There are various problems in those accounts, Inc. There are certainly anomalies in this case that go against Catholic tradition. For example, the idea that she is the only person in the history of the Church to die as a result of diabolical possession. Catholicism is based on tradition, which in turn comes from unchanging principles, since they come from God. So, when something goes contrary to tradition, a Catholic should reject something like that automatically, since it goes against principles that cannot change. Now, when someone claims that Annelise is the only case in 2,000 years of someone dying as a result of demonic possession, the problem here is that, if the Church went 2,000 years without a person dying from diabolical possession, that is a strong sign that such a thing is impossible, or something that God would not allow. Now, God doesn't change, so it makes no sense to say that this apparent rule was broken in the 1970s.
That's one example, but there are a few other things that really strike me as off. Another thing is the idea that she was a victim soul suffering for the conversion of sinners through diabolical possession. I've heard of victim souls in Church history, but they are people who suffer from illness, injury, and mental torment. I'm not aware of any case of any canonized saint who was diabolically possessed at all, much less one who was a victim soul through her torments resulting from diabolical possession. Yes, saints were beaten up by the devil, such as the Cure of Ars, but he was not diabolically possessed, much less was his torment from possession used by God to atone for sin.
I don't think this is a coincidence, either. It seems contrary to God's holiness to be honored by someone shrieking blasphemies as a result of demonic possession. From the little that I know, diabolical possession is usually allowed by God to punish someone for his sins.
One of the weirdest statements in the article is the fact that Annelise had a boyfriend and went out on trips with him.
One Sunday afternoon in July, 1975, Anneliese and her boyfriend Peter decided to go for a walk around an area called Paradise Mill, near Rollbach, just east of Klingenberg . They drove up to Paradise Mill,
What?! I'm not saying it's a sin to have a boyfriend, but if we're claiming that Annelise Michel was at the heights of sanctity, was suffering torments for the conversion of sinners, had frequent communications with Our Lord and Our Lady, and ... was in a dating relationship with a boyfriend with no prospect of marriage (at the very least due to her ailments), and went out hiking with him, just the two of them apparently alone together? And rode to this destination together in a car, which most traditional Catholic priests tell dating couples not to do as it is an occasion of sin? All of this is absurd. When St. Rose of Lima received any attention from men at all, she rubbed hot peppers into her face and shaved her head. St. Margaret Mary was forced by her mother to dance as a young woman, but couldn't stand it and suffered incredible pain to obey. This is completely the opposite of what we're hearing about Annelise. And if Our Lord wanted her to be some great victim soul, don't you think that before asking her to suffer strange mystical demonic experiences, that He would begin by just asking her to get rid of her boyfriend and love Our Lord alone?
And the people writing these articles see no problem in any of these questions; they seem very ignorant of Catholic saints in general and how they live, and how the Church determines sanctity. I'm not saying Annelise Michel was or was not possessed, or wasn't a good person, but I am very skeptical of these bizarre claims made by her hagiographers, and if we only know about Annelise from the accounts of people who are this ignorant of Catholic belief and practice, and especially about the lives of the saints, then it's hard to say anything with certainty about Annelise at all.