The Devil's Greatest Lie

  It is said that the devil's greatest lie has been convincing the world that he does not exist, a claim that accounts for an important aspect of the most sinister―and in fact only―plot against humanity. Something has always seemed to be missing from that consideration of the devil's ultimate goal before the end of time, and now I think I know what it is: his pride.

  In Chapter VII of the eponymous Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis, Uncle Screwtape reveals part of the devil's plan of misinformation: 

    My Dear Wormwood,

      I wonder you should ask me whether it is essential to keep the patient in ignorance of your own existence. That question, at least for the present phase of the struggle, has been answered for us by the High Command. Our policy, for the moment, is to conceal ourselves. Of course this has not always been so. We are really faced with a cruel dilemma. When the humans disbelieve in our existence we lose all the pleasing results of direct terrorism and we make no magicians. On the other hand, when they believe in us, we cannot make them materialists and sceptics. At least, not yet. I have great hopes that we shall learn in due time how to emotionalise and mythologise their science to such an extent that what is, in effect, belief in us, (though not under that name) will creep in while the human mind remains closed to belief in the Enemy. The “Life Force”, the worship of sex, and some aspects of Psychoanalysis, may here prove useful. If once we can produce our perfect work – the Materialist Magician, the man, not using, but veritably worshipping, what he vaguely calls “Forces” while denying the existence of “spirits” – then the end of the war will be in sight. But in the meantime we must obey our orders. I do not think you will have much difficulty in keeping the patient in the dark. The fact that “devils” are predominantly comic figures in the modern imagination will help you. If any faint suspicion of your existence begins to arise in his mind, suggest to him a picture of something in red tights, and persuade him that since he cannot believe in that (it is an old textbook method of confusing them) he therefore cannot believe in you.

 Screwtape intimates with some surprise at Wormwood's ignorance that concealment is a temporary means to an end, a midpoint tactic between the age of magic, in which hidden demons could terrorize humans with their power, and the end of the world, at which time the demons shall reveal their hatred unreservedly for the rest of eternity. As Lewis may be correct that disbelief in the devil is a temporary setback as well as a pragmatic measure, it seems right to ask whether or not the devil's greatest lie could have been convincing the world he does not exist. 

  What does the devil gain if he only teaches us to deny his own existence? Surely Satan must also campaign against the existence of God, of Goodness, Truth and Unity to avoid frustrating his own designs. Even if the devil convinces someone that there is nothing in which to place belief, he still has not barred the door against the forces of Existence, Grace, Reason or Will. A person who truly disbelieves everything still passionately thinks that something is worth believing—even if it is the value of his own disbelief, and he may be brought to believe in anything, even the Good God. Once the foot is set to a path, there is no turning back; one must see such a journey of discovery to the end, unless the devil successfully employs his greatest lie. Belief in Another is unnecessary, everything important is contained within oneself, and no journey is needed: the pilgrim is the shrine.

  In such a case, the devil does not want people to disbelieve in him or in everything; rather, he wants them to believe very strongly in themselves alone. If he can introduce someone to the cult of self, he can succeed in his other goals: to destroy grace and hope in the soul and to steal the worship due to God. The cult of self strangles grace through all manner of sin; it also imitates the founding member of that cult, and imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

  To look at it in another light, no atheist disbelieves in all gods. The "materialist magician" that Lewis alludes to must believe in some all-powerful force controlling everything, and surely, the most irreligious scientific fanatic must equally accept the existence of some controlling, eternal factor in the universe. Nonetheless, every atheist disbelieves in this or that god. Agnostics, on the other hand, are more universally skeptical. Even though the sophistical command "Doubt everything!" crumbles under rational inspection, it is small wonder that sloth lounges in the shadows of skepticism. It is easy to refuse things one does not want, it is easy to celebrate everything and believe nothing (as the Unitarian Universalists do), but it is difficult to believe. Even more to the point, it is perilous to believe. Every belief has its consequences. How differently men live when they grasp the reality of what they believe!

   Accepting the reality of what is perceived, even when it surpasses rational explanation, is called Faith. Faith is an act, a movement of the will to assent to propositions, promises, instructions, commands and consolations revealed by God to His people. Faith is a virtue, a habitual disposition to acquiesce to the authority of God's infinite Wisdom. In short, Faith is a choice to adhere to a body of Truths encompassing every grammatical type from descriptive to imperative. That choice of Faith is embodied in the choice to Love. Men and women of the simplest minds have become the greatest saints because God's Love is as deep as His Wisdom is great, and those who accept God's Love and do as He commands live in the greatness of His Wisdom. For this reason, the devil assaults the will most severely while wracking the intellect with doubts, filling the present moment with lively distractions and chilling the heart with the icy breath of his hatred.

   Yet, for all this effort, what new thing does the devil offer besides the stale self-sufficiency of his first temptation? The punishment for Adam's sin is also its cure. Men must first learn to respect their dependence on God through toil and labour. Is it not significant that Adam and Eve sought knowledge from the forbidden tree, that they wanted to be enlightened and not to learn?

   Sloth is the deadliest fruit of the tree of deadly sins; it plays upon the natural desire for leisure, and turns the object of that desire to selfish pleasures until the body becomes saturated and the will becomes comatose; it poisons the will against leaving the shade and standing in the light. Until a man burns in the Light of Truth, until he purges his body of the gross humours of his idleness and re-enters the Valley of Tears, until he responds to God's purifying grace against Satan's greatest lie, he cannot be saved.

   "If ye love me, keep my commandments." 

Re: Number One

   One gains endless amusement from reading things he wrote at an early age, much as he does when reviewing his attempts at other art forms.

   Having recently had a good giggle at my own first posts, I am further struck by the implications of one of my favourite lines about authors taken from the 1952 British film Murder Will Out (Voice of Merrill). A famous author and wag, Johnathan Roche, in assessing his wife's author-lover states: "I want to find out if you ever read a book, or just discovered you haven't written one". I enjoy this witticism immensely; I find its needle sampling the blood of my own feeble efforts.

   I used to wonder why I had so few successful drafts. Then I remembered that I started the blog because I thought I had something to say, but in the end had less to say than I thought; I also had far fewer words with which to say what I thought and much less finesse than is proper. 

   Hopefully, this resurrection will remain the result of my finding more to say and better ways of saying it. 

An Improper Suggestion

Having read the quoted article with great relish, I am merely putting my own take on the question into words. I highly recommend reading the seed of these thoughts.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2013/02/im-with-them-the-female-paradox-of-praying-at-planned-parenthood.html

"A common refrain from pro-choice advocates against the pro-life movement is that those who are pro-life simply do not understand the earth-shattering reality of an unplanned pregnancy. In order to speak about abortion, one must have some experiential knowledge of the tragedy or at least the potential for the experience. Without this understanding you are automatically disqualified from the conversation."

"With this line of reasoning, men who pray in front of these clinics are easy to dismiss. Their Y chromosome renders them incapable of understanding the hopelessness of an unplanned pregnancy. Therefore, their opinions on the subject do not matter and their presence outside the clinic is laughable at best and insulting at worst."

Why does this collective conscience ignore the arguments presented by women who regret their abortions? The common refrain seems to be "Your choice, your pain." Planned Parenthood does not aim at the good of all women. They do not protect their own. They do not listen to them; they do not heal them. Their "rebellious" children―that is, women who regret their abortions―are not counselled, or loved for who they are; instead, they are ignored, ostracized and placed with the ignorant rustics who stand outside abortion clinics wailing and gnashing their teeth. 

Men cannot be unrelated to the equation. What woman ever contracted an "unplanned pregnancy" (or any kind of pregnancy save a pregnant thought) from something other than a man? Why does Planned Parenthood encourage men to support women who want abortions, if it simultaneously ignores men's encouragement to do the opposite? Either they have a say, or they have none. Planned Parenthood cannot have it both ways.

Furthermore, men do understand the hopelessness of an unplanned pregnancy; otherwise, they would never counsel for or against an abortion. They would be indifferent on such matters. That, of course, is the image Planned Parenthood wants to paint of the generic male: that he is callous, self-centered, and uninterested in the after-effects of a night in bed. However, the number of male influences both inside and outside of abortion clinics speaks against the very heart of this image. How often does a young girl solicit an abortion because her father might find out she is pregnant? How often does a woman seek it out because her husband did not want to keep an "unplanned" baby? How much more often because a girl's fiance or boyfriend thought it would erase their mistake? How often does the man "force" the woman to an abortion simply because "this was her problem"? How many "doctors" care for their "patients" out of a mistaken solicitude for their "well-being". 

In a negative way, this shows how important a man is to this issue. On the flip side, how often does a woman rely on the man in the equation to help her through the difficult trial she faces? If he stands by her (and, incidentally, the baby), how much more likely is she to birth her child? 

If the man excuses himself from his responsibility, then only a determined woman could keep from shirking her part of the natural "bargain." The converse is also true: if the woman wishes to escape, then only a compassionate man could possibly persuade her to spare the baby. 

Either way, man is essential; he has a definite stake in the question. Then it should not be improper to suggest that he should have a say in the matter. He should listen and be listened to.  

On the "Aboriginal Vicar" of Christ

Dear Reader,

     Shortly before Christmas, I again had the privilege of reading and critiquing an article by Dominic Cassella published on his website. He wrote on the intriguing matter of Involuntary Sin (http://thecatholicdormitory.wordpress.com/2013/12/13/involuntary-sin-ohhh/), to which I wrote the body of this article in reply. While I have modified some areas in their phrasing, the formal thrust remains unaltered.

Dominic,
Very interesting article. Even though it is obviously the fruit of much research, some direct citation, especially from the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, would have been most welcome.

I believe you are correct in stating that this teaching on involuntary sin does not contradict the Catechism and its doctrine of Venial sin (or sin in general); however, I think it presents, at worst, a contrary position, at best, an alternative one, both of which I find lack some grain of the truth.

If we accept that [CCC 1849] “Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as ‘an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law’,” then there are certain things which follow:

      First, that sin is an act or omission motivated by self-interest against reality—as it is, and is perceived;
      Second, that it is an act contrary to the moral [eternal] law, not Divine Providence; and
      Third, that culpability for sin depends on the state of conscience and the ordering of one’s reason towards the truth.

The second and third points need more explanation.

God has taken all sin into account through His Providence. In one sense, saying that an act (good or bad) is outside of God’s plan means God has not provided for that action whatsoever, and needs to adjust His plan; in another sense, it could simply mean that God desired us to act differently, but has nonetheless provided for our failure. In other words: His desire is specifically different from His Providence. (I believe the latter states the understanding in question, though I could be mistaken.) But such cannot be the case; God’s desire for us and His Providential plan are inseparable. He longs to bring all men to Himself and has provided such means to it as the author of the Economy of Grace. [CCC 321] “Divine providence consists of the dispositions by which God guides all his creatures with wisdom and love to their ultimate end.” He will not make sin where there is none to be found.

This is the crucial point: God will not hold us culpable for things of which we have no knowledge and over which we can exert no control. He will not put us into an environment such that we cannot escape sin. The argument for involuntary sin fails to take the human conscience into account; and the eternal law which sin inevitably breaks is inscribed on the hearts of all men. It is impossible to sin and to keep this eternal law intact. Invincible ignorance of an evil removes all culpability for the sin.

  "Ah, culpability," you say, "But what of the act itself? Is this not the heart of the matter: that a sin has been committed, even though there is no punishment due to the actor? The act can clearly be labeled a sin, and since it is performed, is not a sin committed?"
  
In the first place, act and action are separate things. They are often distinguished as "Act" from "Behavior," in which a "Behavior" is an action considered apart from both circumstance and intention, and an "Act" is considered only in conjunction with both. (For example, walking to the mailbox is a "Behavior"; my walking to the mailbox to pick up my own mail is an "Act"). Intention is necessary to sin. Even in sins of omission, there exists the intention to not do something which by all accounts (of reason, right conscience, and reality) ought to be done. Right conscience plays a heavy role in forming intention; it judges reason, which judges reality and forms our perception of things as they are.

In the second place, we must consider the consequence: if there can be sin without culpability, can there be culpability without sin? Can there be guilt without something of which to be guilty?  (Let us set aside, momentarily, the question of a scrupulous conscience, which can lead itself to sin through exorbitant manifestations of guilt). Sin cannot but result in culpability for personal action, and personal culpability is a necessary part of the calculus of sin.  

And in the third place, certain actions are morally wrong regardless of good intention, and as such, clearly forbidden by the eternal law (written on the conscience, remember). Morally good actions done with bad intention are made bad, regardless of their existential goodness; and morally neutral acts are made good or bad by the intention of the actor and his circumstances. As we see, all acts themselves not morally evil hinge on the intention of the actor, which is largely formed by the actions of his conscience.

I couldn’t state it any clearer than this: [quoted in CCC 1778] ” [Conscience] is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.”

Of course, the Church has come to understand moral precepts far more delicate than those found in the natural law; however, these are not found in the hearts of men, and one’s conscience must be informed of these precepts from another authority. Where conscience is not informed through no fault of the actor there can be no sin.

To take the classic example: an aboriginal tribe that practiced ritual fornication is indeed culpable, but only for what they knew in their consciences to be against the natural law which is inscribed on the hearts of all men as a guide to Truth. They could not be guilty of not going to Mass on Sunday because they had never heard of Mass, nor could they be held responsible for not accepting the homoousios. They will be judged purely on what they knew in their hearts, and how they either obeyed, or disrespected the laws of their consciences.

God sees things as God; we see them as men. “Truth is truth to the end of measure,” and God cannot judge us as He would judge Himself. Knowing our inmost hearts, he alone is capable of judging us as men, and judging our response to our knowledge of the Truth.

[I beg all those who have read this article to extend their generosity toward Mr. Cassella and consider his opinion as magnanimously as they have mine.]

All Made Manifest

   In all honesty, I owe the essence of this post to another man's wisdom.  Be sure to visit Dominic Cassella's website:  http://thecatholicdormitory.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/a-gentlemens-manifesto/  Cassella has written many fabulous posts on Church history, morality, and other subjects.  The post and comments which led to this manifesto are here:  http://catholicgentleman.net/2013/11/23/a-catholic-gentlemans-manifesto/


However, here is my revision of the manifesto.

“We as Catholic laymen, expressing faith in the Triune God, loyalty to the Church of Christ, and the Bishop of Rome, resolve:
To live the life of Christ in all things: in obedience and in self-determination, in silence and in speech, in action and inaction, in prayer and in work, in foresight and in execution, in defense and in attack, in gentle and unyielding strength, in spreading the Gospel to all nations, and in suffering all things as He has done before us;
To defend His Bride, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in all that is Her Doctrine, and to obey in all that is Her discipline;
To foster in our nation, wheresoever it be, a desire for truth, justice, unity, and faith;
To Honor all men as alter Christi;
To Defend all women as the daughters of Mary and Brides of the Holy Spirit;
And To work as Saint Joseph and the community of Saints: grateful to God for our success and responsible to Him for our failures, mindful of our weakness, our imminent death and judgment, yet ever-hopeful in the promise of His redeeming Blood.
Trusting in the Providence of Christ, and the Magnanimity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, We entrust this purpose, this desire to be Catholic Gentlemen of Faith, Integrity, and Honor to God, the Source of all that is Good.”

God be with you all. 

Dogwatches and Cat Tales

  They say that brevity is the soul of both humorous and intelligent wit. Such being the case, I cannot claim to be witty, simply because I talk too much. But pure silence is ineffectual because there's only one result, silence. Verbal fitness, for want of a better phrase, is far more valuable than an amputated tongue; so, I intend to keep the length of these posts short, and their meaning clear. But since this is a changing world, and an obscure epic shares a shelf with a lucid anecdote, do not be surprised if I fall long of this intention.  

  As for dogwatches and cat tales: I have always admired a witty title. It is a summary and an ornament―which further proves that art can both signify and beautify. (Pooh-pooh to you, utilitarians). It is the same with this one. Look up "dogwatch". It will be good for you. It's a nautical term and Catholics are supposed to be nautical people. 

  The cat tale is rather an odd one. I recommend Aelian's On the Nature of Animals to your reading list. While it is neither scientific, nor necessarily accurate, it contains a wealth of myths and morals, cures, superstitions about and descriptions of animal behavior. One of these tales struck me.  

  The lion, when attacking a herd of cattle, will breath on the herd before it takes its solitary victim. The lion's breath signals his ownership of the herd to all other predators. 

  This should ring cathedral-worthy bells to anyone who has read The Chronicles of Narnia. Aslan's breath is a sign of those set apart, chosen for life in the spirit. The king will choose his stewards and call them by name. And while the devil also prowls like a roaring lion―as many a banished upstart will―he shall only devour the persistent strays. He can mark no one out for himself, but must be content with thievery.

  The Lion of Judah dwarfs him in power and stature. No other king shall draw all people under his dominion. No other king could wander so far, yet never stray.  

  After all, he's not a tame Lion.