The Devil Made Me Do It.
January 28, 2010, 10:12 am
Posted by Cathleen Kaveny
Here’s a link to Archbishop Chaput’s reflections on Satan.
Contributors
- Thomas Baker
- Paul Baumann
- Matthew Boudway
- Eric Bugyis
- Anthony Domestico
- The Editors
- Rita Ferrone
- Lisa Fullam
- Grant Gallicho
- David Gibson
- Luke Hill
- KeriLee Horan
- Robert P. Imbelli
- Cathleen Kaveny
- Joseph A. Komonchak
- Paul Lauritzen
- John McGreevy
- Scott D. Moringiello
- Paul Moses
- J. Peter Nixon
- Mollie Wilson O'Reilly
- Eduardo Peñalver
- Michael Peppard
- Dominic Preziosi
- John Schwenkler
- Peter Steinfels
- Margaret O'Brien Steinfels
- unagidon
- Andy Whinery
- Gregory Wolfe
- Celia Wren
- Don Wycliff
-
Recent posts
- The journey of America’s newest, oldest saint
- Billable Hours and Ordinary Time: An Empirical Study
- Elsewhere
- The Eucharist Is Food and Love
- New Missal Survey Shows Most Priests Dissatisfied
- Introducing Dr. Baumann
- New issue, now live
- The Cammino concludes
- Last Breath … and First
- If you don’t live in Nebraska… UPDATE…or Kansas
-
Past months
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
-
Syndication
Copyright © 2013 Commonweal Foundation
Sad revelations revealing a very Pelagian outlook on life. Rather evangelical; black and white vision of life. Where is hope? Context seems to be out of fear and anxiety – not exactly the stance of a faith-filled, hopeful person; much less religious leader.
No matter what you make of it – this isn’t exactly at the level of Neibuhr, Vanier, Sant- Egidido, etc. Sounds like Bush and Cheney discussing American foreign policy – always start by identifying your enemies.
“I thought that after 20 years more of my life things would change and things would be a lot better but I don’t think they are.” Thus Archbishop Chaput. But the really interesting question is “Why did he think that?” Unfortunately he does not tell us.
Yes. Disappointed hopes for a Great Awakening.
What I think is striking is that Apb. Chaput is trying very hard not to be like our Protestant brothers and sisters, but his rhetoric–even his way of framing the battle between God and Satan seems to me, at least, to be quite indebted to the rhetoric of the Protestant evangelical tradition. See Mark Noll’s book on America’s God.
If you can dismiss those who disagree with you as enemies under the influence of Satan, well, then you don’t really have to talk with them respectfully,do you?
Sad, really.
One can often grow weary as a member of The Church Militant.
When I went to read the story, another appeared on the list, about the Legionnaires of Christ, http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/fr._corcuera_advises_charity_as_legionaries_discuss_future/
I mention this because Abp Chaput is one of the bishops leading the Apostolic Visitation of the Legion. That seems like more than enough reason to be disheartened by the deception and “evil” among even the most devout in the Church. He may talk about porn, gay marriage or other cultural issues, but he is probably referring to the corrupting of Fr Maciel.
Can someone explain to me how Satan is alleged to work in the world?
“So, those kind of basic human values, the value of chastity and the value of family life are popularly seen as ‘old fashioned’ because of the lies, because of the deceptions of the Evil One. Even Catholics are afraid of standing up for the truth because we’re afraid of being branded ‘old-fashioned”
Chaput, of course takes a knock on politicians. Maybe Chaput hasn’t read about the huge number of pols from both parties who failed in chastity and family life and are in un-electable disgrace. These pols could only wish that voters were ‘afraid of being branded old fashioned’. Maybe like Palin, he doesn’t read the papers. Maybe he thinks, with the Devil’s help, Edwards et al are on the road to comebacks!. He even thinks porn has a visable, encouraging constituancy . Maybe he needs to know that porn is a dirty little secretive thing much like pedophilia . Maybe he is out of touch..
Ed, all one has to do is look to see that the objectification of the Human Person is a sign of the Time we live in.
“Can someone explain to me how Satan is alleged to work in the world?”
You might want to read C.S. Lewis’s “The Screwtape Letters,” David. It’s enjoyable fiction, but it’s also filled with all sorts of practical advice about Our Father Below and his techniques, which Lewis depicts as much more subtle than dramatic.
I don’t have as much a problem with Satan as I do with Chaput letting himself (and us) of the hook when it comes to social revolution by individualizing salvation. How can he claim that the battle is cultural and then cop-out by claiming that victory is personal?
Sad and revealing. Claire Boothe Luce used to say that you cannot sell tragedy to a Christian audience because they always hope. In truth, Charlie Chaput’s words are unChristian. Jesus consoled: “Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me.” He also said: “”These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world.”
Certainly, there are matters to grieve over because of the evil that people inflict on one another. While we keep our joy we work to improve health care and living conditions for others.
Charly needs a new spiritual director.
Interesting point.
William Collier, you’re making me do this (not Satan).
For those of us of a certain age, the invocation of Satan inevitably conjures the image of Dana Carvey as the Church Lady in Church Chat. I vowed to refrain from posting it until and unless someone brought up the Screwtape Letters. Note the Senator from MN as Jimmy Swaggart.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/4151/saturday-night-live-church-chat
“What I think is striking is that Apb. Chaput is trying very hard not to be like our Protestant brothers and sisters, but his rhetoric–even his way of framing the battle between God and Satan seems to me, at least, to be quite indebted to the rhetoric of the Protestant evangelical tradition.”
But we shouldn’t let Protestant evangelicals corner the market on warnings of Satan – should we? Is there a more distinctively Catholic way to think or talk about Satan? Or should Catholics simply eschew such talk?
The Gospel readings assigned to the 1st Sunday of Lent force us to at least confront Satan’s existence and challenge us to think and talk about Satan. Whether we rise to the challenge, I don’t know.
“If you can dismiss those who disagree with you as enemies under the influence of Satan, well, then you don’t really have to talk with them respectfully,do you? ”
I suppose it depends on whether or not one thinks there really is such a being as Satan, and whether that being really does work evil in the world. When the wolf is in the fold and has the lamb in its jaws, istm that neither dismissing it nor dialoguing with it are appropriate responses – that’s the time for the shepherd to start whacking away with the crook. Right?
William,
Thanks for the suggestion. I read The Screwtape Letters, along with most of C. S. Lewis’s popular books (including the Space Trilogy), although it has been some time. The only one that has made a lasting impression is A Grief Observed.
I suppose it depends on whether or not one thinks there really is such a being as Satan, and whether that being really does work evil in the world.
Jim,
Can you explain how Satan is supposed to work in the world, and how to fight him? Can he burn down somebody’s house? Can he inflame someone with lust? Can he hear our thoughts? Can he put thoughts in someone’s head?
Wasn’t the death and resurrection of Jesus supposed to make a difference?
Cathleen–
Glad to oblige by referencing Wormwood et al., and thanks for the link. :)
I thought Dana Carvey was great in that character role. His George H.W. Bush impression was excellent, too.
In what way — exactly — is Satan responsible for Internet pornography?
Jusy want to say that making the battle with satan as not being like our Protestant brothers or even the secular world is not only grossly simplistic but also highly insulting.
Also think people in general and Catholics who have to put up with much in our Church and our politics are deeply aware of evil in the world, but don’t see it the good Archbishop’s way.
Cathy’s right – this is sad indeed.
“Responding later to a question from CNA about where he sees the Devil’s presence in society, the archbishop said, “Well, one of the most obvious things in the United States is internet pornography which is pervasive, and subtle, and attractive and totally destructive of peoples’ lives and there’s very little talk about fighting it. ”
“Pervasive” and “destructive” maybe, but isn’t it surprising to find the Archbishop terming internet pornography “subtle” and “attractive”?
Everyone here should know that Chaput religiously reads this blog. Which is why I wonder he does not enter the dialogue. First of all many of us here have been married to only one person for a very long time. (Not that I condemn anyone who is divorced)Secondly, no one here supports pornography. But neither have we termed internet porn “subtle and attractice.” Good call, Susan. Though you were kind enough to call it interesting rather than telling.
But we just might have too much of the virtue of hope for Charlie. He and his assoicates tendency to curse the darkness might give him a hint as to what culture needs changing.
Oh please. Even my sons, who are big fans of Sports Illustrated, recognize the infamous “swim suit issue” for what it is. That would be just one example.
Are you confessing, Nancy?
This piece may throw some light on Archbishop Chaput’s depressed tone. http://www.life-after-rc.com/2010/01/magnificent-in-its-entirety.html In brief Fr. Richard Gill has announced that he has left the Legionaries of Christ and has applied to become a priest of the Archdiocese of NT.
David,
Can someone explain to me how Satan is alleged to work in the world
Ignatian spirituality sees people as being influenced by both the good and bad spirit ….. so Satan would be leading people away from God while the good spirit leads then toward God. This is the basis of the discernment of spirits. I think most Jesuits don’t take this idea lterally, but many do, and Ignatius did. Here’s a quote from Spirit of Light or Darkness? by Jules Toner SJ ….
“What is meant by “spirits” in this context? By that term we refer to the Holy Spirit and to created spiritual beings (angels, Satan, and demons). There are some who question the reality of created spiritual beings …. Ignatius without doubt was sure of their reality, and we will speak from his point of view. But is there any reason for us to concern ourselves with any spirit other than the Holy Spirit? With the good angels, no: for whatever way they would influence us would be what the Holy Spirit wants them to do. About evil spirits, however, we need to concern ourselves very much. Most of the rules [Ignatius' rules for the discernment of spirits] are taken up with discerning when the evil spirit is acting upon us and how to defeat him. In the context of our study, the term “evil spirit” will be extended to include not only evil spirits in the proper sense of the term, that is, created personal immaterial beings, but also the dispositions of evil within ourselves, the evil structures of society, all that can be a source of inner movements (of thoughts, affective feelings, and affective acts) contrary to what the Holy Spirit wishes to work in our lives through faith, hope, and love. The term will not include in its meaning those antispiritual movements themselves. Some commentators seem to understand evil spirit to mean such movements; They seriously misrepresent Ignatius’s thought by doing so.”
Oops, the diocese is NY.
“Can you explain how Satan is supposed to work in the world, and how to fight him? Can he burn down somebody’s house? Can he inflame someone with lust? Can he hear our thoughts? Can he put thoughts in someone’s head? ”
First of all, I second (or I guess it’s now third, at least) the recommendation to read the Screwtape Letters.
Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
———————–
549 By freeing some individuals from the earthly evils of hunger, injustice, illness and death,274 Jesus performed messianic signs. Nevertheless he did not come to abolish all evils here below,275 but to free men from the gravest slavery, sin, which thwarts them in their vocation as God’s sons and causes all forms of human bondage.276
550 The coming of God’s kingdom means the defeat of Satan’s: “If it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.”277 Jesus’ exorcisms free some individuals from the domination of demons. They anticipate Jesus’ great victory over “the ruler of this world”.278 The kingdom of God will be definitively established through Christ’s cross: “God reigned from the wood.”279
—————————
VII “BUT DELIVER US FROM EVIL”
2850 The last petition to our Father is also included in Jesus’ prayer: “I am not asking you to take them out of the world, but I ask you to protect them from the evil one.”163 It touches each of us personally, but it is always “we” who pray, in communion with the whole Church, for the deliverance of the whole human family. The Lord’s Prayer continually opens us to the range of God’s economy of salvation. Our interdependence in the drama of sin and death is turned into solidarity in the Body of Christ, the “communion of saints.”164
2851 In this petition, evil is not an abstraction, but refers to a person, Satan, the Evil One, the angel who opposes God. The devil (dia-bolos) is the one who “throws himself across” God’s plan and his work of salvation accomplished in Christ.
2852 “A murderer from the beginning, . . . a liar and the father of lies,” Satan is “the deceiver of the whole world.”165 Through him sin and death entered the world and by his definitive defeat all creation will be “freed from the corruption of sin and death.”166 Now “we know that anyone born of God does not sin, but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him. We know that we are of God, and the whole world is in the power of the evil one.”167
The Lord who has taken away your sin and pardoned your faults also protects you and keeps you from the wiles of your adversary the devil, so that the enemy, who is accustomed to leading into sin, may not surprise you. One who entrusts himself to God does not dread the devil. “If God is for us, who is against us?”168
2853 Victory over the “prince of this world”169 was won once for all at the Hour when Jesus freely gave himself up to death to give us his life. This is the judgment of this world, and the prince of this world is “cast out.”170 “He pursued the woman”171 but had no hold on her: the new Eve, “full of grace” of the Holy Spirit, is preserved from sin and the corruption of death (the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Most Holy Mother of God, Mary, ever virgin). “Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring.”172 Therefore the Spirit and the Church pray: “Come, Lord Jesus,”173 since his coming will deliver us from the Evil One.
2854 When we ask to be delivered from the Evil One, we pray as well to be freed from all evils, present, past, and future, of which he is the author or instigator. In this final petition, the Church brings before the Father all the distress of the world. Along with deliverance from the evils that overwhelm humanity, she implores the precious gift of peace and the grace of perseverance in expectation of Christ’s return By praying in this way, she anticipates in humility of faith the gathering together of everyone and everything in him who has “the keys of Death and Hades,” who “is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”174
Deliver us, Lord, we beseech you, from every evil and grant us peace in our day, so that aided by your mercy we might be ever free from sin and protected from all anxiety, as we await the blessed hope and the coming of our Savior, Jesus Christ.175
Jim
I see that the CCC says that the last petition of the Lord’s Prayer is “deliver us from the evil one”. That is certainly the best way of reading the Greek; the Latin is ambiguous, but it is only a translation. So why does no one want to correct the Lord’s Prayer for liturgical purposes. A mistake long repeated is a mistake for all that. I am sure you will agree.
“Can someone explain to me how Satan is alleged to work in the world?”
Thanks Jim P for posting the excerpt from the Catechism; very helpful.
And keep in mind David that, just because we do not understand how someone or something operates, does not mean it is not real.
I am not sure how my automobile or computer works, but I know both of them exist and that they in fact do work. Many people do not understand electricity, but it is nonetheless a real force.
” A mistake long repeated is a mistake for all that. I am sure you will agree.”
I’m sorry, Joseph, as much as I am inclined to agree with your well-reasoned point, Liturgiam Authenticam prevents me from acknowledging that the Greek may be consulted :-).
I’ve read that the Our Father was sort of a liturgical translation anomaly: there were some folks who wanted to render it in more contemporary English, but it was decided to retain the KJV translation out of reverence for it (and possibly fear about what would happen to their hides if they messed with it :-)).
For all that, in the Liturgy of the Hours, they seem to have revised the “Glory be to the Father …”, confusing the heck out of every incoming deacon class. :-)
Crystal, Jim, and Ken,
Thank you all. Very interesting. But I still don’t understand the connection between Satan and Internet pornography. Can Satan read your thoughts? Can he put thoughts into your head? Can he influence your web browser in such a way that you stumble across porn that you wouldn’t otherwise have seen? Or if you stumble across porn by pure accident, can he tempt you to look at it more than you might otherwise have done? And what about the victory of Jesus over Satan mentioned in the Catechism? What was that victory if Satan still can cause bad things to happen in the world?
Bill–
How do you know Cardinal Chaput religiously reads this blog?
How do you know Cardinal Chaput religiously reads this blog?
Mark,
The man’s a cardinal. Are you suggesting that he would read it irreligiously???
David N: Charles Chaput is but an Archbishop, alas. That may well change. If it does, he won’t have time to read blogs–religiously or not!
David,
I think that Ignatius would think is that the bad spirit can influence people, but that people bear the responsibility to discern their inclinations and make the right choices anyway. I don’t think Satan, if he exists, can make a porn page appear on one’s computer, nor force a person to look at the page once they’ve come upon it. This seems like the ultimate in passing the buck.
Bill, confessing to what Bill?
I think that Ignatius would think that there are many who no longer are able to discern the sign of the Time despite the fact that there is evidence of the sexual objectification of the Human Person everywhere. And no, Crystal, turning the channel, doesn’t make it go away.
Ken –
I agree that just because we don’t know — or can’t envision — how something works doesn’t imply that it doesn’t. The question is: is Satan just a metaphor?
I don’t know, but I don’tthink he can be dismissed out of hand as real, if, that is, you think that we are part spirit and created by God. Why couldn’t He create spirits greater than we are? I don’t fnd any internal cntradiction in the idea of angels, both good and bad.
So why think he is real? The most pursuasive argument to me are those gigantic events of maliciousness that seem to be beyond the capacities for evill of human beings. I’m thinking, of course, first of the Shoah.
And it is also true that many if not most cultures believe in evil spirits. Is that because of experience of them? or because they see such spirits as the most likely explanations of malice and other evils?
If I’m not mistaken Archb. Chaput is of Amerindian descent. Perhaps that has something to do with his easy and strong acceptance of the belief in evil spirits.
Jim
I understand your point. But if Liturgiam authenticam requires that we replicate the mistakes of the past, it refutes itself and loses all credibility.
I have to say, I think there was some false advertising in this thread. I clicked the link to the actual article, expecting to find some juicy stuff about Chaput saying you can dismiss those who disagree with you as enemies under the influence of Satan, and it’s ok to treat them disrespectfully, and perhaps maybe even see him doing exactly that, but…uh…well…it wasn’t there. Something similarly disappointing occurred in the bible verses/citations on military weapons thread.
Do I have legal remedies available to me?
Jim
The KJV version? You are thinking of the Catholic Version (Douai-Reims). The KJV has “forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors”–if only we had the same! Protestants were often right.
why does no one want to correct the Lord’s Prayer for liturgical purposes
iirc, the Lord’s Prayer was a start on the effort to provide common prayer for all the people of England, coming almost a decade before the Book of Common Prayer. KJV kept the translation nearly 100 years later.
It is this heritage, as a prayer common to all Christians, that makes it hard to change. Presbyterians have made an effort, forgiving debts instead of trespasses, but it never caught. LA probably dictates that the translation should be changed, just so it will differ. sigh. But if there is ANY tradition in English in our Church, it is the Our Father. The words themselves cry out for a common text that we can all share.
He continued with a comparison of the temptation we face to be like “everyone else” like the Israelites from the Old Testament wishing for a king like the other nations. They wanted a king … they got Saul and he was a good man, and then he became a politician and he lost his faith. We’re just like that.”
This is Chaput’s description of how Satan works. It is a very interesting example that shows the disappointment of Saul’s kingship, but leaving out the rest: “they got Saul” and David and the Son of David. Satan is about the short term conflicts, while God is about the ultimate Resurrection.
See Job, where Satan has his biggest role in which he triumphs short term but never is victorious. Or Jude, where Michael battles Satan with that grand militarism: “Let the Lord rebuke you.”
Or see Peter Cook’s masterful portrayal of Satan in BEDAZZLED, where everything is about the nit picking conflicts until friendship outdoes all his planning. (not really everything, I guess; there also tremendous feet)
Jim Mck
The KJV has “debts” and “debtors”; it is the Rheims version that uses “trespasses” and “trespass”. Actually “debts” is closest to both the Latin and the Greek. However Tyndale does have “trespasses”. Tyndale is the earliest English except for Wyclife (spelling?).
Zenit has Chaput’s speech http://www.zenit.org/article-28172?l=english
Joseph,
my apologies for remembering the KJV incorrectly. My Scottish heritage should have reminded me that James I of England after he was James VI of Scotland, where Presbyterian thought predominated.
No.
“During his keynote address, Archbishop Chaput had also referred to the importance of recognizing that evil exists and that “Satan is real.”"
Anyone else out there have that great album by The Louvin Brothers, _Satan Is Real_?
“In America, we don’t want to be different than our Protestant brothers and sisters(.”) Which Protestants? That always need to be subdivided; that is, unless we want to simply say, “They’re ALL wrong!”
Anyone else out there have that great album by The Louvin Brothers, _Satan Is Real_?
Shawn,
I do . . . kind of. I subscribe to Rhapsody, and there are four albums available.
The Louvin Brothers Sing the Great Roy Acuff Songs
Live at New River Ranch
Songs That Tell a Story
Satan is Real
For $14.99 a month, you can listen to just about anything that’s ever been recorded, and also transfer hours of music to an MP3 player to carry it around with you. (I am not a stockholder, just a satisfied customer.)
I am with Mark on this. There is nothing in what he said that seems other than what the Church teaches.
In that regard, this thread again demonstrates something that I find puzzling about this blog. Clearly, many posters do not accept the existence of Satan, or that he operates in the world. Both clear teachings of the Church. He is not a metaphor, and accepting this teaching is not Pelagian. Neither does understanding this or discussing it indicate that we are somehow not responsible for our acts as the title of the post suggests.
The question I have, is two fold. If you don’t believe what the Church teaches on this, why are you commenting at all? This is not to say I think such comments should be prohibited, but it’s kind of like going to a Hindu blog and trashing someone about what they said about reincarnation. Why would you bother if you think the whole thing is hokum? Second, if you reject this teaching of the Church, why not say so outright? At least others can put your comments in context.
On the subtlety of pornography, I think his point isn’t that the pornography is subtle but that its influence is. Like many social evils, it pervades society but doesn’t seem to on the surface. I would say things like child abuse, spouse abuse, and infidelity are also like this. They aren’t subtle in themselves, but they are hidden and their influence on everything else is not always easy to discern on the surface.
Clearly, many posters do not accept the existence of Satan, or that he operates in the world.
Sean,
How does Satan operate in the world? If there is no answer to that, then what does it mean to say he operates in the world? Can Satan tempt an individual? Does God allow that? What does it mean to say Jesus defeated Satan if Satan is still roaming the world freely doing evil? Assenting to a teaching of the Church but not having any idea what it actually means doesn’t make sense to me.
I think his point is that the path to pornography and other evil often begins in a subtle way making it harder to discern. That being said, although you may not always recognize his work, the devil exists, and if you look closely, he is always in the details.
Sean, I think you’re too crude. It’s one thing to believe what the church teaches–it’s another thing to say that it’s the appropriate response to a particular situation.
I think Chaput is being too crude–attributing to the devil things that may be questions of mental illness, etc. Any high school history of this country ought to show why being too quick to see the devil in certain actions or patterns of activities can be dangerous.
What about drug addiction? What about alcohol addiction? Are they the devil or illness?
I also wonder why he didn’t mention–say the corruption of the financial markets, or the pedophilia scandal–or the divisions within the church. St. Paul’s description of the war between the spirit and the flesh isn’t just about the physical. Why wasn’t the devil in the crisis that nearly brought down the country?
I find it very interesting. 60 years or so after Winthrop landed in Massachusetts, the Salem witch trials commenced. Is there something in the dichotomous religious mindset that moves too quickly to the devil?
I would say David, that I am not sure exactly how Satan “operates in the world”, but it is obvious that he does. Look for example, at Auschwitz, the Cambodian killing fields, the millions who died at the hands of atheistic Soviet and Chinese Communists, and more recently, the Rwandan genocide. In each case, Evil rose to the fore and ruled the day. Good ultimately prevailed (thankfully), but for those moments anyway, Evil prevailed.
Saint Paul wrote about the frustration he felt for wanting to do good, but ultimately doing bad things, and I think that is a big part of it. Concupiscence is a real human characteristic in that while we humans know what is right and wrong, in spite of that, we often choose to do the wrong thing and then we feel bad afterwards. In general, we humans have trouble forcing our desire to submit to our will.
The folks who are clairvoyant or have those special psychic tendencies, or “gifts” often refer to dark entities or energies, and while I do not understand, I do know that not all those folks are charlatans. I do not have those tendencies but an aunt of mine does and I recall when I was a child, when Mom bought a Ouija board thinking it was just a board game, my aunt advised her to quietly dispose of the thing so none of us kids would inadvertently “open a door to things” we did not understand and could not deal with. Mom did as her sister advised (she burned it actually), and we hardly noticed that the game went away; she told us later when we were adults.
Exorcisms are a frightening phenomenon that I do not understand but are nonetheless real. It is interesting that Protestant Pastors do not perform exorcisms; they refer those cases to Catholic priests. It is also interesting that folks involved in the satanic and who wish to descrate a host only choose hosts consecrated by a Catholic priest.
All cultures recognize the difference between good and bad sides of our nature and each culture has its own way of stating that. We Christians say humans are children of God, who of course is Love and Truth, but that due to the Fall we are subject to concupiscence which is the slavery of Satan, that father of lies, who prowls about the world like a lion, seeking the ruin of souls.
This is a complicated and frightening subject to be sure.
Couple of more thoughts:
I think the linking of pornography with divorce as major examples of the work of Satan shows the problematic of Chaput’s practical sense.
On the web today, BXVI wants annuments tightened up and people urged to stay together -doesn’t he realize that by the time folks seek annulments, their marriages are iretreivably and sometimes quite angrily destroyed?
Chaput, George et al. live in a rather encapsulated world i nwhicj it’s easy to be facile about evil abd try to bolster the party line (or Church teaching as Sean would have it)
As I said, I think many faithful are deply aware of the evil in today’s world and this reminder was rather simplistic.I also think we could use a thread on the eschatological meaning of the Lord’s prayer – seperate topic.
This is a complicated and frightening subject to be sure.
Ken,
It makes me edgy just to discuss it. And I suppose I don’t want any of it to be true. But it seems to me there are very serious questions that need answers. If Auzchwitz and the other evils you mentioned are even partly attributable to Satan acting in the world, why is God letting him? What does it mean to say that Jesus triumphed over Satan by his death and resurrection? And what can Satan actually do? If Satan can do evil in the world, and he must be fought, then it seems to me one must know what he can do in order to fight him. If fighting Satan is simply fighting against evil, then it does seem to me that Satan is for all practical purposes a metaphor.
The topic of possession scares the wits out of me. Someone once told me he thought Jaws was the scariest movie ever made. My thought was that if you find Jaws frightening, stay out of the water. But if you found The Excorcist frightening, it doesn’t even help to hide under the bed. But I am not convinced possession is real. And I don’t see what the point would be. And if a demon can really take control of someone, what’s to stop him from taking control of a president of the United States and starting a nuclear war?
Nature was brutal before human beings came on the scene, and I don’t see a need to posit a “fall” to explain evil in the world. And even if the fall is in some sense true, people can be evil enough on their own accord to perpetrate something like the Holocaust.
I don’t know if it is true as a general rule that Protestants turn to Catholic for things like exorcism, but I do remember reading an online discussion of a woman (Protestant) who thought something evil was inhabiting her house, and she insisted that she had to have a Catholic priest come cast it out. The obvious question in cases like that is, if you believe it’s only the Catholic priests who have “real powers,” why don’t you become a Catholic?
In any case, I don’t find it a satisfactory answer to say, “I don’t know how Satan works in the world, but it is obvious he does.” It’s kind of a variant on the “God of the gaps” argument. If you can’t explain it, claim a supernatural power is responsible.
I see that Archbishop Chaput’s essay, now available at First Things, cites the marvelous philosopher Leszek Kolakowski who often wrote about the devil, to the dismay of his largely secular audiences. Here’s a telling anecdote about Kolakowski from the very secular Tony Judt:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGIyZTJiZWJkNDBkMTU3NmNmYzk3NTlkYWZkYWRhNTE=
FWIW I believe Chaput is as capable as anyone here of simultaneously treating his opponents respectfully and yet believing in the devil.
Here’s how Chaput introduces the “devil” portion of the speech:
So Cathy’s problem with this is that 1) it’s too Protestant, and 2) it doesn’t speak of mass murderers “respectfully” enough.
Here’s how Chaput introduces the “devil” portion of the speech
Studebaker,
That speech, however, is not what Cathy Kaveny was commenting on. She was commenting on his reflections after the speech but before the question-and-answer section, as reported in the news article she linked to. The speech wasn’t given in the article. It is hardly fair to criticize her for comments she made on his remarks after the speech by implying she made them about the speech itself. The “enemies” he talks about in his remarks are not “mass murderers.” He’s clearly talking politics, at least in part, but he’s wise enough not to get too specific.
If you want to accuse Cathy Kaveny of quoting Archbishop Chaput out of context, first you’re going to have to criticize the Catholic News Agency for printing an article about the remarks without printing the speech, and then you’re going to have to provide a transcript of the question-and-answer session that followed, since only then will we have the full context of the speech and the remarks following.
If we see on the mass murders of the twentieth century the “fingerprints” of Satan, “an Intelligence who is personal, gifted, calculating and powerful,” the theodicy problem raised in the string on Haiti becomes much more difficult. Someone noted that the Catechism says, “Victory over the ‘prince of this world’ was won once for all at the Hour when Jesus freely gave himself up to death to give us his life.” It is one thing for God not to intervene to prevent an earth quake, but quite another thing for him to permit an enemy he has definitively conquered to roam the world instigating mass murder.
David
You ask
How does Satan operate in the world?
What do you mean? By definition Satan is supernatural, and therefore operates in ways the we in the natural world may not fully understand. I can speculate. I can, as other have, see at the effects of his operation. And like so many things a Christian believes, I have faith that it is true because Christ said so. Maybe that’s simple minded, but it seems to me that I cannot explain how God operates either, but I still believe he does. I believe in the True Presence, and I don’t know how that operates either.
What doesn’t make sense to me is that, as I said, you care what Chaput says or what I or anyone else thinks about Satan. If two people are arguing about what a third said about the effect of Mars in the third phase when Libra is in ascendency (don’t go analyzing – I’m just makin it up) – if I think all of astrology is bunk I wouldn’t bother entering the conversation.
Cathleen
If I am being crude, you are being simplistic, or at least oversimplifying what Chaput is saying. Frankly you questions – What about drug addiction? What about alcohol addiction? Are they the devil or illness? – demonstartes what I mean.
Why is it an either or? I would say both.
As for what Chaput didn’t say, that list could be much much longer, so I have a hard time understanding why it undermines his position that he didn’t touch the subjects you mentioned. He is, after all, speaking to a flock, and I suspect the subjects he picked were aimed at what he thought would help them and not what would satisfy a professor.
Finally, a frank question – do you believe in the existence of Satan, or is he just some sort of symbol or metaphor? I ask this because I would take the criticism that we move to quickly to the devil if you think he doesn’t exist seriously, but if he does exist I think you have a hard time in light of the pervasiveness of evil in the world to convince me we moved too fast to identify his work.
Fair enough, David.
Because we have God given free will I believe that the ‘evil one’ has to be explictly welcomed into an intimacy with an individual. I believe therefore the ‘evil one’ is ‘possesed’ only when he is sought and welcomed into an individual persons life. Its’rare. I also believe that there have been initially very mediocre people who became suddenly and hugely empowered and ‘attractive’ to others by the such welcoming of the ‘evil’ one’ into their lives and action agenda. I suggest some names among the mediocre who became empowered and ‘attractive’ beyond their talents and personalities. i.e. Hitler, Koresh, Manson. A woman who lived in a crash house with Manson in the Haight/Ashbury before he became such a horror decribed him.; . He was a mousey, sad little young man with no talent, no ‘charisma’ in fact it was noted by all in the crash house as one of the saddest losers they had ever met. Hitler, in a long bloody war where 100 thousands of non-com and officers lost their lives was only able to rise to the ranK of corporal. No leadership being seen! So a question.. From whence did they recieve their ‘ power’
Ed–That’s pretty interesting, actually.
David, although, for those who Love Him, the Victory has been won, we still have to finish the Race.
If Archbishop Chaput is reading this blog, I would simply like to say, keep up the Good work.
I always thought religious horror movies were the scariest :) A few favorites ….
Fallen with Denzel Washington, The Prophecy with Christopher Walken and Viggo Mortensen, The Order with Heath Ledger, Revelations with Bill Pullman.
Augustine states that: “And it was made clear to me that all things are good even if they are corrupted…whatsoever is, is good…
Evil, then, the origin of which I had been seeking, has no substance at all; for if it were a substance it would be good. For either it would be an incorruptible substance and so a supreme good, or a corruptible substance, which could not be corrupted unless it were good.” (Confessions: Book 7)
Sean –
About not agreeing with what Church pronouncements say–
It is not a matter of rejecting the meanings of the words of Jesus, it is a matter of finding evidence (whether historical data or finding self-contradictions in those pronouncements) which lead one to think that the bishops’ INTERPRETATIONS of Jesus’ words are defective.
There are a number of factors involved in this problem:
1. The words (physical symbols) of Jesus
2. Jesus’ own meanngs of those words
3. The bishops’ interpretations of those words
4. The bishops’ expressions (physical symbols) of their interpretations of Jesus’ words
(this is indeed a complex semantic problem)
5. Our interpretations of Jesus’ words
6. Our interpretations of the bishops’ words
We cannot simply accept that all of the bishops’ interpretations are true, for the reason that we find in the history of bishops’ pronouncements that some of them have been cpntradictory (aa evidenced by their words themselves), and from this it follows that it is rationally impossible to accept everthingthat the bishops’ say.
In other words, dissent is sometimes the only rational course.
Sean –
And I should have added that to dissent is not at all to reject Jesus’ own meanings of His words. The problem for all of us is to discove what those meanings are.
When people blame Satan for the existence of evil, it too easily becomes a way of absolving one’s own errors. The mass murderers of the last decade may well have been duped by Satan, but the person who sees that as an answer has stopped short on examining how we become murderers. And that is Satan’s greatest deception, to convince us we are not like others, protected by something from being his pawns.
That sounds pretty scary, scarier than I thought it would. Dual causality is probably the answer, or something like it. God is joined with us when we do what is good, so that we can say God does it as well as we do. (“Thy will be done” may imply this, for that thread on the eschatology of the Lord’s Prayer) Satan is like that. We can ascribe evil and deception to him, but that does not mean that we are not also guilty with him. As long as we remain aware of that, we can confidently talk about Satan’s influence; it is when he is used as a scapegoat, leaving us pure despite the sins we have committed, that talk about Satan becomes dangerous.
Adam’s quote from St Augustine reminds us of another basic thing to keep in mind. Satan as a fallen angel is still an angel, a messenger from God. What is good is turned away from what is good. When God gave Israel a king, that was a good thing, even if the motivation of the people was wrong when they asked for it, even when the kings went bad like Saul, etc. All manner of complaint can be made against God for doing this, but the Son of David is a direct refutation of those complaints.
D – “It makes me edgy just to discuss it. And I suppose I don’t want any of it to be true. But it seems to me there are very serious questions that need answers. If Auzchwitz and the other evils you mentioned are even partly attributable to Satan acting in the world, why is God letting him? What does it mean to say that Jesus triumphed over Satan by his death and resurrection?”
I agree with you David that it is serious, and you raise good points, but it is not as direct as God “letting evil happen”.
God gave us free will, and after Adam & Eve were cast out of Eden, after the Fall and until Christ came, it seems hope was in small supply. Before Christ, basically the Jews had to rely on their Covenant; on scrupulous adherence to the many details of Mosaic Law (e.g., food rules, various animal sacrifices, detailed cleansing rituals and the like), and on God’s mercy.
With Christ, hope became real; hope for forgiveness and hope for the grace to help us resist concupiscence and to follow God. God’s mercy is still with us of course, but so is Christ and the Holy Spirit; the Trinity.
Still, we have free will and concupiscence is very real. It is still our job as humans, to choose good over evil, but now we are able to avail ourselves of God’s grace, for example via the sacraments.
It is true that we humans have always had the option of choosing good over evil. The good news is that God’s grace (through Christ and the Holy Spirit) makes choosing good less difficult; grace really is something that helps us in our individual battles against Satan.
To clarify a bit; the Holocaust and other atrocities are not God’s handiwork, but Man’s. Those kinds of things occur when the individuals involved lose sight of what is right and wrong; they end up choosing evil. Why?
Things like the Holocaust or the genocide in Rwanda are complicated matters, but it seems that when we humans drift away from a real and loving relationship with God and when we stop taking advantage of the grace He offers, we leave ourselves open to being deceived by Satan.
In other words, via the combination of free will and not availing himself of God’s loving aid (God’s grace), in fact Man caused the Holocaust and things like Rwandan genocide, not God.
Certainly this is not the best explanation, but obviously God’s grace really does help all of us in dealing with these matters.
A very interesting (if disturbing) subject David. Thanks for the good discussion though, and hope you have a good weekend.
My, Bishop Chaput lacks the insight of Aquinas. I’m shocked and no doubt he should be put in his place by the Daniel Berrigan wing of the Church. He’d probably oppose the notion of sending a Franciscan to discuss the world with bin Laden – double shock. I wonder if it matters that the Church quite clearly affirms the reality of Satan (see CCC 391-96 for a start). As for evidence of what the Prince of Lies has been up to, dare I point out that many Americans would consider the issue of same sex marriage to be a more important civil rights issue than the right of a fetus to see the light of day? Or that euthanasia is considered progress by many in the Industrial West? Reinhold Niebuhr (whose sandals could not be carried by Bishop Chaput according to one of our participants) once claimed that Original Sin was one Christian doctrine that no rational human could disagree with simply because the evidence for its existence is everywhere around us. I think the same could be said about Satan. So I’ll side with Mother Church on this one.
“…..whose sandals could not be carried by Bishop Chaput, etc.” Your statements make no sense; you draw conclusions no one stated. What an imagination…by the way, he is an archbishop.
A few additional thoughts – critquing Chaput’s comments do not mean that those of us who were critical do not believe in “evil” or the “devil.”
Sorry, the presence of evil is alive and well and is easily explained in any Christian Anthropology – without evil, you arrive at a mechanistic God, creation, and creatures – no freedom, no conscience, no decision, no love.
Your quote from Niebuhr on the “Original Condition” is quite good – but, that doesn’t mean that I agree with Chaput’s comments, his context, or his emphasis. Saying that, why jump to the conclusion that I do not believe in evil or the devil.
Finally, quoting from the catechism is lame at best. Faith, scripture, theology, lived Catholic and community experience……only then do we get to cathecism which is an attempt to list our beliefs….no catechism can capture the total lived Catholic faith; at best, it is an attempt to codify…….using the CCC in my class would get you an “F” for lack of theological thinking, imagination, and ability to do your own research and analysis. In the stages of faith development, the catechism belongs at level two – possibly three; but that barely makes it to an adult faith level.
Actually, the Catechism does not list our beliefs, it is a synthesis of our beliefs. Just saying.
This is not to say I think such comments should be prohibited, but it’s kind of like going to a Hindu blog and trashing someone about what they said about reincarnation.
What doesn’t make sense to me is that, as I said, you care what Chaput says or what I or anyone else thinks about Satan.
Sean,
I had a Catholic education up through grade 12. I am still interested in Catholicism and the Church, otherwise I wouldn’t participate here or on Vox Nova. You may take the attitude that if there are some things the Church teaches that are not true, then everything it teaches should be dismissed out of hand. That’s not how I feel. I am interested in coming to some conclusion about how much of what I was taught in Catholic school I can still consider to be true, and how much I simply can’t believe.
The question I have raised here is, “If Satan works in the world, how does he do so?” That is quite different from “trashing” the Catholic belief that Satan works in the world. I hope that Hindus would not be offended by a question like, “If reincarnation happens, how does it work?”
I would hope that people of any faith would welcome questions and even challenges rather than saying, “Listen, if you don’t believe everything my religion teaches, why are you asking questions?” Now, maybe people of some faiths do take that attitude, but I haven’t found it to be true of Catholics in general.
Here, briefly — since nobody may be reading this thread any more — is what I find very troubling about attributing something to Satan. Many people might be perfectly content to hear that Satan is somehow promoting Internet pornography or the campaign for same-sex marriage. But suppose I wrote a piece called Bush and Cheney: How Satan Starts Wars, which I don’t think would be hard to do at all. There were two very clear errors — some would say lies — that were critical to the Invasion of Iraq: that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks, and that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. If Satan works by clouding men’s minds and getting them to believe things that are not true, who is to say Satan didn’t play a role in causing the United States to invade Iraq? Who’s to say Bush and Cheney (and Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld) were not unwitting tools of Satan? Who’s to say, for that matter, that they were not willfully cooperating with Satan?
Attributing something to Satan is an accusation (or a slander) that can never be proven or disproven, but it is potentially very potent. Maybe Satan is behind the “tea party” movement. Who can say? Maybe Satan is behind the Republican Party. He works in supernatural ways that we can’t explain, so demonstrate where I would be wrong to think so.
It is one thing to say (and believe) that Satan works in the world. It is quite another to claim Satan is responsible for Internet porn, or the war in Iraq, or the movement in favor of same-sex marriage, or laissez-fair capitalism, or consumerism, or whatever you don’t like. You really can’t declare that Satan is behind something, it seems to me, unless you first make the case that it is evil. And once you have made the case that it is evil, what more do you gain by bringing Satan into it? The best you can do is use the accusation of Satanic influence to play on people’s fears and prejudices, because you can never prove Satan is actually involved. But of course you can wind up with something like the Salem Witch Trials — and who’s to say they were wrong. The Bible tells us “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” And the Bible is the word of God.
Oops. Italics should end after Bush and Cheney: How Satan Starts Wars, which the more I think about, the more I want to write.
David–I think you’re exactly right.
Satan seems to be a necessary part of Christian theology. Why is that? Without Satan is the notion of a loving God harder to defend?
David –
Suppose for the sake of argument that a viciously evil spirit does exist. What kind of evidence for his/her/its existence would you accept as warranting the belief that said spirit actually can influence events in this world and/or people in this world?
You seem to be saying that there is no sort of evidence that would warrant belief in it. This of course doesn’t imply its non-existence. It could be like a unicorn in your neighbor’s dining room that your eighbor has experienced but you haven’t.
Suppose for the sake of argument that a viciously evil spirit does exist. What kind of evidence for his/her/its existence would you accept as warranting the belief that said spirit actually can influence events in this world and/or people in this world?
Ann,
I would accept evidence that reasonably demonstrated something was happening that could not be explained by natural, rather than supernatural, influences. I might grant that, for Catholics, it is reasonable to accept as an article of faith that Satan works in the world in ways that are not apparent or cannot even be explained. But what about something like this:
In what way is the Devil’s work obvious when it come to Internet pornography? Do we really need to posit some supernatural influence to explain the prevalence of Internet porn? What exactly is it about Internet porn that leads Archbishop Chaput to say Satan is promoting it? He (Chaput) must have a reason for saying so. I suppose he may believe that pornography in and of itself is somehow “diabolical,” and wherever it may be found, Satan is there. But that would hardly convince anyone who didn’t already believe it.
You seem to be saying that there is no sort of evidence that would warrant belief in it. This of course doesn’t imply its non-existence.
Actually, what I am saying is that nobody is producing any evidence of Satan acting in the world with the possible exception of demonic possession, which would be a clear case, although how Satan would further his alleged aims by possessing human beings is something that I have not seen explained.
Now, you are much more deeply steeped in philosophy than I am, but if there is something for which there is no evidence, and even no sort of evidence, that could bring people to believe in its existence, that may not prove it doesn’t exist, but I see no point in discussing it. It’s beyond the realm of astrology, of UFOs, or palm reading, or Tarot cards, or any number of things rational people don’t take seriously, that actually are open to empirical verification.
Exorcists do in fact have all kinds of criteria for determining whether they are dealing with natural phenomena (probably in the form of mental illness) and supernatural phenomena, and the Church is very cautious in treating something as supernatural until it has applied those criterial and ruled out purely natural phenomena. However, Archbishop Chaput has not, in any way that I know of, attempted to rule out natural phenomena before claiming Satan is behind Internet porn, divorce, and the campaign for same-sex marriage. If it is important to be aware that Satan is a real person and is actively trying to harm humankind, you would think people like Archbishop Chaput would actually try to make a case for it rather than just making assertions.
David –
I agree that AB Chaput has not made his case. And I agree that your cirterion that something which cannot be caused by ordinary means must have been caused by something extraordinary. And yes, possession would seem to be such a phenomenon.
But I don’t see any signs that Eichmann and Hitler were possessed, except in their extreme maliciousness, so extreme that it could cause the Holocaust. True, psychologists tell us that serial killers depersonalize their victims. But the amazing point about Eichmann (but maybe not Hitler) was that he did not depersonalize the Jews — he killed them BECAUSE they were Jewish people. So I still must wonder if Satan was involved.
Also, I would expect the sheer malice to be proportionate to the offense, but the enormous number of victims of the Shoah seem to indicate a most extraordinary power to hate, one far beyond the power to hate of the humans I have known. I simply have never found malice in anyone I have known who comes anywhere near Eichmann’s — i mean his capacity to hate so mamy so much for so long. So I fear that Eichmann had extraordinary help with his murders.
David, there are some distinctions that have to be made, for which you will probably find little agreement. What is natural? Is love supernatural? Can the supernatural be verified empirically?
I read a novel about the war between Satan and the forces of good in the world, and found myself almost wholly on the side the novelist described as satanic. From my pov, the novelist has been deceived by Satan into accepting something short of God as if it were God. Very troubling, to say the least, since many people accept the kind of system he portrayed.
Any accusation of Satanism has to be paired with self-scrutiny if it is to be deemed credible. The evidence, except in very rare circumstances, has to be ambiguous. but that caution is rare imo.
David –
Which is more reasonable — to assume that there is one Satan or to assume that possibly many human beings have powers to hate of Satanic proportions? (Don’t ask what I mean be “reasonable” here. I’m not sure either.)
I’ve been away for a few days. So some comments in no particular order: Joseph G., thanks for setting me straight on KJV vs. Douay Rheims – I should have checked before I wrote.
Regarding the church’s certitude of the existence of Satan: in the rites of baptism for infants, the gathered community renews the profession of faith by answering (in the affirmative, we may hope!) questions such as, “Do you reject Satan? And all his works? And all his empty promises?” Thus it seems that being initiated into new life with Christ entails, of necessity, turning one’s back on Satan.
Jim McK frequently posts very thoughtful comments, and I just want to express my appreciation for his participation. Comments like this are deserving of recognition:
“When people blame Satan for the existence of evil, it too easily becomes a way of absolving one’s own errors. The mass murderers of the last decade may well have been duped by Satan, but the person who sees that as an answer has stopped short on examining how we become murderers. And that is Satan’s greatest deception, to convince us we are not like others, protected by something from being his pawns.”
I’m still wading through Grant’s comment. :-)
Re: the Our Father: I guess what we pray is a composite? Here is the King James version of the Our Father (from Matthew 6):
9: After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10: Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
11: Give us this day our daily bread.
12: And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13: And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
Here is Douay Rheims:
Thus therefore shall you pray: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. 10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our supersubstantial bread. 12 And forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors. 13 And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil. Amen.
Regarding “supersubstantial bread”: there is a footnote stating that Luke’s version is “daily bread”.
Here is Wycliffe:
9 And thus ye schulen preye, Oure fadir that art in heuenes, halewid be thi name;
10 thi kyngdoom come to; be thi wille don `in erthe as in heuene;
11 yyue to vs this dai oure `breed ouer othir substaunce;
12 and foryyue to vs oure dettis, as we foryyuen to oure dettouris; and lede vs not in to temptacioun,
13 but delyuere vs fro yuel.
Here is Tyndale:
9 After thys maner therfore praye ye. O oure father which arte in heve halowed be thy name.
10 Let thy kyngdome come. Thy wyll be fulfilled as well in erth as it ys in heven.
11 Geve vs this daye oure dayly breede.
12 And forgeve vs oure treaspases eve as we forgeve oure trespacers.
13 And leade vs not into teptacion: but delyver vs fro evell. For thyne is ye kyngedome and ye power and ye glorye for ever. Amen.
Regarding the church’s certitude of the existence of Satan: in the rites of baptism for infants, the gathered community renews the profession of faith by answering (in the affirmative, we may hope!) questions such as, “Do you reject Satan? And all his works? And all his empty promises?” Thus it seems that being initiated into new life with Christ entails, of necessity, turning one’s back on Satan.
Jim,
As I understand from a very interesting <a href="interview with the exorcist Father Gabriele Amorth, the new rite of exorcism has been “toned down” as have a number of other Catholic rites and official documents. Although your description of baptism above is accurate, it has also been “toned down.” Father Amorth says, for example, “But the rite of baptism for children has also been spoiled. It has been so drastically overhauled that the exorcism against Satan has virtually been eliminated.”
Father Amorth also comments on the translation of the Lord’s Prayer:
He also says that the Vatican itself is under attack:
Also, I listened to an audio interview with an American exorcist who is not quite so alarming, but he does gently criticize the American Bishops for their lack of belief or knowledge about the work of Satan in the world.
David, the rite of baptism does contain an exorcism. But it is optional. I have to confess, I have never done it.
F.Y.I.:
http://www.catholicity.com/catechism/lead_us_not_into_temptation.html
and this:
Pray.nd.edu
A great website as well.
Pray.nd.edu
Nancy,
Didn’t you know? These are the people who gave an honorary degree to Obama!
David
I do not understand the point of your comment. What’s the connection?
When people blame Satan for the existence of evil, it too easily becomes a way of absolving one’s own errors.
To the extent that Satan’s tactic is to deceive (and he is called the father of lies, or the prince of lies), it seems to me that does indeed absolve — or at least lessen the culpability of — those who are his victims. It’s one thing to tempt someone into doing something, or persuade someone to do something. The person who gives in to temptation, or allows himself to be persuaded, is presumably more culpable for whatever he does than someone who is deceived into doing it.
It is interesting that the Catholic (basically Christians, I suppose) interpretation of the story of Adam, Eve, and the serpent in Genesis identifies the serpent as Satan. Genesis itself seems to say quite plainly that the serpent is a serpent:
Why should serpents forever be cursed for the action of Satan in the guise of a serpent?
And of course it is now the position of the Catholic Church that the description of the Fall in Genesis is told in figurative language, which raises the question of whether it makes sense to say who the serpent was. The serpent wasn’t anyone, because the story is figurative, meaning (presumably) that it never happened that a serpent tempted or tricked two humans into eating forbidden fruit. At most, it might be said that the serpent represents Satan, and Adam and Eve represent the parents of the human race, and the eating of the forbidden fruit represents some act of rebellion or disobedience on the part of the parents of the human race. But we have no idea what the parents of the human race did to cause the Fall, and so we have no idea what induced them to do it.
As I have argued before, the serpent in Genesis does not lie.
And later, we have this:
God confirms what the serpent says almost word for word.
I do not understand the point of your comment. What’s the connection?
Charles,
Pray.nd.edu is a Notre Dame web site. Notre Dame gave an honorary award to Obama. But my message was a joke.
Interesting point about culpability. Along the same line, do you think that those who flew the airplanes onto the WTC on 9/11 were more or less culpable than those who influenced their behavior. And would such influence extend in time not only to individuals who may have directed the plan, but also to the “educational institutions” within which the terrorist mentality was formed? And further, where would satan fall within this chain of culpability?
David, when I made the remark about absolution, I was not talking about the deceived, but those who claimed others had been deceived by Satan. I continued: The mass murderers of the last [century] may well have been duped by Satan, but the person who sees that as an answer has stopped short on examining how we become murderers. Few people who accuse others of being deceived by Satan are willing to admit the possibility that they themselves are.
Let me try an example. Suppose Fr. Gloss declares that internet porn is produced by Satan, or those who have been deceived by him. The accusation does not say that Fr Gloss is undeceived, but it makes little sense if he admitted he has been deceived; that rather undermines one’s credibility. So Fr Gloss likely walks away thinking he is not deceived, and pornographers are, rather than identifying within himself what leads to deception. He is absolved because he thinks himself undeceived, and so not under Satan’s spell. Pornographers probably have a lesser responsibility if they have been deceived into producing porn. Fr Gloss otoh has to answer for accusing the pornographer, but also for making an implict claim that he is undeceived.
two notes:
I used Fr Gloss rather than Abp Chaput because I doubt that the abp does not count himself as one who is undeceived by internet porn; he knows if he is affected by it. So my general comments should not applied to a particular case, that is I am not accusing anyone.
I would like to thank JP for his kind remark. Sometimes I feel like I have not put enough thought into a subject, and am looking for insights from others, but I am glad someone finds my musings as thoughtful.
Herbert Thurston, writing in the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia:
“The version itself, which accords pretty closely with the translation in Tyndale’s New Testament, no doubt owed its general acceptance to an ordinance of 1541 according to which “his Grace perceiving now the great diversity of the translations (of the Pater noster etc.) hath willed them all to be taken up, and instead of them hath caused an uniform translation of the said Pater noster, Ave, Creed, etc. to be set forth, willing all his loving subjects to learn and use the same and straitly commanding all parsons, vicars and curates to read and teach the same to their parishioners”. As a result the version in question became universally familiar to the nation, and though the Rheims Testament, in 1581, and King James’s translators, in 1611, provided somewhat different renderings of Matthew 6:9-13, the older form was retained for their prayers both by Protestants and Catholics alike.”
That was my memory from other sources, that the modern version goes back to Henry VIII’s first efforts to provide that the people of England share a common version of their prayers, which led to the Book of Common Prayer a few years later.
I asked a Jesuit once about exorcists. He said that most people in the religious community felt sorry for them, that no one really took it seriously anymore, but of course there are those who do take it seriously. I remember JPII doing a bit of exorcism himself – link
When I was in RCIA and was baptized, about 10 years ago, the turning away from the glamor of evil stuff was still in the rite.
“do you think that those who flew the airplanes onto the WTC on 9/11 were more or less culpable than those who influenced their behavior. And would such influence extend in time not only to individuals who may have directed the plan, but also to the “educational institutions” within which the terrorist mentality was formed? ”
These are good questions, and to my mind they describe a structure of sin. I do think that Satan is apt to find a home in such structures.
“his Grace perceiving now the great diversity of the translations (of the Pater noster etc.) hath willed them all to be taken up, and instead of them hath caused an uniform translation of the said Pater noster, Ave, Creed, etc. to be set forth, willing all his loving subjects to learn and use the same and straitly commanding all parsons, vicars and curates to read and teach the same to their parishioners”.
A Renaissance version of Liturgiam Authenticam!
Jim,
I believe I see your point. And as I said above, there’s a kind of “God of the gaps” quality to blaming on Satan an evil that is perpetrated by human beings. If you call yourself a scientist, but your explanation for a phenomenon is that God does it, you’ve got your explanation and will go no further. Similarly, if you want to eliminate Internet pornography, and you attribute it to Satan, how does that help you? However, if you try to figure out why people become consumers of Internet pornography, then you have an understanding of it and are better equipped to try to eliminate it.
Does anyone remember the President’s Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, created by Lyndon Johnson? Their report came out after he left office and was denounced by President Nixon and by Congress. From a summary in Wikipedia, here are some of its findings”
I would need some convincing that Internet porn “is pervasive, and subtle, and attractive and totally destructive of peoples’ lives.” I might be more inclined to agree with that if Archbishop Chuput had said alcohol or tobacco instead of pornography. Also, he made this assertion: “If you talk about fighting pornography in the media you’re somehow seen as anti-American, anti-freedom of speech. . . .” I don’t believe this is true. I don’t think any religious leader has ever been trashed by the media for speaking against pornography. Now, the people that propose specific ways to restrict pornography get criticized if their schemes actually do interfere with the freedom of adults to read and view what they want, or interfere with the freedom of minors to obtain legitimate information that might be blocked by mindless filtering devices. But if any bishop has been criticized as anti-American for denouncing porn, I’d be interested to know the circumstances.
These are good questions, and to my mind they describe a structure of sin. I do think that Satan is apt to find a home in such structures.
Jim,
Of course, it is very easy to see the work of Satan in things like the 9/11 attacks. But what about in the United States’ invasion of Iraq? As I said above (I find myself so quotable):
It is very easy to see the work of Satan (whether or not it is really there) in the actions of people whom we think of as enemies. But (and I think this was part of Jim McK’s point) how often do we look for it when we evaluate “our side.” There was a 60 Minutes report last night about Green Berets in Afghanistan, and one of the Green Beret’s who was interviewed said, “It does take, you know, a mentally tough guy to be able to calm himself down and think within those split seconds, ‘Do I shoot or not?’ You shoot when you have a target in sight. You just don’t pick up and shoot.” The next thing you know, he has accidentally shot two innocent kids. They both survived, but we find it so easy to be supportive of our side in war, or politics, or whatever. Whether or not you believe in “the prince of lies,” it might certainly be more valuable to figure out whether we ourselves are being deceived or are deceiving ourselves rather than to accuse other people of not seeing the truth.
“If you talk about fighting pornography in the media you’re somehow seen as anti-American, anti-freedom of speech. . . .”
A red herring. The real issue is whether the good bishop’s view of what’s pornographic ought to be shared by everyone else.
After reading through the comments, I still don’t see why Satan is a necessary element of Catholic theology.
Antonio
Start with scripture
I don’t know in what sense Satan is “necessary”. I don’t know in what sense I’d be “necessary”, either. But both of us, whether necessary or not, are creatures of a good and loving God. God loves me so much that he sent his only Son to save me. Does God have a plan of salvation for Satan? Not sure.