A recent study of more than 1400 Catholic men from over 1000 parishes indicates a substantial disconnect from the Church and a dissatisfaction with what the Church offers and how she ministers to men. The survey was conducted in the fall of 2014 and an analysis of the results was published by Matthew James Christoff, Director of The New Emangelization Project (Helping Priests Become More Effective in Evangelizing Men).
It is clear that “men” are not monolithic; they have a range of views and preferences. But overall, the men surveyed feel disengaged from the Church and sense little interest from the Church in listening to them or reaching out to them. Further, there are some concerns that, in general, are shared more by men than by women. While the study indicates a number of themes and recommendations, I will not reproduce them all here. You can and should read those at the link above.
But there are two issues on which I would like to focus, since we often discuss them here on this blog: liturgy and homilies. The men in the survey, especially in the narrative comments, had some pointed observations about both areas (see pages 9 and 20-21). And while the preferences and concerns do not break out simply into men’s opinions vs. women’s opinions, it is clear that there are overall tendencies in what men prefer or find satisfying.
Liturgy – Modern liturgy has emphasized community, warmth, welcome, inclusiveness, accessibility, and being easily understood. Parishioners are often encouraged to greet those around them warmly, shake hands, hold hands, etc. Music has often become emotive and lyrical (rather than metered and march-like) and the themes emphasize welcome, intimacy with God, reconciliation, love, etc.
None of these things are wrong in themselves, and there are masculine ways of expressing and experiencing these things, but there is a lack of balancing virtues that are often more appealing to men such as duty, call, honor, awe, reverence, respect, transcendence, sacrifice, spiritual warfare, and the struggle against evil.
Stirring, metrical hymns paired with equally vigorous verses describing virtues and themes such as adoration, obedience, faith, strength, hope, God’s power and glory, the ultimate victory of God and the faithful, tend to appeal more to men and masculine ideals.
It does not have to be one thing or the other in the liturgy; it really is about greater balance. Much of the modern liturgical fare in many (though not all) parishes is weighted toward aspects more often preferred by women. And while most men do not talk about it much, when asked, they consistently report being uncomfortable with and uninspired by modern liturgies.
It is no surprise then that men (according both to this and other polls as well as anecdotal observation) are on average more likely than women to prefer the solemn, formal liturgies of the traditional rites. The discipline, skill, and almost military-like precision appeal to many men. Tradition here need not refer only to the pre-conciliar forms, but also to newer forms that contain more traditional elements and formality.
Homilies – Most of the men polled indicated that they respond more to a homilist who sounds like a leader, summons and challenges them, calls for courage, and articulates a clear stance on the moral issues of our day.
The men surveyed noted that often the emphasis seems to be on “safe” homilies, designed not to unsettle or offend, homilies in which God’s love is emphasized more so than the challenging themes of discipleship like obedience, repentance, sacrifice, resistance to the world, and willingness to rebuke sin within our families. Soft and suggestive tones are “in,” while bold and directive sermons are harder to find.
Here, too, it need not be one or the other, with one being bad the other being good. Rather, it is the lack of balance that is the problem. Men do not ordinarily speak about these views, but, when asked, are fairly consistent in their sense that the balance is off. They feel that sermons do not seem to be aimed at them and do not involve themes or topics that are most interesting to them.
You can read more at the link above, paying special attention to page 9 and pages 20-21.
Clearly, whenever we speak of liturgy we are hitting the “third rail” and blood can boil. Just remember that this is a discussion and the goal is to listen and to find balance. There is obviously overlap in what men and women think. All men don’t feel the same way any more than all women feel the same way. Let’s also avoid reducing this to a matter of right vs. left, pre-conciliar vs. post-conciliar, etc. Say what you mean, and mean what you say, but don’t say it mean.
often and to strive to master ancient Greek. I am no Greek scholar, but as the years tick by I am becoming more and more familiar with the language in which God chose to inscribe His Holy Word of the New Testament.
Something of the hidden richness of the Greek text struck me recently as I was teaching my parishioners in Bible study. (We are preparing for the arrival of the Pope in Washington by studying the Office of Simon Peter, as laid out in Scripture.)
Why do I speak of the richness of the Greek text as “hidden”? Surely a good translation shows forth the meaning of the text, right? Well, no; not fully. There are too many subtleties and complex constructions that English just cannot accurately convey. Much is lost in the translation; much is hidden.
Consider, then, a well-known section in Matthew 16. The Lord has just declared Simon to be “Peter” (rock) and then goes on to give him the “keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.” The Lord says to Peter, “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Mat 16:19). The only problem is that this is not exactly what the Lord says. The Greek is much richer and more emphatic. It not only affirms Peter’s authority, but also describes how and why that authority is commendable and infallible.
Here is the Greek text, followed by an English translation that is as literal as possible:
I will give to you the keys of the Kingdom of the heavens, and whatever, if you might bind on the earth, it will have been bound in the heavens; and whatever you might loose on the earth, it will have been loosed in the heavens.
Note that the verbs related to heaven’s binding and loosing are dedemenon and lelumenon. They are perfect (passive) participles in the middle voice. As such, they indicate something that has already been done in Heaven before Peter does it on Earth.
Hence a literal, though awkward, English rendering would be “Whatever you might bind on the earth, having (already) been bound in heaven, and whatever you might loose on the earth, having (already) been loosed in heaven.”
But this is just not the way we talk in English. And thus most English renderings go something like this: “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” And, while smoother, it loses the inspirational emphasis that the Greek text conveys.
The Greek text makes clear that if Peter binds or looses something on Earth, it is because Heaven has inspired this act; in no way is Heaven engaged in a “rearguard action.” Rather, Peter is inspired to carry out what has already been done in Heaven. Heaven is not forced to comply with Peter’s decision. Rather, Heaven binds or looses, and then inspires Peter and his successors to do likewise. The Greek conveys this important subtlety; the English does not.
This subtle but important description of inspiration also fits well within the context of Matthew 16. Recall that Jesus had said to Peter, who correctly identified Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God, Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven (Matt 16:17).
Thus, Heaven “has Peter’s back,” inspiring what Peter utters. Heaven is not bound by Peter, it inspires him. Our Faith is not in Peter as a man; it is not in any of Peter’s successors as men. Rather, our faith is in God, who protects Peter and his successors from error and inspires what is formally taught and proposed for belief.
Is the English text wrong? No. It is just limited in conveying the subtleties. The Greek text is better at affirming the Catholic belief in the infallibility of the formal papal teaching on Faith and morals. It affirms more clearly that our faith is in God, who inspires. And while we pray that whoever is pope is a smart guy, this is not the source of our confidence. The source of our confidence is God’s capacity to inspire even sinful men who are not brilliant theologians. Our faith is in God, not in men as such. The Greek text invites us to believe that whatever is bound by the pope has already been bound in Heaven.
As another example, consider how Peter was prepared to teach properly at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) by the vision God gave to him in Acts 10. In this vision, Peter was instructed to baptize the first Gentiles and receive them as brethren. Thus, when the time for the Council came, Peter was ready to speak and teach the truth. He loosed on Earth what had already been loosed in Heaven. And while it is true that St. Paul later had to rebuke Peter (Gal 2) for not living the teaching fully (for Peter drew back to consort only with Jewish Christians out of fear and social pressure), it remains true that Peter taught it rightly by inspiration. And this is what is promised: that whatever Peter would formally bind or loose on Earth had already been bound or loosed in Heaven.
And thus the Greek, in all its subtlety, sets forth an important reminder that the mechanism of infallible teaching from the Pope is not in the man, but in God, who inspires and leads Peter and his successors.
There are three evangelical counsels in Christianity: poverty, chastity, and obedience. Each, of course, presents challenges, but all are rooted in a similar goal: detachment. In obedience, God gives us the grace to free ourselves from pride and willfulness. In chastity, God gives us the grace to order and moderate our sexual passions according to our state in life, thereby reducing our obsession with their energy. And in poverty, God gives us the grace to suppress our greed and to make moderate, proper use of the things of this world.
For priests and religious, the challenge of obedience looms especially large. It is concerned with both daily matters and long-term ones, such as assignments and where one will live.
Chastity certainly challenges all: married, single, priest, religious, and laity. However, for the married and for priests and religious, chastity can be very workable as long as proper boundaries and structures are in place.
Poverty seems especially challenging to those who are married and have children. In my discussions with family and friends over the years, I’ve learned that the summons to poverty seems irksome, and even improper to many. Some say things like “Father, I have children to raise; I need to provide for them. And have you seen how much college costs these days? We need a decent house to live in. And medical insurance seems to increase by leaps and bounds every year. Poverty for me and my spouse would be foolish.”
Their objections are understandable. However, they are based on the notion that the counsel to poverty means a call to destitution, hand-to-mouth living, or a state in which one owns very little. To be sure, some are called to this sort of poverty. Religious own nothing and share all of what they earn or have with the community to which they belong.
But poverty as a spiritual counsel is deeper than what is in the bank, or the square footage of one’s home, or how much is in the college savings plan or 401-K. The poverty referred to points more to attitudes than assets. Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange speaks of the spirit of poverty in this way:
The meaning of this evangelical beatitude is as follows: Blessed are they who have not the spirit of wealth, its pomp, its pride, its insatiable avidity; but who have the spirit of poverty and are humble. … Our Lord counseled voluntary poverty, or detachment in regard to earthly goods … to combat cupidity, the concupiscence of the eyes, the desire of riches, avarice and the forgetfulness of the poor (The Three Ages of the Spiritual Life, Vol. 2, Tan Pub. pp. 141-142).
Great humility is necessary for us in our riches, since it is too easy for us to consider ourselves owners of them rather than stewards. That is to say, we are given goods by God to administer in the way He would have us, not merely according to our whims or desires. In his treatise on justice, St Thomas Aquinas says,
It is lawful for man to possess property … [but] with regard to external things [and] their use … in this respect man ought to possess external things, not as his own, but as common, so that, to wit, he is ready to communicate them to others in their need (Summa Theologica IIa IIae q. 66, art 2).
Now certainly God would have us care for our own household first. But in an age such as ours, in which abundance knows few limits, the spirit of poverty is a necessary gift from God to help us to rightly assess what is meant by excess and superfluity. For indeed it is from our abundance that we ought to give to the poor and needy. In the lives of parents, the first who are needy are their children. But though charity does begin at home, it does not end there. And thus our notion of the poor and needy is rightly expanded to include many beyond our kith and kin.
Our culture does a poor job of schooling us in what is meant by abundance. Indeed the message today is that we can never have enough and that we absolutely need what we merely want. Is it really necessary for us to have homes of 3,500 square feet and up? Are granite countertops really essential? Are six televisions truly necessary? When have we reached the point at which we can say, “My family and I have what we need, and even a good bit of what we want. Now it is important to give out of our abundance”?
The counsel of poverty is aimed at addressing this prudential judgment. As a poor author who has never met most of you, I cannot give you the precise definition of what it means for you to give out of your abundance prudentially and generously. I cannot lecture you on how you merely want what you think you need. This is ultimately a matter between you and God.
That is why it is important to cultivate what we call the spirit of poverty. By it, we learn to be content with and grateful for what we have. By it, we can say to God, “Thank you, Lord. It is enough.” By the spirit of poverty we learn to be detached from the excesses of this world. By living more simply, we are able to be more generous both with our children and with the poor.
Through voluntary poverty we are freed of many of the extra cares of the world as well as from excessive preoccupation with external and passing things. By travelling lighter, our pace toward God and the Kingdom of Heaven can become more rapid. Our life is simpler and more focused on things that matter; we are less concerned with running after the latest upgrade, less anxious about securing and maintaining all of our many possessions.
A simpler life is less busy, so there is more time for relationships with God and others. There is more time for spiritual reading and edifying things. The goods of our heart and intellect are savored, while the goods of the body are less appealing.
Thus, the counsel of spiritual poverty is, at its heart, the call to a spirit of detachment, disengagement from what is less important in order to connect more closely with what is more important. Thus, poverty is not about less; it is about more. Voluntary spiritual poverty makes room for more of what is good, true, and beautiful; more of what is holy, edifying, and helpful.
By this counsel, God is not asking us to live in destitution. In fact, for parents with children, that might even be irresponsible. But, honestly, does not our obsession with worldly things rob us of more important ones?
Let the Holy Spirit counsel you on what spiritual poverty means for you.
In the Gospel today, we continue with Jesus’ great treatise on the Eucharist (John 6). Many of the Jewish listeners who hear Him speaking in the synagogue at Capernaum are grumbling and murmuring in protest at His insistence that they eat His flesh and drink His blood. But Jesus does not back down for a minute. In fact, He “doubles down” and quite graphically teaches a very real (as opposed to symbolic) call to eat His flesh and drink His blood. Let’s examine Jesus’ teaching in four stages.
I. REALITY of the Eucharist – Jesus begins by insisting on its reality, saying, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” Notice, therefore, that the bread IS HIS FLESH. The bread is not simply a symbol of His flesh, His body, or of His life and teachings. It is not simply a way of remembering Him when He is gone. No, it IS His flesh. Other scriptural passages also insist on the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist and the truth that it is His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.
· For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me” (1 Cor 11:23-25).
· The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion in the body of Christ? (1 Cor 10:16)
· Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself (1 Cor 11:27-29).
· When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them. And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight. Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread (Luke 24:31, 35).
Thus the Lord first teaches them of the reality of the Eucharist, of the bread and wine that He offers: it is in fact His Body and Blood.
II. REACTION – The Lord’s teaching provokes a strong reaction from His listeners: The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
This is one of the most difficult moments of Jesus’ public ministry. The scene is the synagogue at Capernaum, the town where Jesus worked some of His greatest miracles. You’d think he’d have a really supportive audience here!
But as it turns out, you might say he had no “Amen corner.” The old spiritual was demonstrated that goes, “Way down yonder by myself and I couldn’t hear nobody pray.” As we continue with this gospel next week, we will see that their reaction is one of revulsion so severe that many will leave Him and no longer walk in His company.
I wonder if Jesus had this moment in mind when he said of Capernaum, And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to Heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you” (Mat 11:23-24).
III. REINFORCEMENT – But Jesus does not back down. Their rejection leads Him to reinforce His teaching: Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.”
Yes, Jesus gets emphatic and uses the intensifier “Amen, Amen I say to you” which is the Jewish equivalent of “Let me be perfectly clear.” He also switches His vocabulary from the polite word for “eat” (φαγεῖν (phagein) in Greek) to τρώγων (trogon), which more graphically and almost impolitely speaks of gnawing on, crunching, or chewing His flesh.
Jesus wants to be very clear. His listeners now understand Him to speak literally, rather than metaphorically or symbolically. Jesus assures them that He expects to be understood literally. Why is He so emphatic? He wants to save us; He links the eating of His Body and Blood to eternal life: Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. In order to be raised up and to make the journey to eternal life, we must be sustained and strengthened for the journey by eating His flesh and drinking His blood.
It is just like the manna that sustained the Israelites for forty years in the desert as they journeyed to the Promised Land. Had they not eaten, they would have died in the desert. And so it is for us in the desert of this world. Without our manna, our Bread from Heaven, without the Body and Blood of the Lord to sustain us, we will not make it to the Promised Land of Heaven.
Jesus insists and says, “Unless …,” “Eat …,” else the journey will be too long for you! For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. I am the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.
IV. REWARD of the Eucharist – Here the words of Jesus speak plainly of the reward in receiving the Eucharist: Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever. Note that Jesus mentions three rewards:
A. Intimacy – The Eucharist is called Holy Communion because, by it, we grow into a deep, lasting union with Jesus. Our knowledge and experience of Him in our life becomes deeper and more real. We see and experience His power at work in our life.
B. Increase – We find that our life grows richer. Sin is put to death and graces come alive. We are more joyful, confident, and serene. We are less vain, angry, lustful, and distracted. Jesus in His Eucharistic indwelling of us produces these effects over time.
C. Immortality – Eternal life refers to the fullness of life more so than its length. And thus we become more alive as we grow into Holy Communion with the Lord. This happens even now, though its fullest effects wait until Heaven. But don’t miss the “now-ness” of eternal! It begins now and grows deeper with each year. Heaven will see its full unfolding, but even now a growing experience of a fuller and fuller life is to be the normative experience of every Christian.
The Teaching of the Eucharist was a costly teaching for Jesus in many ways. Clearly it pointed to and flowed from His horrific passion and death. But even before that, He had much to suffer in the murmuring of many disciples. As we continue with this gospel next week, we will see that many would no longer follow Him because of this teaching. It was, to be sure, a shocking—even graphic—teaching. And yet, so critical was it to the Lord that we obtain the Eucharist, that He was willing to risk rejection and ultimately give up His life so that we could have it. A costly meal indeed.
The video below makes the point that “What’s important doesn’t change.” Not a bad reminder for us in modern times who have, to some extent, been bewitched by our technological advances. The fact that we have been to the moon and back does not mean that the moon, or the earth, or even we are different. Our knowledge may deepen our understanding of what is, but it does not change what is. There is a reality that we are discovering; we are not creating it. Today we have many new ways to communicate, but if anything, miscommunication is more common rather than less.
Our technology does not make us substantially different from our ancestors, nor does it fundamentally change the world, even if we do rearrange some of its elements.
Yet, sadly, many today think we can and have fundamentally altered what is, and that we are somehow different from and better than our ancestors. Thus the moral “rules” that they required no longer need apply to us, who are more “enlightened” and “mature” by comparison. This is pride; this is what it means to be “bewitched” by our technology. We may know more about particle physics, but that does not mean that we can say why there are particles at all, or how God instilled the order and laws that we call “physics” in all things.
God has made all things and ordered them rightly. And as for us, male and female He made us. Some people talk of bending “gender” and of being “trans-” this or that. No can do! Male and female He made us, as we are. What’s important doesn’t change. Human nature from God is important; it has not changed no matter what our distorted philosophies may conjure up.
And now to bring this discussion more to the level of the commercial in the video below: despite our computers and advanced science, a man still cannot fully understand a woman, nor a woman a man. We cannot even understand ourselves! As Scripture says, More tortuous than anything is the human heart, beyond remedy; who can understand it? I, the LORD, explore the mind and test the heart, giving to all according to their ways, according to the fruit of their deeds (Jer 17:9-10).
What’s important doesn’t change. Technology may change; surroundings may change; errors may come and go. But the basics do not change, for they come from the Word of God, which does not change.
Enjoy the video!
A great clarion call goes up quite often in Scripture: “Do not be deceived!” And indeed, this call must go up as never before, for we live in times of great deception. So many have been deceived about marriage, sexuality, life, the existence of God, and what our life is really all about. And while our current times show widespread deception, it must also be noted that deceiving and being deceived are common human tendencies, especially in our fallen condition. Scripture speaks often of this problem, and we do well to look to some of the texts and see what they have to teach us.
Let’s first look at the Latin and Greek roots of the word “deceive.”
The Latin root comes from decipere, meaning, “to ensnare” (de (of or up) + capere (to seize or take)). And thus the Latin emphasizes our tendency to be easily caught up, or carried away; to be ensnared by error. Indeed, so easily are we carried away by the latest fashions, trends, and thinking of the world. Having been carried away, we are ensnared by error, and to some degree cut off from the truth.
Regarding the Greek roots, there are several words in the Greek New Testament that often get translated as “deceive” in English. But by far the most common is πλανάω (planao), meaning to go astray, to deviate from the correct path, to roam into error, to wander off, or (in the passive voice) to be misled. Planao is the root of the English word “planet,” which means “wandering body.” This term in the Greek New Testament nearly always conveys the sin of roaming from the truth.
And thus we see that the Greek emphasis is that we go astray, or are led astray, that we wander off. Isaiah the prophet lamented, All we like sheep have gone astray; every one to his own way (Is 53:6). Yes, and if sheep are wayward animals, human beings are more so; at least a sheep knows its master’s voice. Too many of us will listen to and follow anyone but the Lord.
We can distinguish three different ways in which we are involved in deception.
I. We are sometimes the victims of deception. The Scriptures frequently warn, “Do not be deceived.” Jesus warned, At that time many will fall away and will betray one another and hate one another. Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many (Mat 24:11).
St. Paul also lamented false apostles and Judaizers who misled many. He warned, savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. (Acts 20:29-30). He also spoke of some who will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons (1 Tim 4:1).
St. John warned of the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world (1 John 4:3).
Thus, to some degree, we are victims of deceivers. The Scriptures warn us to be on our guard: “Do not be deceived!” That is, you are not to allow these deceivers to lead you astray, to make you wander about in error and in sin. You are to resist them and see them for the deceivers they are.
II. We can be among those who deceive (though I hope this is rare). This refers to something deeper than the more common human foible of lying: it is the misleading of people in matters regarding the true faith.
God warns deceivers, Why do you boast of evil, you wicked man? Why do you boast all day long, you who are a disgrace in the eyes of God? You who practice deceit, your tongue plots destruction; it is like a sharpened razor. You love evil rather than good, falsehood rather than speaking the truth. You love every harmful word, you deceitful tongue! Surely God will bring you down to everlasting ruin (Psalm 52:1-5).
God declares a curse on those shepherds who mislead his flock: “Woe to the shepherds who mislead and scatter the sheep of My pasture!” declares the LORD. Therefore thus says the LORD God of Israel concerning the shepherds who are tending My people: “You have scattered My flock and driven them away, and have not attended to them; behold, I am about to attend to you for the evil of your deeds (Jer 23:1-3).
Jesus declares, If anyone causes one of these little ones–those who believe in me–to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea (Mat 18:6).
St. Paul speaks of the lot of deceivers in 2 Tim 3:13: But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.
III. We can connive in deception. This final category is perhaps the most troubling of all. It is a kind of a middle ground between being a victim of deception and a perpetrator of deception. We allow deceivers to speak to us, and not only do we not rebuke them for their deception, we actually perk up our ears and say, in effect, “Please go on; tell me more!”
We do this because, to some degree, we want to be deceived. We want to be confirmed in our sin, in our weakness. Somehow, many of us want the truth to be watered down; we’re delighted to listen to those who call into question the demands of righteousness. Yes, many of us connive with the deceivers.
And thus many of the warnings that we not be deceived are not simply warnings to be watchful for deceivers; they also warn of our own tendency to collude with those would deceive us. In this context, the warning, “Do not be deceived,” takes on more the tone of
“Don’t kid yourself. Don’t lie to yourself. Don’t go on playing the fool. You know better. The voice of God echoing in your conscience bears witness to the fact that you’re lying to yourself, and you are allowing others lie to you.”
Premier among the “conniving” texts is St. Paul’s warning to Timothy: For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear, and will turn away from the truth (2 Tim 4:3).
What are some of the common ways people “want” to be deceived? A brief survey of Scripture reveals this. I have highlighted the various forms of the word “deceive” to illustrate that God is teaching us about its various forms.
A. Our actions will not have consequences. Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life (Galatians 6:7-8).
B. Faith can be perfunctory, intellectual, or mere lip service. Good intentions are enough and one can love the world. But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves … If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world (James 1:22-27).
… Hear the word of the Lord, all you men of Judah who enter these gates to worship the Lord. Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Amend your ways and your deeds, and I will let you dwell in this place. Do not trust in these deceptive words: “This is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord.” If you really change your ways and your actions and deal with each other justly, if you do not oppress the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow and do not shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not follow other gods to your own harm, then I will let you live in this place, in the land I gave your ancestors for ever and ever. But look, you are trusting in deceptive words that are worthless. Will you steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury, burn incense to Baal and follow other gods you have not known, and then come and stand before me in this house, which bears my Name, and say, “We are safe”—safe to do all these detestable things? Has this house, which bears my Name, become a den of robbers to you? But I have been watching, declares the Lord (Jeremiah 7:2-11).
D. Sexual sin is no big deal. Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10).
Be sure of this, no fornicator, impure or greedy person—such a person is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be partners with them. For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light … and find out what pleases the Lord. Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness (Eph 5:5-11).
When lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death. Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren (James 1:16).
E. Regular consort with sin and sinners will not affect us. Do not be deceived: “Bad company corrupts good morals.” Become sober-minded as you ought, and stop sinning; for some have no knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame (1 Cor 15:33).
But encourage each other daily, while it is still today, so that none of you is hardened by sin’s deception (Heb 3:13).
F. We can somehow wholly avoid deception and error apart from Scripture and the teaching of the Church. Jesus answered them, “You are deceived, because you don’t know the Scriptures or the power of God (Matt 22:29).
Wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the Truth and so be saved (1 Thess 2:10).
Here, then, is a brief excursus on the lamentable human tendency to wander, to be carried off, to be deceived. And, frankly, too many of us want to be deceived. Be alert to this deep drive that is rooted in sloth and pride. Learn its moves and despise its lures.
This video features the classic movement from Messiah that says, “All we like sheep have gone astray, every one to his own way. And the Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all.” The movement is a kind of musical onomatopoeia, for the music “sounds” like the scattering and wandering off it is describing. Enjoy, but beware—it’s talking about us!
In the Gospel of Mark, there is a funny story about Peter that speaks to the paradox of losing one’s life only to find it more abundantly:
Peter began to say to him, “See, we have left everything and followed you.” Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first” (Mark 10:27-31).
Every priest knows well the paradox of these verses. Each of us gave up being a father (of children) and yet thousands call us “Father.” We gave up the bride of our dreams and yet have the most beautiful and perfect bride: the Church. She is beautiful indeed, but has a long “honey do” list! And as for buildings and land? We do not have our own home out in the suburbs on a quarter acre of land. Instead, we oversee multimillion dollar buildings, quite often occupying an entire city block or a country acre. Talk about receiving a hundredfold! Every priest knows the richness of his life in terms of buildings and land, but above all in people, in family.
And such is the paradox of losing one’s life only to find it even more richly.
I think that God has a certain sense of humor about this as well and must have Himself a good laugh as we begin to realize the paradox.
I remember once, back when I was considering the priesthood, that it occurred to me with some relief that at least I wouldn’t have to worry about losing my job or keeping a roof over the head of my family. Hah! God must have had a good laugh at that thought of mine. I, too, had to laugh as I signed checks this summer in excess of $300,000 to replace the roof on our school. Somehow we will manage to recover financially, but it’s going to be a difficult year. I just cannot avoid a smirk and an eye roll when I think back on my once naïve notion of the financial ease of being a priest. What was I thinking?
But God has been good to me, so very good. In losing “my own family” I gained God’s family. In setting aside something less, I obtained something greater, far greater than I could ever have imagined. I forsook the rich blessing of marriage and family only to be astonished at the even larger family that would be mine.
Somehow for all of us the paradox rings true. When we lose our life to this world in some way, God has even greater things waiting. My mother set aside the more lucrative salary of a public school teacher in order to teach in a Catholic School, but by her own testimony she got back more than she ever gave up. I know another woman who left a six-figure salary to be a full-time mother. The beautiful and holy title of “Mom” meant so much more to her than her former executive title (Ma’am).
In losing our life we find it. Yes, while the full impact of this will only be seen in Heaven, many of us do learn and experience this truth even here, as a kind of foretaste. St. Paul expressed the rich tapestry of the paradox best of all. Looking to his own life and the lives of those who accompanied him, he could only marvel as he said,
We are treated as impostors, and yet are true; as unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and behold, we live; as punished, and yet not killed; as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, yet possessing everything (2 Cor 6:8-10).
Yes, all is lost, yet all is gained. Some is gained even right here in this world, as a kind of foretaste, but one day all will gained beyond measure. Whoever loses his life for my sake will find it (Matt 10:39). Yes, Lord, and we will find it in abundance! Thank you, Lord.
What is your story of losing your life to this world only to find it more abundantly in the Lord?
I sometimes get questions about the remarkably long lives of the patriarchs who lived before the great flood. Consider some of their reported ages when they died:
Adam 930
Seth 912
Enosh 905
Jared 962
Methuselah 969
Noah 600
Shem 600
Eber 464
Abraham 175
Moses 120
David 70
How to understand these references? There are many theories that have tried to explain the claimed longevity. Some try to introduce a mathematical corrective, but this leads to other pitfalls such as certain patriarchs apparently begetting children while they are still children themselves. Another approach is to say that the “ages” of the patriarchs are actually just indications of their influence or family line. But then things don’t add up chronologically with eras and family trees.
Personally, I think we need to take the stated ages of the patriarchs at face value and just accept it as a mystery: for some reason, the ancient patriarchs lived far longer we do in the modern era. I cannot prove that they actually lived that long, but neither is there strong evidence that they did not. Frankly, I have little stake in insisting that they did in fact live that long. But if you ask me, I think it is best just to accept that they did.
This solution, when I articulate it, causes many to scoff. They almost seem to be offended. The reply usually sounds something like this: “That’s crazy. There’s no way they lived that long. The texts must be wrong.” To which I generally reply, “Why do you think it is crazy or impossible?” The answers usually range from the glib to the more serious, but here are some common replies:
They didn’t know how to tell time the way we do today. Well, actually, they were pretty good at keeping time, in some ways better than we are today. The ancients were keen observers of the Sun, the Moon, and the stars. They had to be, otherwise they would have starved. It was crucial to know when to plant, when to harvest, and when to hunt (e.g., the migratory and/or hibernation patterns of animals through the seasons). The ancients may not have had timepieces that were accurate to the minute, but they were much more in sync with the rhythms of the cosmos than most of us are. They certainly knew what a day, month, and year were by the cycles of the Sun, the Moon, and the stars.
They couldn’t have lived that long because they didn’t have the medicines we do today. Perhaps, but it is also possible that they didn’t have the diseases we do. Perhaps they ate and lived in more healthy ways than we do. Perhaps the gene pool later became corrupted in a way that it was not back then. There are just a lot of things we cannot possibly know. The claim about our advanced technology (medicine) also shows a tendency of us moderns to think that no one in the world has ever been smarter or healthier than we are. Our modern times surely do have advanced technologies, but we also have things that potentially make us more susceptible to disease: stress, anxiety, overly rich diets, pollutants, promiscuity, drug use, and hormonal contraceptives. There are lots of ways in which we live out of sync with the natural world.
Those long years just symbolize wisdom or influence. OK fine, but what is the scale? Does Adam living to 930 mean he attained great wisdom? But wait, David wasn’t any slouch and he only made it to 70. And if Seth was so influential (living to 912) where are the books recording his influence such as we have for Moses, who lived to be only In other words, we can’t just throw a scale out there indicating influence or wisdom without some further definition of what the numbers actually mean.
Sorry, people just don’t live that long. Well, today they don’t. But why is something automatically assumed to be false simply because it doesn’t comport with lived experience today? It is not physically impossible in an absolute sense for a human being to live for hundreds of years. Most humans today die short of 100 years of age, but some live longer. Certain closely related mammals like dogs and cats live only 15 to 20 years. Why is there such a large difference in life expectancy between humans and other similar animals? There is obviously some mysterious clock that winds down more quickly for certain animals than for others. So there is a mystery to the longevity of various living things, even those that are closely related. Perhaps the ancients had what amounted to preternatural gifts. (A preternatural gift is one that is not supernatural (i.e., completely above and beyond our nature or ability to do) but rather one that builds on our nature and extends its capabilities beyond what is normally or currently experienced.)
So I think we’re back to where we started: just taking the long life spans of the early patriarchs at face value.
There is perhaps a theological truth hidden in the shrinking lifespans of the Old Testament. The scriptures link sin and death. Adam and Eve were warned that the day they ate of the forbidden fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, they would die (Gen 2:17). But they did not drop dead immediately, and though they died spiritually in an instant, the clock of death for their bodies wound down much later. As the chart above shows, as sin increased, lifespans dropped precipitously, especially after the flood.
Prior to the flood, lifespans remained in the vicinity of 900 years, but right afterward they dropped by about a third (Noah and Shem only lived to 600), and then the numbers plummeted even further. Neither Abraham nor Moses even reached 200, and by the time of King David, he would write, Our years are seventy, or eighty for those who are strong (Ps 90:10).
Scripture says, For the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23). Indeed they are, especially in terms of lifespan. And perhaps that is why I am not too anxious to try to disprove the long lifespans of the patriarchs. For what we know theologically is borne out in our human experience: sin is life-destroying. And this truth is surely writ large in the declining lifespan of the human family.
Does this prove that Adam actually lived to be more than 900 years old? No. It only shows that declining lifespans are something we fittingly discover in a world of sin. Since God teaches that sin brings death, why should we be shocked that our lifespan has decreased from 900 to 85 years? It is what it is. It’s a sad truth that God warned us about. Thanks be to God our Father who in Jesus now offers us eternal life, if we will have faith and obey His Son!
So how or even whether the patriarchs lived past 900 is not clear. But what is theologically clear is that we don’t live that long today because of the collective effect of sin upon us.
A recent study of more than 1400 Catholic men from over 1000 parishes indicates a substantial disconnect from the Church and a dissatisfaction with what the Church offers and how she ministers to men. The survey was conducted in the fall of 2014 and an analysis of the results was published by Matthew James Christoff, Director of The New Emangelization Project (Helping Priests Become More Effective in Evangelizing Men).
