Last Sunday, we read the passage from the Gospel of Luke about the testing of Christ in the desert by Satan. In his Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas makes some interesting observations. He treats the temptations as having occurred in an escalating manner; he also connects Christ’s experience to that of Adam in the Garden of Eden.
St. Thomas writes,
Thus, too, did the devil set about the temptation of the first man. For at first he enticed his mind to consent to the eating of the forbidden fruit, saying (Genesis 3:1), “Why hath God commanded you that you should not eat of every tree of paradise?” Secondly [he tempted him] to vainglory by saying, “Your eyes shall be opened.” Thirdly, he led the temptation to the extreme height of pride, saying, “You shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”
This same order did he observe in tempting Christ. For at first he tempted Him to that which men desire, however spiritual they may be—namely, the support of the corporeal nature by food. Secondly, he advanced to that matter in which spiritual men are sometimes found wanting, inasmuch as they do certain things for show, which pertains to vainglory. Thirdly, he led the temptation on to that in which no spiritual men, but only carnal men, have a part—namely, to desire worldly riches and fame, to the extent of holding God in contempt (Summa Theologica III, 41.4).
Notice the escalating quality of the temptations. There is the baser temptation of the body. Then there is the temptation of the psyche with its interest in interpersonal relationships. Finally, there is the highest temptation, which attacks our relationship with God.
Let’s look at each in more detail.
The first (and most base) temptation is one of the body.It seeks to destroy the proper relationship of a person with his or her own soul and body. Jesus is tempted to consider eating bread, which was forbidden because the Holy Spirit had led Him to fast. Adam is bodily tempted by the offer of fruit, forbidden to him by God. But the fruit seems to Adam and Eve as: good for food, and [that it was] a delight to the eyes (Gen 3:6).
To us, too, come temptations to gratify the faculties of the body and our baser passions. These sorts of temptations seek to destroy the right relationship we need to have with our bodies and with the physical world of creation.
The second temptation attacks the intellect through an appeal to vainglory. Satan says that if Jesus will worship him, it will be granted to Him that all nations will glorify Him and He will have authority over them (Lk 4:6). Similarly, Adam is told, Your eyes shall be opened (Gen 3:5).
These sorts of temptations appeal to our excessive pride, encouraging us to seek things that are beyond us and to esteem ourselves more than we ought. We also have a tendency to seek fame and the praise of other men. This distorts the proper and well-ordered sense of ourselves as well as our relationships with others; we inordinately seek their praise and, even more darkly, desire to have power over them.
The third and highest temptation is one that attacks our soul and its proper relationship with God. It seeks to have us hold God in contempt. Satan tells Jesus to cast Himself recklessly from the highest pinnacle and thereby sinfully presume that God will rescue Him no matter what He does. Similarly, Adam and Eve are told, You will be as gods (Gen 3:5). Adam is tempted to hold God in contempt by sinfully presuming that he is God’s equal or rival.
We, too, are tempted to trivialize God and to hold Him in contempt by disregarding His warnings about the inevitable consequences of serious and unrepented sin, and by substituting our own notions over and against His truth. We think we have a better understanding of justice than He does and that His warnings about sin can be lightly set aside, that He will save us no matter how blatant our rejection of His plan.
Thus we see how the temptations of Adam and Jesus (and us) are not simply three categories of temptation, but a sequence that escalates in seriousness.
For us, the lesson is clear: as we allow baser temptations to take hold, more serious temptations aimed at our higher faculties also set in. As we give way to these lower sinful desires, our intellect becomes darkened and our will weakened. And as the intellect and will are attacked, so also is our relationship with God. With the mind and will wounded by baser bodily desires, the higher things of God seem more difficult and we can become contemptuously dismissive of His teachings and of our need for His grace and mercy.
It is a threefold, escalating attack of which we must be aware. Heed the wisdom of Scripture, as explained by St. Thomas!
With the renewed interest in demonology, Jesus’ instruction that demons must be driven out with prayer and fasting (cf Mk 9:29, Matt 17:21) is frequently quoted. And many people are acquainted with this text in this form.
But a problem emerges for some people when they go to their Bible to look up those texts. Some Bibles include the reference to fasting while others do not. For example, the two most common Catholic Bibles, the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE) and the Revised New American Bible (RNAB), render Mark 9:29 differently.
This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer and fasting (RSVCE).
This kind can only come out through prayer (RNAB).
And in Matthew 17:21, which recounts the same incident that Mark 9:29 does, prayer and fasting aren’t mentioned at all in either the RSVCE or the RNAB version. Older Bibles such as the Douay Rheims (DR) and the King James (KJV), however, do:
But this kind is not cast out but by prayer and fasting (DR).
Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting (KJV).
So what is going on here?
The ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament are remarkably consistent, especially considering that they were handwritten by scribes, who might accidentally skip or misspell a word. But there are some discrepancies. Most textual variations are easily resolved by comparing several ancient manuscripts to identify misspellings and/or dropped words. There are some variations, however, that are not as easily resolved, especially when it is a case of one erroneous manuscript being copied numerous times and distributed. But even in that situation, a little detective work can usually find the root problem and distinguish between an erroneous text and a correct one.
But there are times when certain textual variations cannot be resolved and biblical scholars either do not agree or cannot be certain as to which is the most authentic version. Mark 9:29 is one of those texts. Some ancient manuscripts include the words “and fasting” (και νηστεια) while others do not.
For the benefit of the technocrats who are reading this, the following manuscripts support the translation that includes both fasting and prayer: P45vid ℵ2 A C D K L N W Γ Δ Θ Ψ ƒ1,13 28. 33. 565. 579. 700. 892. 1241. 1424. 2542. ℓ 2211 ???? lat syh co (sys.p boms). These ancient manuscripts, however, support the translation that does not include fasting: ℵ B 0274 k.
While the manuscripts that favor including fasting are far more numerous, it is not necessarily a question of mere numbers. This is because not all ancient manuscripts are considered to be of equal value. Most modern scholars favor the translation that excludes the reference to fasting because the manuscripts that do not mention it are ones that they weight more heavily. So even though many manuscripts do include the words “and fasting,” the earliest and “best” manuscripts do not include it. Critics of this current consensus view object to the presumption that fasting reflects a later concern of the Church. They also think that the most common “go-to” source (Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament) has been too influential. Welcome to the wonderful world of biblical textual criticism (analysis)!
The issue with Matthew 7:21 being wholly lacking in most modern Bibles has a similar explanation, though in this case the consensus is even stronger because the oldest and best Greek manuscripts lack the verse. And even those manuscripts that do, seem to show it in the margins as more of a side comment or a reference back to Mark 9:29.
So, all of this goes toward explaining why some of our modern Bibles report Jesus as saying that certain types of demons must be driven out by “prayer and fasting,” while others simply say “prayer.”
But is this just an academic exercise? What are there pastoral considerations?
The main pastoral (and liturgical) question would seem to be this: “Is fasting required to drive out demons or not?” The ambiguity of the textual evidence (as described above) allows that reasonable people may differ as to whether strict fasting is required and to what extent it is helpful. There are certain considerations to be made.
Even if certain demons are best driven out by prayer and fasting, we must never forget that it is God who drives out demons, and He doesn’t need our fasting to do so. Any prideful notions about the effects of our fasting should be strictly avoided.
Indeed, we ought to have a kind of humility regarding fasting. Fasting is certainly recommended, and the Lord Himself says that there is a time for fasting (cf Mk 2:20, Luke 5:35). But fasting can also be a source of pride (Lk 18:12, Lk 5:33). Fasting done out of pride or superiority isn’t going to drive out any demons; in fact it will likely attract them.
In longer exorcisms (which can go on for months), fasting may need to be mitigated or else assigned to members who are not part of the team directly involved in the exorcism. Physical strength is often needed to withstand the grueling work of major exorcism.
With such precautions in mind, and in spite of the textual variations in the “prayer and fasting” text of Scripture, the instinct of the Church is that casting out demons is best assisted by both prayer and fasting. The current Rite of Exorcism (2004) says,
The Exorcist, mindful that the tribe of demons cannot be cast out except through prayer and fasting, should take care that these two most effective remedies for obtaining divine help be used, after the example of the Holy Fathers, both by himself and by others, insofar as is possible (De Exorcismis # 31).
The Older Rite (1614) also advises,
Therefore, he will be mindful of the words of our Lord (Mt. 17:20), to the effect that there is a certain type of evil spirit who cannot be driven out except by prayer and fasting. Therefore, let him avail himself of these two means above all for imploring the divine assistance in expelling demons, after the example of the holy fathers; and not only himself, but let him induce others, as far as possible, to do the same (De Exorcizandis # 10).
Why or how does fasting add power to prayer? One reasonable (and biblical) answer is that prayer and worship should generally involve sacrifice. Scripture says,
Understand these things, you that forget God; lest he snatch you away, and there be none to deliver you. The sacrifice of praise shall glorify me: and there is the way by which I will show him my salvation, says the Lord (Psalm 50:22-23).
Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name. Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God (Heb 13:15-16).
You shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread … And none shall appear before Me empty-handed. Also you shall observe the Feast of the Harvest of the first fruits of your labors (ex 23:15-16).
There has developed in Western world the strange notion of worship and praise without sacrifice. In many sectors, worship has devolved to little more than a form of entertainment, wherein the whims and preferences of the faithful are expected to be catered to. Worship, by this notion, should be brief and should take place in comfortable, air-conditioned churches with padded pews and convenient parking. The “message” and liturgy should not be intellectually or morally challenging; rather they should be encouraging and pleasing. The music and “style” of liturgy should meet the preferences of those assembled.
Missing in all of this is the concept that liturgy and prayer should involve sacrifice, that they should “cost” us something. Yet Scripture clearly links prayer and sacrifice and indicates that they should, to some degree, be found together. Sacrifice is a way of establishing greater sincerity in, and integrity to, our worship. Indeed, worship without sacrifice too easily becomes lip service or turns God into a kind of divine butler, whom we expect to wait on us. God surely does supply our needs but He is no butler; He is God, who is worthy of our worship and the sacrifice of praise.
It is in this sense that prayer and fasting belong together, especially in the difficult work of driving out demons. Prayer and fasting become the sacrifice of praise that confounds and disturbs the evil one to no end. Scripture says, And now my head shall be lifted up above my enemies all around me, for I will offer in his tent sacrifices of praise with shouts of joy; I will sing and make melody to the LORD (Psalm 27:6).
It is the instinct of the Church that prayer is good, but that prayer with sacrifice (fasting is sacrificial) wins through, especially in that most difficult work of expelling demons and repelling the enemy.
The question of how best to translate Mark 9 and Matthew 17 is a legitimate one. But the long experience of the Church ought not to be neglected. And experience teaches plainly enough that as a general norm,
This kind cannot be driven out except by prayer and fasting (Mk 9:29).
truth word in mixed vintage metal type printing blocks over grunge wood
The following three nuggets of wisdom come from Ecclesiastes and are especially appropriate for those of us who engage and struggle with our troubled culture. They can help us to keep things in perspective.
Do not in spirit become quickly discontented, for discontent lodges in the bosom of a fool (Eccl 7:9).
We certainly do live in times that challenge our sense of well-being. There is much to lament in these times: broken families, confused sexuality, secularism, and growing hostility to the teachings of our holy faith.
And yet we must not yield to the temptation to become too sour. As the proverb says, we ought not to become too “quickly discontented.”
At the center of every Christian heart should be a deep and abiding gratitude to God for his many—indeed countless—gifts. Every life, every family, every community, every culture, and every nation experiences a mixture of many beautiful blessings along with struggles and hardships.
The proverb here warns us against “discontent,” a word that is derived from the Latin continere, meaning to contain or hold. Thus to be discontented is to refuse to hold within us the joy and gratitude that we ought to have for so many rich blessings, even in the midst of difficulties.
Every day, trillions of things go right and only a handful go wrong. It is no exaggeration to speak of “trillions” of things going right when we consider that every aspect of every cell within our body, every molecule that makes up every cell, and every atom that makes up every molecule are all functioning by the grace of God.
And beyond our bodies is a vast ecosystem with myriad complex interactions such as photosynthesis enabling plants to produce oxygen for us to breathe, the Gulf Stream moderating our temperature, the Van Allen belts protecting us from the harmful radiation of the sun, Jupiter and Saturn out there catching comets, and the Earth carefully maintaining its nearly circular orbit thus keeping the temperature change between the seasons relatively small. Our sun remains stable, unlike many other stars, and we live in a relatively quiet section of the Milky Way galaxy, largely free from the space debris that flies about in most other areas.
And troubled though America is, people are still (literally) dying to get here. Our roads are paved and we have a reliable electrical grid, a stable government, and a good market system.
We ought to be filled with immense gratitude as well as wonder and awe at the countless blessings that God bestows on us from moment to moment.
To become quickly discontented, or worse, to allow discontent to lodge in our hearts, is deeply foolish. First of all, it is foolish because it is so myopic. Refusing to see or to reflect frequently on our manifold blessings is a kind of self-imposed blindness.
Consider a rich man who thinks himself poor. Only a fool would close his eyes and refuse to see the millions he actually has in the bank. Why live as a poor man, always running from creditors? A man with such resources who believes he is poor must be blind, a fool, or both.
And this is true for us, who have so many blessings. How easily we become discontented and negative!
Thus, even though there are things about which we must be very sober, there are many others about which we must be exuberantly joyful. If we don’t maintain this balance we are, as the proverb says, foolish.
Do not say: How is it that former times were better than these? For it is not in wisdom that you ask about this (Eccl 7:10).
This is an important caution for those of us who lament the current times and compare them unfavorably to the past. We tend to look back at previous decades and see them as more idyllic than they actually were. All ages have struggles particular to them, but they have blessings too. Some look to the 1950s with nostalgic affection but they forget the nuclear arms race, the Korean War, and the Cold War. The 1940s had the Second World War. The 1930s had the Great Depression. The 1920s were a time of rather widespread immorality and a great deal of organized crime. The 1910s had the First World War. The decade of the 1900s was a time of great economic recession; waves of immigrants were often made to live and work in horrifying conditions. One could continue pointing out the problems in every decade going backward in time. But each of these decades also had its blessings.
Regardless of how the struggles and strengths of the present day compare to those of the past, we are living now. Accept your assignment with humility and seek to influence positively the many difficulties we currently face. And do not fail to be grateful for the many blessings we have today: advanced medicine, high technology, and numerous creature comforts that make life a little more pleasant.
Be actively grateful and gratefully active.
Finally, then, comes the following counsel from Ecclesiastes, which is particularly appropriate during Lent as we ponder the essential goal of our life:
The last word, when all is heard: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is man’s all; because God will bring to judgment every work, with all its hidden qualities, whether good or bad (Eccl 12:13).
Yes, look to your own impending judgment. Have a healthy fear of God and a sober appreciation of the fact that judgment awaits us all. Prepare for your own judgment and help others to prepare for theirs, insofar as it is your duty to remind and prepare them.
If you have suffered injustice or if you grow weary of these sinful times, remember that God sees all. Others will answer to God for what they have done if they have not repented. Pray that they do repent, for nothing will be unrequited and every idle word will have to be accounted for (see Mat 12:36).
Do not delay your own repentance, either. Tomorrow is not promised, but judgment is.
Jesus our Judge says, For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open. Therefore consider carefully how you listen (Luke 8:17-18).
Jesus gets the last word!
This video is an allegory of a woman who rejects the offer of truth and order. Truth offers his friendship to her. After being rejected, he warns her, admonishes her, and offers it to her again. But the woman’s rejection of truth persists and great is her ruin.
People oversimplify Original Sin in various ways. Some reduce it to the mere eating of a piece of fruit rather than the act of disobedience, mistrust, and ingratitude it really was.
Others miss the subtle but important difference in the descriptions of Adam’s sin compared to Eve’s. Of Eve’s sin, Eve herself is a witness. She said, The serpent tricked me and so I ate it (Gen 3:13). But of Adam’s sin God said, Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it …’ (Gen 3:17). Eve’s sin lay in her allowing Satan to deceive her. Adam’s sin lay in his willingness to allow his wife to tempt him.
A final misconstruing of Original Sin is to label it “the Sin of Adam and Eve.” But Scripture calls it “The Sin of Adam.” For while both our first parents sinned, Original Sin comes to us from Adam who, as head of the first family and primogenitor of us all, conveyed it to us.
As is typical for my Saturday blog, today’s post is a lighthearted one in which I find something of the Scriptures in a video. Now some object to my taking biblical stories (especially one as dark as the story of Original Sin) and making light of them. But my prudential judgment on such things is that they are acceptable and that sometimes we can best process sad and serious things through humor and playful reimagining.
In the video below we see a playful “what if” scenario. In effect it poses these questions: What if Adam, when presented the forbidden fruit by his wife, found it less enticing than what God offered? What if there had been something to remind him of God’s greater offer?
Of course there was something greater and it was all around him! It was called paradise. Now the writers of this commercial want us to think that if only Adam had had Doritos at hand he would clearly have preferred them to the forbidden fruit. In other words, they present their product a metaphor for paradise. Nice try, and very creative I might add! But God offers even more than Doritos.
In the end, though, the insight is important. Like Adam, we are tempted to forget the blessings of God and become mesmerized by some lesser pleasure (represented by the forbidden fruit). The key is to remember the greater gift of God and His Kingdom, not choosing anything that might interfere with that. Remember the gifts of God!
Enjoy the video and remember that far greater visions await you if you are faithful!
(And by the way, thank you, Frito-Lay, for the affirmation of human life displayed in your recent Doritos commercial (that aired during the Super Bowl)! I am not focusing on that commercial here today because many others have already commented on it quite well.)
Are these the last days? In some sense the planets are aligning. But hold your horses; let’s speak carefully of these matters.
Last week in the Breviary we read First and Second Thessalonians, which are important source texts for such considerations. I’d like to look at a critical passage from Second Thessalonians, which lays out some important principles for us in the last days, balancing caution with teaching us about the signs that will point to His coming (though not the exact date).
The passages from 2 Thessalonians are presented in bold italics; my commentary follows each selection.
I. Reserve – Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way.
We begin with the need for reserve. St. Paul is teaching that we are not to rush to judgment, concluding that the Day of the Lord is at hand. And this remains true today, some 2000 years later. He teaches that in these matters we are easily deceived.
If we do give way to rash conclusions and hold to a certainty of the Day of Judgment, we violate the most basic principle of eschatology.
But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man … Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming … You also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect (Matt 24: 36-44).
That said, there are certain signs that the Lord gave concerning the close of the age. St. Paul speaks of some of them in Thessalonians. The catechism enumerates them as follows:
1. the going forth of the Gospel to the ends of the earth,
2. a widespread conversion of the Jews,
3. a significant trial and persecution of the Church,
4. a great and widespread rebellion or apostasy,
5. the arising of a “man of lawlessness,” who will deceive the nations and lead many astray, including many Christians who will reject the faith (apostasy), and
6. a final unleashing of grave evil for a brief time.
I have written extensively about the Catechism’s teaching HERE.
II. Rebellion – For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first.
St. Paul speaks of a widespread rebellion that must first take place. This suggests that the faith has been accepted, but is now cast off. Those who rebel are those who, once having the law, cast it aside.
We are without doubt living in times of a great falling away from the faith that can be called, properly understood, a great apostasy. Again, to say that there is a falling away from faith means that, at one time, the faith was possessed but then later rejected.
In our times this is true of both individuals and cultures. Indeed, many of us lament the decline in Mass attendance and express dismay that so many who were raised as Catholics have not only left the practice of the faith but also live apart from her moral and doctrinal teachings, which have been handed on from ancient times. This is not just a statistic; it affects many in a deeply personal way. Many parents lament the departure from the faith of their children, for whom they sacrificed so that they could attend Catholic schools, and to whom they sought to hand on the faith they themselves had received.
Yes, these are difficult times, times of a great rejection of the very faith that made the culture. Many now live off the carcass of a culture built by the Christian vision of sacrifice, discipline, tolerance (properly understood), family, generosity, and accountability to God.
But is this the rebellion of which St. Paul speaks? That remains to be seen, but it is without doubt a rebellion that is wide and deep in the formerly Christian West. Arguably, the rebellion extends far beyond the Christian West, to the Far East and deep into the southern hemisphere. Surely the ease with which we communicate around the globe today has assisted in making this rebellion so widespread.
III. Revelation – And then the lawless one will be revealed … The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception … And the man of lawlessness [will be] revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.
And after or perhaps in the midst of this rebellion, the lawless one will be revealed. Whoever he is, he will have widespread, worldwide appeal as well as the ability to mislead many if not the vast majority.
Here, too, we see the ominous fact that the modern age has made possible such a leader who could have worldwide impact.
But this does not mean that he is here now, or that he will be here soon, only that the capacity for instant worldwide communication has made this possible. While some have wanted to identify the man of lawlessness (sometimes called the antichrist) as Hitler, or the President of the United Nations, or certain United States presidents, none of these figures seem to qualify. None of them have led the whole world astray; their impact has been limited chronologically and geographically. For example, Hitler did lead many astray and conquered large parts of Europe, but entire nations together rose up against him. They were not deceived by Hitler, who is now in a stone-cold tomb.
So it would seem that the lawless one has yet to appear.
Yet it must also be said that with the rise of secularism, atheism, and strident anti-theism, the stage is increasingly being set for someone who can easily oppose himself (as St. Paul says) to every aspect of God and worship of God and who will be able to exalt himself in the place of God. Perhaps he will be a great scientist who claims to be able to create life and to explain every aspect of what we ascribe to God.
In so doing, he will deceive many. Science can say what and how, but it cannot say why. And no matter how advanced science or industry gets, it can never make something from nothing. But many are easily deceived by those who use existing matter and claim they have “created.”
Whatever the deception that comes, there’s clearly a lot of groundwork that is been laid for such a man of lawlessness: instant worldwide communication, rampant secularism and atheism, and arrogant anthropocentrism.
IV. Remember – Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things?
Paul simply asks us to remember, to allow these teachings to be present to our mind and heart so that when these things unfold we will not be deceived. Jesus also instructed the disciples as to what was to come so that when these things did come they would not be led astray: These things I have spoken to you so that you may be kept from stumbling (Jn 16:1).
V. Restraint – And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way.
Here St. Paul teaches us that something is currently restraining the lawless one from appearing. If he could, Satan would push the matter right now, but something is restraining him. What is it? Certainly it is God. But the means by which God accomplishes this is most likely the Church. Through grace, the power of the Sacraments, the proclaimed Word, and the liturgy, Satan’s power is restrained in certain ways.
But at some point known only to God, even this restraining power will no longer be enough and the lawless one’s time will come; he will appear.
Does this mean that the Church will grow weak? Perhaps, but not in any absolute sense, for the Lord has said, I am with you all days, unto the end of the age (Mat 28:20). But arguably, if a large number of Catholics fall away from the faith, there will be fewer prayers being said, fewer graces bestowed, and less light in a dark world. Jesus did ask, poignantly, When the Son of Man comes, will he find any faith on earth? (Lk 18:8) But even if we do shrink in numbers, the Church is indefectible; she will be here to the end.
So the best explanation seems to be that there will come a time when the Lord will no longer restrain the evil one from making his final attack.
Why God allows this is even more mysterious; it is somehow tied up in our freedom and in a certain Job-like purification that God permits for the Church. And this leads to St. Paul’s stated reason for the coming of the lawless one.
VI. Reason – [This lawless one will come] for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
The text speaks of God as sending a strong delusion on many so that they may believe what is false. We must be careful in interpreting these sorts of descriptions. They certainly refer to the primary causality that God has in everything that happens. Being the sustainer of all things, God is always the first cause of everything that takes place.
However, a text like this should not be seen to mean that God forces people to believe error. Rather, He is allowing to become plainly visible what was already the case in the will and the mind of those who are rebellious. Prior to the strong delusion that God permits, they had already (as St. Paul says) taken pleasure in unrighteousness and did not believe the truth. These are descriptions of the human will; God permitting the strong delusion simply makes plain but was already operative.
VII. Result – the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming.
So in the end God wins. God always wins; the truth always conquers. Many today are easily bewildered by the apparent triumph of evil in our world, but it is only temporary; it is but a watch in the night that the dawn will scatter. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it (Jn 1:5). One of the Psalms says, I have seen my enemy towering and triumphant; I passed by again and he was gone, I looked for him but he could not be found (Ps 37:36). Yet another Psalm says, Weeping may endure for a night, but joy will come with the morning light (Ps 30:5).
Do not be dismayed, fellow Catholics, at the current darkness. Whether this is the final end, or merely another ripple in the storm-tossed sea of history is yet to be known. But this much is clear: the darkness cannot endure; dawn inevitably comes. The cross always wins; Satan always loses. Satan will have his moments, but God has have His day. Satan may be the prince of this world, but Jesus is the Lord of history and all creation. The victory is already His. It’s just that the news has not yet leaked out to his persistent enemies, who are playing for the losing team.
This text is clear: whatever the apparent glamour of evil, Jesus, by His glorious appearance, will bring Satan and all of his works to nothing.
There is a phrase in the Scriptures that, while speaking of mystery, is itself a bit mysterious and is debated among scholars: the “mystery of iniquity.” St. Paul mentions it in Second Thessalonians and ties it to an equally mysterious “man of iniquity” who will appear before the Second Coming of Jesus. Many modern translations (accurately) render it as the “mystery of lawlessness” but that has less of a ring to it.
The Latin root of the English word “iniquity” is iniquitas (in (not) + aequus (equal)), meaning unjust or harmful. But the Greek μυστήριον τῆς ἀνομίας (mysterion tes anomias) is probably best rendered as “mystery of lawlessness.”
Language issues aside, Paul almost seems to be writing in a kind of secret code:
Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God. Don’t you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming (2 Thess 2:1-8).
Although St. Paul tells the Thessalonians that they know what is holding back the lawless one, we moderns struggle to know. Some scholars say that Paul is referring to the Roman government (which I doubt). Others say that it is the power of grace and God’s decision to “restrain” the evil one and thereby limit his power a bit for the time being. Of course if Satan is limited now, what horrifying things will be set loose when he is no longer restrained! Can it get any worse? Apparently it can!
But there it is in the seventh verse; even before the lawless one is set loose there already exists the “mystery of iniquity,” the mystery of lawlessness. That phrase comes down through the centuries to us, provoking us to ponder its rich meaning.
Yet the danger is that we can focus too much on the “man of iniquity,” who is not yet fully here, and fail to ponder the present reality, which is already operative. As St. Paul says, For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Yes, the danger is that we focus on the future, which is murky, and ignore the present, which is already here and operative.
Hence I propose that we ponder the “mystery of iniquity,” which is already here. I’d like to explore how it affects us, both personally and collectively. In doing so, we cannot ignore the operative word “mystery.” We must ponder with humility, realizing that we are confronting a mystery, some of which is revealed but much of which is hidden. Therefore I do not propose to “explain” this phrase to you, but rather to ponder its mystery and confront its questions so as to draw us to reverence and a deeper sense of our need for salvation.
Let’s look at the mystery of iniquity in five parts, wherein we ponder the mysterious reality of lawlessness that seems so operative among us, individually and collectively.
I. The Strange Mystery of “Rational” Man’s Irrationality – Why do we, who are otherwise rational creatures, choose to do that which we know is wrong? Why do we choose to do that which we know causes harm to ourselves and others, which endangers us, threatens and compromises our future, and further weakens us? Why do we choose evil, knowing that it is evil? This is mysterious.
Some argue that, on account of Original Sin, our will has been weakened and thus we easily give way to temptation. While this offers some further insight into what we do, it does not ultimately solve the mystery. For at the end of the day, there is still the deeply mysterious truth that we consistently choose to do that which we know is wrong and harmful.
Some argue that we are actually choosing what we perceive to be good. But here, too, despite our darkened intellects and our tendency to lie to ourselves, deep down we really know better. We know that choosing evil leads to harm in the long run, and our conscience tells us, “This is wrong. It’s a lie. Don’t do it.” And knowing this, we still do it.
Are we weak? Yes, but that is not the complete answer. Deep down we know this and thus we stare once again into the face of the “mystery of iniquity.”
II. The Even Stranger Mystery of the Angelic Rebellion – The mysteries only deepen when we consider that this is not just a human problem; it is also an angelic one. The presence of demons, revealed to us by Scripture and by our own experience, speaks to the reality of fallen angels.
Yes, among the angels, too, there was a great rebellion. Scripture more than hints at the fact that a third of the Angels fell from Heaven in a war of rebellion, before the creation of man (cf Rev 12:4).
Thus, ascribing iniquity and lawlessness to human weakness is not and cannot be a complete answer.
It is exceedingly hard and mysterious to ponder how Angels, with a nature and intellect far more glorious than ours, would knowingly reject what is good, true, and beautiful. Here is the deep “mystery of iniquity” having nothing to do with the flesh, or with sensuality, or with human limits. It is raw, intellectual, willful rebellion against the good by intellects and creatures far superior to us. The mystery only deepens.
III. The Awful Mystery of the Corruption of What is Best and Brightest – The intellect and free will are arguably God’s greatest gifts. But why then do they come with such a high price for both God and for us? Surely God foresaw that huge numbers of angels and human beings would reject Him. It is a seemingly enormous price to pay for free intellect and will.
Some will answer that God also saw the magnificent love and beauty that would be ushered in by those who accepted Him and the glorious vision of His truth. Perhaps God, who is love, saw love as so magnificent that even its rejection buy some could not overrule its glory in those who accepted it. Seeking beloved children rather than robots or animals was so precious to God that he risked losing some, even many, in order to gain some.
Others speculate that, at least in this fallen world, contrast is necessary to highlight the glory of truth. For what is light if there is no darkness to contrast with it? What is justice if there is no injustice to contrast with it? What is the glory of our yes if there is not a no that can also be uttered?
Even these reasonable speculations cannot fully address the mystery of why so many men and angels reject what is good, true, and beautiful; why so many prefer to reign in Hell rather than to serve in heaven; why so many obstinately refuse to trust in God and obey even simple commands that they know are ultimately good for them. The glory of our freedom and our intellect are abused. Our greatest strengths are also our greatest struggles. Liberty becomes license; lasciviousness and intellect become insubordination and intransigence. Corruptio optime pessima! (The corruption of the best is the worst!)
IV. The Deepest Part of Mystery: the final Refusal to Repent. Many today like to blame God for Hell, and they particularly scoff at the notion that Hell is eternal. But as the Catechism teaches, the eternity of Hell is not due to a defect in Divine Mercy (# 393). Rather, Hell is eternal because the decision of the damned is irrevocable.
Mysteriously, the stubbornness and hardness of heart of the damned reached a point of no return. How does a soul end up in this state? It is mysterious but surely it happens gradually. Sin is added upon sin and the hardness of heart grows. The demands of God’s justice seem to be increasingly more obnoxious. The hardened soul starts to sneer at God’s law as intolerant, backwards, and simplistic. Of course God’s law is none of these things, but as the darkness grows within a heart, the light seems more and more obnoxious and hateful. Soon enough, concepts such as forgiveness, love of enemies, generosity, and chastity seem wildly “unrealistic,” even ludicrous.
When does a soul reach the point of no return? Is it at death or sometime before? It is hard to say. But here we reach the deepest part of the mystery of iniquity: the permanently unrepentant heart. It is very dark and very, very mysterious.
V. So we are back to the “mystery of iniquity.” Our little tour of “explanations” has yielded only crumbs. We are back to confronting our mysterious rebelliousness, stubbornness, and hardness of heart; our almost knee-jerk tendency to bristle when we are told what to do, even if we know it to be good for us and others. Even the most minor prohibition makes the thing seem all the more desirable to us. There lurks that strange rebellious voice that says, “I will not be told what to do! I will do what I want to do, and I will decide whether it is right or wrong.”
Yes, at the end of the day, we are left looking squarely at a mystery. It is the deep, almost unfathomable mystery of our very own iniquity, our lawlessness, our irrational refusal to be under any law or restraint.
Like all mysteries, perhaps it is not meant to be solved. Rather, it is meant to be accepted and to cause us to turn to God, who alone understands. The mystery of iniquity is so profound and so terrifying that it should send us running to God as fast as we can exclaiming, “Lord save me from myself: my obtuseness, my hardened heart, my rebelliousness, my iniquity. Save me from the lawlessness in me! I cannot understand it, let alone save myself from it! Only you, Lord, can save me from my greatest threat, my greatest enemy: my very self.”
Yes, the great mystery of iniquity! St. Paul says only this: the mystery of iniquity is already at work. But he does not say why or even how. He only says that God can restrain it.
Yes, only God can restrain and explain.
More tortuous than anything is the human heart, beyond remedy; who can understand it? I, alone, the LORD, explore the mind and test the heart (Jer 17:9-10).
Here is a song from my youth that celebrates rebellion, iniquity, and lawlessness. The refrain admits that we are “fooling no one but ourselves.” But we do it anyway. It’s foolish and mysterious!
Many groups have a tendency to use words that make sense to their members but are unintelligible to outsiders. I have sometimes had to decode “Church-speak” for recent converts.
For example, one time I proudly announced, “RCIA classes will begin next week, so if you know anyone who is interested in attending please fill out an information card on the table just outside the sacristy door.” I thought I’d been perfectly clear, but then a new member approached me after Mass to inquire about the availability of classes to become Catholic and when they would begin. Wondering if she’d forgotten the announcement I reminded her what I had said about RCIA classes. She looked at me blankly. “Oh,” I said, “Let me explain what I mean by RCIA.” After I did so, I mentioned that she could pick up a flyer over by the sacristy door. Again I got a blank stare, followed by the question “What’s a sacristy?” Did I dare tell her that the classes would be held in the rectory?
I’ve had a similar reaction when announcing CCD classes. One angry parent called me to protest that she had been told by the DRE (more Church-speak) that her daughter could not make her First Holy Communion unless she started attending CCD. The mother, the non-Catholic wife of a less-than-practicing Catholic husband, had no idea what CCD meant and why it should be required in order for her daughter to receive Holy Communion. She had never connected the term CCD with Sunday school or any form of religious instruction.
Over my years as a priest I have become more and more aware that although I use what I would call ordinary terms of traditional Catholicism, given the poor catechesis (another Church word, meaning religious training, by the way) of so many, the meaning of what I am saying is lost. For example, I have discovered that some Catholics think that “mortal sin” refers only to killing someone. Even the expression “grave sin” is nebulous to many; they know it isn’t good, but aren’t really sure what it means. “Venial sin” is even less understood!
Other words such as covenant, matrimony, incarnation, transubstantiation, liturgy, oration, epistle, gospel, Collect, Sanctus, chalice, paten, alb, Holy Orders, theological, missal, Monsignor, and Eucharistic, while meaningful to many in the Church, are often only vaguely understood by others in the Church, not to mention the unchurched (is that another Church word?).
Once at daily Mass I was preaching based on a reading from the First Letter of John and was attempting to make the point that our faith is “incarnational.” I noticed vacant looks out in the pews. And so I asked the small group gathered that day if anyone knew what “incarnational” meant; no one did. I went on to explain that it meant that the Word of God had to become flesh in us; it had to become real in the way we live our lives. To me, the word “incarnational” captured the concept perfectly, but most of the people didn’t even really know for sure what “incarnation” meant, let alone “incarnational.”
Ah, Church-speak!
During my years in the seminary the art of Church-speak seemed to rise to new levels. I remember that many of my professors, while railing against the use of Latin in the liturgy, had a strange fascination with Greek-based terminology. Mass was out, Eucharist was in. “Going to mass” was out, “confecting the synaxis” was in. Canon was out, “anamnesis” and “anaphora” were in. Communion was out, koinonia was in. Mystagogia, catechumenate, mysterion, epikaia, protoevangelion, hapax legomenon, epiklesis, synderesis, eschatology, Parousia, and apakatastasis were all in. These are necessary words, I suppose, but surely opaque to most parishioners. Church-speak indeed, or should I say ekklesia-legomenon.
Ah, Church-speak! Here is an online list of many other Church words for your edification (and amusement): Church words defined
At any rate, I have learned to be a little more careful when speaking so as to avoid too much Church-speak, too many insider terms, too many older terms, without carefully explaining them. I think we can and should learn many of them, but we should not assume that most people know them.
The great and Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen once said that he discovered early on that he often got credit for being learned when in fact he was merely being obscure. And for any who knew him in his later years, especially through his television show, he was always very careful to explain Church teaching in a way that made it accessible to the masses. It’s good advice for all of us: a little less of the CCD and RCIA jargon and little more of the clear “religious instruction” can help others to decode our Church-speak.
I would not argue that we should “dumb down” our vocabulary, for indeed it is a precious patrimony in many cases. But we need to do more explaining rather than merely presuming that most people will know what some of our terms mean.
This video has a lot of gibberish in it, but it illustrates how we can sound at times if we’re not careful!
The following question comes up frequently whenever I teach moral theology classes and we cover the issue of lying. In a way it is remarkable that the format of the question almost never changes, and that the usual (and I would argue questionable) answer has taken such deep root in Catholic thinking.
Here is the question followed by my answer to it. (Note that the answers I provide in that venue are required to be brief.)
Q. Is every lie intrinsically evil? I remember 60 years ago, when the Jesuits were still faithful teachers of Holy Mother Church, being taught that if a person was not entitled to the truth, one could, in fact, lead them away from the truth, by lying. For example, if I knew the hideout of Anne Frank and the Gestapo asked me if I knew her whereabouts, according to this theory, if I said I did not that would [not] be intrinsically evil. Ed S., Muscatine, IA
A: Permit a personal reply to this, with the understanding that reasonable people may differ with some aspects of my answer.
Unfortunately, the approach that you cite is a widespread notion related to a questionable concept called “mental reservation.” I call it “unfortunate” because it seems to say that a lie is not a lie.
But in the common example you cite, you clearly wouldbe lying since it meets the definition of lying: speaking that which is untrue with the intention of deceiving. Indeed, the entire purpose of the lie is to deceive the officials by saying what is untrue.
It will be granted that the situation described is dreadful and fearsome. But I, like many moral theologians, am not prepared to say that it is not a lie simply because the situation is fearful and the authorities are bad people.
Perhaps the better approach is to say that it is a lie and that, as a lie, it is intrinsically wrong. However, when one is under duress or sees no clear way to avoid a consequent grave evil or injustice, one’s culpability for such a lie is lessened. It seems rather doubtful that God would make a big deal of the sort of lie you describe on Judgment Day.
But to call any lie good or justifiable is to harm a moral principle unnecessarily. Call it what it is: a lie. It is not good. And it is not permitted to do evil in order that good may come of it.
With this in mind it is better to say that what you describe would constitute a lie, lamentable but understandable. And given the gravity of the situation, there would not likely much if any blame incurred.
Life sometimes presents us with difficulties that are not easily overcome. But to adjust moral principles to accommodate anomalies is to engage in a kind of casuistry that does harm to moral principles. Sometimes the best we can do is to shrug humbly and say, “Well it’s wrong to lie, but let’s trustingly leave the judgment on this one up to God, who knows our struggles and will surely factor in the fearsome circumstances.”
So there’s my view, succinctly stated. There was no room in the column to address the questions that might arise based on my answer, but I will do so here:
Is this the case even if someone does not have the right to know the truth?
I am not sure it is right to say that someone does not have the right to know the truth. Certain matters may be no one’s business, but if that is the case then you should respond, “This is not for you to know and I will not answer.” But lying to such a person would not make the lie something other than what it is: a lie.
What about state-sponsored lying in matters of national security?
Don’t ask me to call it good or not a lie. But the fact that every nation knows that the others are lying is a factor. This does not make it good or not a lie, but would tend to make the practice less egregious and lessen the culpability of the officials who engage in it. In a big, bad world, permit me to shrug on this one—but don’t ask me to call it good, or virtuous, or not a lie.
What about undercover investigations by the police or journalists that use assumed identities or present false information or intentions?
Here, too, don’t ask me to say that telling a lie is really telling the truth. The fact is, it’s a lie. One should always seek to gather information in a straightforward manner. In criminal investigations the lie may be less egregious since most criminals are on their guard for exactly these sorts of tactics. But here, too, I would request that you not insist I call such practices good or even justifiable. I just don’t like being asked to say that it is permissible to do evil in order that good may come of it. The best I can do is to shrug and say, “Even though we live in a big, bad world, this is still lying. But it may not be the most serious sort of lying given the circumstances.” We all know it goes on. Let’s not call it good, but other things being equal, let’s not lose a lot of sleep over it either. There are big lies that cause grave harm and there are smaller lies that cause less harm. Not every lie is a mortal sin or equally harmful.
OK, now it’s your turn. But before answering, remember your Catechism:
A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving … To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error … The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity (CCC 2482 – 2484).
Last Sunday, we read the passage from the Gospel of Luke about the testing of Christ in the desert by Satan. In his Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas makes some interesting observations. He treats the temptations as having occurred in an escalating manner; he also connects Christ’s experience to that of Adam in the Garden of Eden.
