CathInfo.com

I'm not buying this.  Modernist Clergy at the time generally were of the mind to deny the existence of diabolial possession.  I'm of the opinion that she was legitimately possessed, and it was in fact the atheist media and courts that claimed otherwise, due entirely to their lack of belief in possession.

.

Well, it doesn't follow from this that the priests who thought she was possessed must have been right. What does follow, which I think is relevant, is that the necessary wisdom, principles and guidance necessary to ascertain whether she was truly possessed or not were lacking, and that the priests who handled her case on the belief that she was possessed may have been in error. This error could have caused them to apply the wrong remedy, since if you misidentify the problem, you will misidentify the solution as well. And in an age of general materialism, a minority of the population can fall into superstition by believing in supernatural activity to an excessive degree. It is the Church that provides the correct balance in questions like this, and the authority of the Church was not operating in the normal manner in this time period.

That said, I'm not saying I think she was not possessed; she may have been, but the burden of proof is on the people who believe someone is possessed, and the Church tells us what burden of proof has to be met in alleged cases of demonic possession, and it does not appear that that burden of proof was met in her case.

Well, it doesn't follow from this that the priests who thought she was possessed must have been right. 

Of course.  I'm just saying that if they were wrong, it probably wasn't due to Modernism, as the Modernists tended to disbelieve in the very possibility of diabolical possession.  I tend to believe she was actually possessed ... but I'm not means certain of it, nor have I studied the matter enough to hold anything other than an extremely tentative position.