The pope is setting up to undertake a new exorcism campaign, calling for exorcists in every diocese in the world, according to the exorcist in the diocese of Rome, Father Gabriele Amorth. (I actually thought every diocese had them, but maybe that was de facto, not de jure.) The Vatican, however, flatly denies it. Fr. Amorth also says that the St. Michael prayer will be restored to its place at the end of the liturgy. That's rather interesting too.
I would personally welcome an exorcism campaign. Demonic possession is real and too many people don't believe it exists. Of course it must be carefully distinguished from mental illness, but let us also not forget that psychiatrists are trained to diagnose everything unusual as mental illness, i.e., they exclude a priori demonic possession, so the exorcist has to be savvy enough to know when to trust the doctor.
Of course this opens up the question of what harm would it do to exorcise someone who is merely mentally ill? Obviously it won't harm the person; the harm comes to the public and the church as there is a danger of a spectacle being made that would not be conducive to faith and may reflect poorly on the church. Is there a way to do a simple test exorcism in private that might reveal whether the individual is truly possessed? That assumes though that you'll get obvious feedback if the person is possessed. That may not be so.
It used to be that the church did exorcisms during mundane events like baptisms. I think there still is a rite but I don't know how often it is used. I think the problem is that in being so restrictive about exorcisms we've made them seem like a big deal which has caused us to be more restrictive which makes them seem like an even bigger deal. If exorcisms were an everyday thing no one would care about them. But because they are so rare, they draw attention, and now that they have this cachet so to speak about them, it's hard to do them without drawing loads of unwanted attention. And here the ritualistic way it used to be done is a liability because it makes it seem more mysterious and interesting.
Protestants have it lucky. They just say, "In the name of Jesus I bind you Satan and set this person free (Hallelujah!)" and boom, it's done. Nobody particularly cares that they are doing it, because, well, they aren't Catholics (like I said we have this mystical aura about us when it comes to exorcisms), and they aren't as interesting when they do it. No one in the movies calls a Fundamentalist preacher to exorcise anyone. Thus they don't have to worry about drawing attention to themselves and causing a row, and hence can do it under mundane circumstances. A Catholic priest doing an exorcism, however, is like a four fire trucks, three cop cars, and two ambulances all along the side of a highway. It draws a lot of unwanted attention. So we don't do them as often as perhaps we should. (This is why diocesan exorcists are supposed to remain anonymous.)
Maybe if we kept a healthy number of exorcists and exorcisms, we'd remind people that Satan exists. That would be a good thing.
I realized something as I gazed today on a classical portrayal of St. Paul preaching yesterday or today or sometime, and that is that it seems to be the custom when religious art is drawn to portray saints without shoes (as this work portrayed St. Paul, and no, sorry, I do not have a link as I forgot where I saw it). Why is this I wonder? This is certainly the case for the 
