No apology necessary. I have no problem with the expression of alternative viewpoints. You are correct in that this is a much more personal essay. It is fascinating how different people see different things in films, as though they are the final piece of the puzzle that brings meaning.

From a strictly objective perspective, I still maintain The Exorcist is a great film in terms of acting, scripting, direction, and cultural impact. Beyond that, I'd also argue that it does have a lot to say about matters of faith. Just as you cite Rosemary's Baby, I'd argue there's plenty of subtext and metaphorical interpretation possible here too (for instance concerning fear of emergent female sexuality). It is also a film about grief.

I would agree that Friedkin's originally released cut trimmed out much of the faith elements that were so important to Blatty. If you read up on his history, Blatty was inspired by a real-life possession case (though a boy, not a girl) and was unhappy with Friedkin's cut, as he felt it minimised the faith aspects and muted the triumph of good over evil in the end. It is an interesting feud, as Friedkin approached the material as an atheist (unlike Blatty), which is what I think gives the film it's powerful undercurrent. One senses the tug of war between the secular and the supernatural as much as there was a tug of war between Friedkin and Blatty.

Of course, the extended cut (which this article is referring to) reinstates the material Blatty wanted back in.

One final point: I agree Don't Look Now is a remarkable film. I wrote a piece on that here, if you're interested. :)