Lampert, exorcist of the Archdiocese of Indianapolis (publicly appointed and active in mentoring). U.S. bishops’ conferences publish translations and guidance to support diocesan protocols.
Practical implications: where the Catholic Church is involved, appointment is a matter of diocesan authority and canon law; exorcists are expected to coordinate with medical and mental‑health professionals before and after any rite.
Non‑Catholic Christian traditions: how appointments and oversight differ
Anglican / Church of England: many dioceses maintain formally appointed deliverance advisers or teams; bishops approve or supervise cases and the Church issues guidance stressing safeguarding and medical collaboration. The Church of England has explicit diocesan structures advising how deliverance ministry should be exercised and by whom.
Eastern Orthodox: exorcistic prayers and deliverance rites are part of liturgical and pastoral tradition across Orthodox jurisdictions. Practice is more decentralized than in the Latin‑rite Catholic Church; individual bishops or local synods determine who may perform intensive deliverance rites and how they interact with pastoral care, often combining prayer, fasting and sacramental life. (See Orthodox liturgical sources and jurisdictional pastoral directives for specifics.)
Protestant, Pentecostal and Charismatic churches: many have active deliverance ministries and often appoint pastors or teams for ‘deliverance’ work, but these ministries are usually governed by denominational or congregational policy rather than any universal canon. This means that titles such as “exorcist” or “deliverance minister” may be used locally without the same canonical restraints that apply in Catholic dioceses; practices and safeguards vary widely.
Islamic ruqyah and state/religious regulation
Ruqyah (Islamic supplication and Quranic recitation used for spiritual healing) is commonly practiced across Muslim communities. In several countries, state religious authorities or agencies offer guidance, training courses and ethical standards for ruqyah practitioners — for example, Malaysian religious authorities (JAKIM and state Islamic departments) have run ruqyah training and guidance programs and have issued rules intended to prevent exploitative or syncretic practices. Such initiatives amount to an organised, state‑sponsored approach to regulating who may offer Islamic deliverance‑type services, but they are not identical to the diocesan, canonical appointment used by the Catholic Church.
What this means for officials
- Where civil or religious agencies provide training/guidelines (Malaysia, parts of Indonesia, some Gulf states), outcomes range from voluntary certification to statutory restrictions on fraud or unlicensed health‑related claims.
- Users and investigators should check local law: in some jurisdictions activity that blurs into medical treatment can trigger health‑care or consumer‑protection rules.
Comparative conclusions, practical guidance and audit findings (2025)
Summary audit findings:
| Sector / Tradition | Typical authority or appointment mechanism | Representative locations (examples) |
|---|---|---|
| Roman Catholic | Bishop appoints exorcist(s); canon law governs solemn exorcisms; national associations/centres may exist | Italy (many diocesan exorcists; historic centre in Rome), Philippines (Saint Michael Center development), United States (appointed diocesan exorcists such as Indianapolis). |
| Anglican / Episcopalian | Diocesan deliverance advisers/teams appointed by bishop; formal safeguarding guidance | Church of England dioceses, selected Anglican provinces. |
| Eastern Orthodox | Local bishop/priest‑led rites; decentralized practice; oversight varies by jurisdiction | Greece, Russia, various autocephalous churches. |
| Pentecostal / Charismatic | Local or denominational appointment of deliverance ministers; often less formal; high variability in safeguards | Global (not country‑level canonical appointment). |
| Islamic (ruqyah) | Guideline/training from religious departments; in some countries state agencies offer courses or oversight | Malaysia (JAKIM guidelines and training), Indonesia (local jurisprudence varies). |
Actionable guidance for readers and practitioners:
- Verify that any person calling themselves an “exorcist” has explicit local authorization where canonically or legally required (ask which authority — e.g., diocesan bishop, provincial synod, state religious department — conferred it).
- Where medical or psychiatric symptoms are plausible, insist on current medical/psychiatric evaluation before any rite (standard across Catholic guidelines and recommended in Anglican and other denominational policies).
- For journalists and researchers: when reporting on appointments or centres (for example diocesan exorcist offices or new centers like Manila’s Saint Michael Center) consult primary diocesan statements and reputable press coverage.
Final note: the single most consistent pattern across traditions is oversight — whether canonical, episcopal, diocesan, denominational or state‑level — aimed at limiting harm and distinguishing spiritual care from medical treatment. This 2025 audit finds formal appointment practices concentrated in the Catholic Church and in organised Anglican dioceses, with important state/religious regulation appearing in some Muslim contexts for ruqyah; elsewhere, deliverance remains locally defined and variable.