On Altruism and Selfishness

 

Hello, Dalai!

Xerxes in his latest column claims he heard the Dalai Lama, through an interpreter, praise “selfish altruism.” Which Xerxes defines as “working so that the world will be better for you.”

By definition, altruism cannot be selfish; selfishness cannot be altruistic. M-W: “unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others.” Britannica: “feelings and behavior that show a desire to help other people and a lack of selfishness.”

What the Dalai Lama was speaking of, whatever word the interpreter used, seems to have been virtue. Which is a different kettle of worms.

There are traditionally seven capital virtues in the Christian tradition: faith, hope, charity, prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude. Altruism relates directly only to charity.

Are the other virtues, those other than charity, “selfish”? They do tend to make the world better, and your own life in it better. They build character. Properly, however, it seems to me the term “selfish” should be limited to actions that seek a benefit to ourselves by harming others.

Selfishness does not map directly to vice either. There are seven vices: pride, anger, lust, gluttony, sloth, avarice, envy. None of them necessarily harms another; although actions inspired by them may. As an addiction to any one of them can take away your freedom of choice and destroy your life, it is not selfish to indulge them: it is suicidal.

For what it's worth, "selfishness" and "altruism" can have no meaning in a Buddhist context, either. The fundamental principle of Buddhism is anatman, anatta: "there is no self."

Demonic Activity

 

Although he calls himself a secular man, Tucker Carlson believes in demons. He suggests that there is no other way to account for what is happening in the world. He sees a demon wherever there is a strong drive to do something that is in nobody’s best interests. He cites sexual transitioning for children. How can anyone actually want that?

And he is right. This is what demons are: independent wills that seem to supersede our own. The classic example is alcoholism. First the man takes a drink; but eventually, the drink takes the man, and is in control. So too with addictions generally. Because these are independent wills, they are by definition independent persons. There is a “demon rum.” 

It does not follow, as Carlson goes on to suggest, that UFOs or UAPs are demons. As purely spiritual beings, demons cannot act on the physical plane except through human agency. We should not be able to see them.

Although, who knows? That may be no more than a rule of thumb. Perhaps from time to time that veil is lifted. This, indeed, is understood to be so in ancient beliefs around the world. Djinn are “hidden ones,” not exactly “invisible ones.” Greek gods could reputedly manifest at times, as swans or rainbows or old men on the road or showers of gold.

Leaving that aside for now as too esoteric, we can understand demons as more or less what we commonly refer to as “vices” or “addictions.” (But without postulating some independent external will, where do they come from? Surely it cannot be “our” will if it leads us to our own destruction? If it is a will against our will? Can we have two selves?)

Look for some human behaviour that seems destructive and does not make sense, and you have probably found a demon. 

And by this standard, demonic activity does indeed seem to be growing. Aside from “gender transitioning” for children, the growing epidemic of fentanyl and other dangerous drugs is demonic. The mobs celebrating October 7, chanting “from the river to the sea, and demanding the elimination of Israel are demonic. Antisemitism generally is demonic. The rash of statue toppling, street renamings, and church burnings is demonic. 

I would argue that the entire edifice of feminism is demonic: it has always been against the best interests of women as well as suicidal for the culture as a whole; and I think this was evident from its start. The early feminists had to hold “consciousness-raising” sessions to convince women that they were oppressed by being allowed to stay at home, grow flowers, and raise babies. And by not having casual sex.

Envy and lust were at work here.

Marxism is demonic. Marxism presented itself as a scientific theory, and it was long ago disproven in scientific terms: its predictions did not come true. The proletariat did not grow and grow more impoverished, wealth did not become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. We did not get worse and worse depressions;  nowhere has the proletariat spontaneously seized power. Communist revolutions were supposed to happen in  the most industrialized societies: in Germany, Britain, the US, perhaps, but certainly not agrarian Russia, China, or Vietnam. And of course, anywhere Marxism has been applied, the results have been disastrous, including history’s worst mass murders. So how, other than demonic activity, to explain its continuing vitality, especially in intellectual circles?

Behind the Marxist mask are the vices of sloth, greed, pride, and envy.

Psychology is another demon. People cling to it, and to their favourite psychological theory, with an irrational fervour, despite the fact that all these psychological theories have heretofore been disproven in scientific terms. And the basic premise, that one can study the human soul objectively,  as an object, is ridiculous. And none of its techniques can be demonstrated to work.

Postmodernism is another demon. It is immediately self-invalidating. It asserts that there is no objective truth, so that we can have “your truth” and “my truth.” Yet, if there is no objective truth, “there is no objective truth,” as an assertion of truth, cannot be true. And yet postmodernism in various forms keeps spreading.

Where does this all end?

It more or less must end in some religious revival. The only question is how bad it can get before this happens. I cannot predict; I hope it happens in my lifetime. And there are inklings. Like Tucker Carlson, a secular man, becoming convinced there are demons.

Naked and Afraid

 

Illustration for Song of Songs: Jesus and the individual soul.

My gauche chum Xerxes has decided there is not enough sex in the culture. Why don’t we speak more of sex in church? 

“Is this a taboo from Victorian times, when even piano legs had to be covered lest they excite irrepressible lust?”

Victorian times ended in 1901.

“Face it – we are both sensual and sexual beings. Four of our five senses are in our heads. When we reject sexuality/sensuality, we deny the largest sense organ of our bodies -- our skins.”

The comment suggests we are already giving too much importance to sex. It implies that our sense of touch, and our physical body from the neck down, is entirely concerned with sex.

I wrote back:

“I disagree with you that our society needs to be more concerned with sex. We are already more concerned with sex than any other culture in history.

When I taught in China, students listed to me their traditional five necessities of life, and pointed out that sex was not one of them. It was meant as an implicit criticism of the West and its obsessions. We foreign experts were required to sign a declaration that we would respect the purity of Chinese womanhood.

My Pakistani acquaintances used to refer to “the wicked West.” Which I was then supposed to justify to them. They were thinking of sexual libertinage.

Cambodians and Filipinas have complained to me about how “casual” Westerners are about sex.

I think we got this way initially because of the strong tradition of Medieval romance, which, like the Song of Songs, used sexual love as a metaphor for our relationship with God. These passages are stunningly beautiful, but many people took and take them literally, and decide that sex is love and even somehow sacred. More recently, the whole thing has been exacerbated by Freud and psychology, which proposed a century and more ago that all mental illness was caused by frustrated sexual urges. It began in Victorian times with the pervasive theory that mental illness was caused by masturbation, and Freud and the rest ran with it from there.

Is sex central to life? No; reproduction is. Interestingly, the more interested we become in sex, the less interested we become in reproduction.”

It is perhaps significant that he then declared he would never again print any of my responses to his columns. 

The reader responses he did print all agreed with him.

“Xerxes, you need to get laid!”

“Why such beauty, of the most potent & lively drive, would be denigrated to the shadows is beyond me. I wish it weren’t so. I feel impoverished as a result.”

“It is our White Anglo Saxon heritage that evolved and came to this country and this continent.”

This one flies in the face of reality. Has she never heard of the hijab? Of honour killings? But it might explain the current hatred towards anything “white” or “Anglo-Saxon.” It is seen as killing a fun evening.

“Creation is a wonderful act and expression of our love and sexuality.  It needs to be celebrated.”

If sex is so wonderful, why the euphemism? Why does he say “creation,” instead of coitus?

We all know this is a load of cattle manure. 

It is a fine example of deliberate delusion, of the sort narcissists are always guilty of. It is telling each other alibis, as one sees in a dysfunctional culture or a dysfunctional family. Like most delusions, it allows us to think we can get away with something we know is wrong. 

And like any delusion, it is inevitably going to demand to be celebrated in church. The sense of guilt demands it. Just as children must be forced to affirm drag queens.

There is nothing wrong with sex. It is nature’s way to encourage propagation, and God’s little reward for passing on the human project to a new generation. It is a natural instinct, like hunger or thirst. When used for other purposes, it is lust. Compare food and gluttony, or thirst and alcoholism.

All is created for good. All evil comes from placing too much value on a thing.

“The sins which cause most souls to go to hell are the sins of the flesh.” – Jacinta of Fatima.

The Stigma Attached to Narcissistic Personality Disorder

 

My bright fifteen-year-old asks “Is it right that there is a stigma around narcissistic personality disorder”?

I don’t know what she has been reading or listening to on the Internet. In these times, the world is an open book. 

Short answer: yes.

“Narcissism” is the modern term, distorted by the history of psychiatry, which began by seeing everything based on sex. 

What is narcissism really? Morbid self-love. 

What is the old term for excessive self-love? Pride. 

What was Lucifer’s original sin? Pride. He thought he could be God.

What was Eve’s or Adam’s original sin? Pride. They thought they could “become as gods.” 

Pride, narcissism, is the first and greatest deadly sin, from which all other vices emerge. If there is no stigma attached to narcissism, there is no stigma attached to sin.

What is the old term to refer to someone in the grip of a vice? “Vicious.” That is the appropriate stigma.

But, narcissists will complain, they are “mentally ill.” They can’t really control it. 

A perfect alibi, from their point of view. Gets them off the moral hook.

And there is some truth to it. Once you give in to vice, it is hard to turn back. That is why these sins are called “deadly.” They lead to spiritual death. You have made a pact with the Devil, as Eve did, and surrendered your will to his. 

The vice most people have the easiest time understanding is alcoholism. The confirmed alcoholic seems unable to control himself. “First the man takes a drink; then the drink takes a drink; then the drink takes the man.” And people like to speak of alcoholism as a “disease” as a result. But ultimately, the alcoholic is responsible. If he cannot now control himself, this is based on a conscious moral choice he made in the past. For comparison, if I murder someone, my guilt does not simply go away with the passage of time. Especially if I keep murdering.

This is why there is no redemption for the Devil. He has made this irrevocable moral choice, to set himself up as God. This is why he is condemned to hell. This is why anyone who is condemned to hell is condemned to hell: because, once you surrender yourself to a vice, once you sin against the Holy Spirit by setting yourself up as your god, you cannot escape. You have sold your soul to the Devil.

That is how Adam and Eve committed the original sin, which passed down through the generations: that is how hard it is to escape a settled vice. It requires a dramatic divine intervention to escape.

But, in sum, there should be no stigma more permanent and complete than the stigma around narcissistic personality disorder.

The Undead

 

Werewolf: Cronach the Elder

We generally tell ourselves that nobody is beyond redemption until the point of death. It seems uncharitable to suppose otherwise. But is this clearly true?

In 1 John, the evangelist tells us there is no point in praying for someone who has committed a truly grave sin. 

When the scribes and Pharisees appear at the Jordan for repentance, John the Baptist rejects them. 

In the story of the rich man and Lazarus, Abraham says evangelization of the rich man’s relatives is useless: not even a miracle can make them repent. 

And Jesus advises us not to cast our pearls before swine.

That actually sounds pretty cut and dried: some people are apparently beyond redemption.

Further evidence is a folk image found all around the world: of soulless beings in human form. The most familiar modern expression is the zombie—and it seems significant that we find the image so compelling. It speaks to something in our experience; we have all met zombies, NPCs. They are being played by some demon vice. The parasitic demon or idolatry has supplanted altogether their soul.

Vampires are a variation on the theme. Like zombies, they have no soul, and survive by draining others of life energy. That is how some people are. Like zombies, they are “undead.” In other words, they are still animate, but the soul has departed. It is perhaps already in hell.

Similar figures are the werewolf, the rakshasa in India, the wendigo among the Algonquins Indians, the Nephilim in the Bible, the witches and ogres and sirens and lamia and melusines of European fairy and folk legend. It is arbitrary to see them as distinct beings; they are different takes on the same being. They are spiritual portraits of people who have surrendered their souls to vice. Modern psychology calls them narcissists.

Lycaon transformed into a wolf.

Lycaon, a figure in Greek legend, seems to have been the first werewolf. He was transformed into a wolf because he served u his own son as a meal—the wolf form was the outward expression of his true bestial nature. He had a beast’s soul.

“Ever since the time of Lykaon a man has changed into a wolf at the sacrifice to Zeus Lykaios, but that the change is not for life; if, when he is a wolf, he abstains from human flesh, after nine years he becomes a man again, but if he tastes human flesh he remains a beast for ever.”

On the mountain on which Lykaon killed his son, it is said, no man casts a shadow.

The rakshasa likes to kidnap and devour children. She can at will appear as a beautiful woman. She is driven by lust, gluttony, envy and anger, without restraint.

Lilith

She closely resembles Lilith, the female demon of Judaism and the ancient Middle East. She was the first wife of Adam—so she must take human form. Unlike Eve, however, she is still around, devouring children—so undead.0

The wendigo lives in the forest and devours any human he encounters. He generally appears as human, but his spirit is that of a beast. He is a shape-shifter. “The wendigo is said to invoke feelings of insatiable greed/hunger, the desire to cannibalize other humans, and the propensity to commit murder in those that fall under its influence.”(Brightman, Robert A. 1988. "The Windigo in the Material World.)

The Nephilim are supposedly a human tribe. 

“The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.” – Genesis 6:1

“And there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, who come of the Nephilim; and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.” – Numbers 32

From these passages, the Nephilim are taken to be gigantic in stature. But perhaps this refers not to their physical size, but their self-image and boastful nature—their narcissism.

They were apparently prone to unbridled lust. “They married whomever they chose.” And they are the reason Yahweh sent the Flood to purify the world. He considered them beyond salvation.

Ogres are sometimes also thought of as giants; yet they are also able to make themselves small, and pass as ordinary people. 

"I have been moreover informed," said the Cat, "but I know not how to believe it, that you have also the power to take on you the shape of the smallest animals; for example, to change yourself into a rat or a mouse; but I must own to you, I take this to be impossible."

"Impossible?" cried the Ogre, "you shall see that presently," and at the same time changed into a mouse, and began to run about the floor. (Perrault, Puss in Boots).

 

Despite the affection which he [the prince] bore her, he was afraid of his mother, for she came of a race of ogres, and the king had only married her for her wealth.

It was whispered at the court that she had ogrish instincts, and that when little children were near her she had the greatest difficulty in the world to keep herself from pouncing on them. (Perrault, Sleeping Beauty)

So again, the large size perhaps refers to their self-image. They too eat children, and male ogres rape women.

Sirens, mermaids, or lorelei may or may not be driven by lust; but they lure with lust. They are apparently driven by a desire to devour; as are lamia and melusines. They lure unwary suitors to their death. This resembles the “love bombing” familiar to those who have dealt with narcissistic romantic partners.

There are features common to most or all of these imaginary creatures.

They fear the light, and crave darkness. In other words, they hate the truth. Vampires are killed by sunlight. In the original zombie classic, “Day of the Dead,” the zombie assault actually takes place over one night. And the zombies fear fire—light. Werewolves transform and do their deeds at night, under the moon. Sirens and melusines hide their fishlike nature under the water line, emerge from the unknown depths, and will flee if their nakedness is uncovered—if they are seen in the bath.

Narcissists are enemies of the truth—it requires systematic self-delusion to submit to vice. One is hiding from conscience. This is why they attack anyone spreading pearls. 

Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. (John 3:19-20)

These various revenants are often suave or charming or superficially attractive. The female rakshasa, or the Melusine, lamia, or siren, generally can make themselves appear beautiful. The vampire is courtly, well-mannered. 

Lacking conscience or ethics, narcissists are commonly charming in this way. They can say whatever is to their advantage; so they become skilled at manipulation. In other words, they are shape-shifters. 

Several of them have the power to infect their victims with their vice: vampires and zombies do. Those who do not, directly and literally, often lure their victims by appealing to a vice: the lamia, the siren, the rakshasa. This is indeed true of the narcissist: he or she badly wants to lure others into vice. Moral behaviour in their presence is a threat to their conscience.

Many of these monsters seem to target children and the young. That is apt for narcissists too. It is not just that children are the most vulnerable victims; they are objectionable to the narcissist for their innocence and sincerity; as well as for the nagging thought that they might outlive the narcissist. Those they cannot tempt into vice they will persecute.

And so, while popular focus currently is on narcissistic love partners, the greater danger is the narcissistic parent.

There are zombies among us.

Those Beyond Prayer

 

John at the Jordan

If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.

We know that anyone begotten by God does not sin; but the one begotten by God he protects, and the Evil One cannot touch him. 

We know that we belong to God, and the whole world is under the power of the Evil One. 

We also know that the Son of God has come and has given us discernment to know the one who is true. And we are in the one who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. 

Children, be on your guard against idols.

This passage from the First Epistle of John, the first reading at last Sunday’s mass, is challenging.

First, it says “We know that anyone begotten by God does not sin.” This seems to contradict the Catholic position that we are all sinners. If this is so, if Christians cannot sin, there ought to be no need for the sacrament of confession.

Second, it says you need not pray for those guilty of grievous sin. Aren’t we supposed to pray for everyone? Aren’t we supposed to love our enemy, and seek the best for them?

Third, it affirms that the true follower of Christ is capable of telling who else is and is not true. So much for the popular doctrine that we are not to judge, not “be judgemental.” Apparently we can judge, reliably.

Fourth, it declares that “the whole world is under the power of the Evil One.” Surely a surprise to any “Hallelujah Chorus” or “prosperity gospel” Christians. And anyone who thinks they can live a Christian life reconciled to the world.

These issues are interconnected. 

As to the first point, other translations render “We know that anyone begotten by God does not sin” as “will not continue to sin,” “will not persist in sin.” The literal translation from the Greek is “not continues to sin.” This can be read not as meaning we will not sin once we believe in God, or that we will not persist in sin, which is to say, develop a vice. Because a vice, a kind of addiction, surrenders a part of our will, the vices are often conceived of as independent spirits, demons. Hence, developing a vice counts as “the Evil One touching us,” getting his hands on us. When we develop a vice, we “belong” to the Evil One, and no longer to God. 

This fits with the distinction between ordinary sins and “deadly sins” in the reading (the Greek is literally “sin unto death”). When we pray for someone who has sinned, we are presumably praying for their soul, that they do not fall into vice. If they have fallen into vice, there is no more we can do.

The vices are, after all, called the “Seven Deadly Sins.” They are deadly because they are settled habits. They both persist, in principle unto death, and are the death of the soul. If they can ever be escaped, it takes a miracle.

If this seems harsh, it seems to be the attitude of John the Baptist in the Gospel. He calls to repentance: and the people come out into the desert. If they do, expressing thereby their repentance, he washes them of their sins. 

But not everyone.

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

They are not welcome to repent. Either it is an impossibility, or else it offends divine justice.

And John the Baptist seem fully capable of judging them on sight.

This is also the obvious sense of Jesus dividing mankind onto sheep and goats, and condemning goats to the eternal fire.

Consider now the last words of this passage, “Children, be on your guard against idols.”

Vices, because they take over the will, are demons. They are idols. When you develop a vice, you have surrendered your will to some idol.

Going to Hell

 

A Buddhist image of hell.

“Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the prophets; they should listen to them.' He said, 'No, father Abraham; but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'"

My father once said the most shocking thing.

“I believe the Jews really are the chosen people. That’s why we have to keep them down. Otherwise they’d control everything.”

Leaving out any other details of my father’s life and deeds, this seems to sum up something essential and unambiguous.

The comment, made in all sincerity, is shocking, of course, for its antisemitism. And antisemitism, history, especially modern history, has shown us, is the most sinister and least forgivable form of racism. Anti-black or anti-Indian discrimination can often look like benevolence. People can convince themselves they are doing it in good heart. Not so antisemitism. 

A Muslim image of hell.

Of course, my father was also prejudiced against blacks and Indians, and other groups.

It is also an obvious expression of envy. It tracks closely the sin of Cain. Cain killed Abel because he thought Abel was favoured by God. After pride, envy is the worst of the deadly sins.

But there is something even more disturbing here. My father was saying

1. He believed in God.
2. He was God’s enemy.

So he did not have the alibi of ignorance. He knew he was going against God, and fully intended to do so.

Years later, my father has now died, without any sign of repentance, on this or as far as I can remember over any other of his acts or views. His will seemed spiteful. Always a heavy drinker, he encouraged everyone to get drunk at his funeral.

We can never be sure, but this looks like the perfect example of a soul bound for eternal torment.

“God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God is necessary, and persistence in it until the end.”

And God did seem to be merciful. He gave my father ample time, close to ninety years, to sort things out. He never did.

An early Renaissance Christian view of hell.

Why would anyone choose to go to hell? Milton gives the reason, in the words of Satan in Paradise Lost:

"Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven”

It is pride, the first and worst of vices.

It troubles me often to think of my father suffering in hell. The traditional image is of burning—supposedly the most painful way to die, but continuing forever. Muslim sources are, if anything, more disturbing than Christian ones. Buddhist sources too speak of awful tortures.

Of course this does not make literal sense, because after death one has no body. Old authorities argue this does not matter, that one may have the same sensation, without the physical organs. Modern authorities, and the Catechism of the Church, say “The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God.”

That makes the fire image a metaphor; but is hardly reassuring. Eternal separation from God seems likely to be more terrible than physical suffering—as mental anguish in this life is easily worse than the worst physical pain.

I think I did my best during his life to fraternally correct, to point out to him the need for a change of heart—and paid bitterly for it. That at least is some consolation. But it is a heavy thought, that one’s father is lost forever.

Reader, consider your own case.

Puppets

 

German puppets burned the Jews

Jewish puppets did not choose

“Puppets,” from Leonard Cohen’s posthumous album, Thanks for the Dance. What’s he on about?

The same thing folks are on about when they talk of “NPCs.” Or Ionescu was on about in his play Rhinoceros. Or why zombies are all the rage in popular culture.

The truth is, more and more of us are aware that more and more of us have been turning into automatons. Something is making us lose our free will, our full awareness of our surroundings, and our sense of meaning in our lives. And then we do awful things. Nazism was one dramatic expression of this, but the process seems to continue into the present time.

Cohen takes it a bit further than Ionescu, with his “puppet” image. For this suggests not just an absence of free will and consciousness, but control by another.

And Cohen suggesting this is not control by some oppressive government, dictator, or cabal. The president, too, is a puppet. 

Puppet Presidents command

Puppet troops to burn the land

It is not just the Nazis who are puppets, either; the Jews are puppets too. The root is deeper than Nazism itself.

The ultimate puppet master is the Devil. As Bob Dylan said, “You gotta serve somebody.” And this is a real psychological/spiritual phenomenon. Once we embrace any vice, we gradually lose our free will and even our sense of reality. The vice controls us, and our thinking runs in smaller and smaller circuits, with more and more prohibited to us. The sense is captured by the old temperance saying, “first the man takes a drink. Then the drink takes a drink. Then the drink takes the man.”

Cohen seems to suggest an escape from being controlled with the lines

Puppet lovers in their bliss

Turn away from all of this

But if so, he is perfectly wrong. It is actually addiction to sex that has brought us to this state of pinocchiohood. Starting in the Twenties, and mostly accelerating since. 

This is the way it always works: the addiction presents itself as an escape from the addiction. One gets drunk to forget that one is an alcoholic. Hence the downward spiral.

Although there is no question he has wrestled with such addictions personally, I suspect Cohen knows this. Otherwise this couplet would be at the end of the poem. Instead, in the poem, the puppethood persists past this. Puppet day is only followed by puppet night.

A bleak poem. 

The Woman Taken in Adultery

 

Two claims about Christianity that really disgust me are, first, the “happy happy joy joy” notion that Christians are supposed to find life always happy; an absurd and offensive thought to hold in the very shadow of Jesus pinioned on the cross. Second, the notion that Christians are not to judge―endlessly used as a get out of jail free card by non-Christians wanting to get away with bad actions.

I think I have dealt with both here before. 

For the second heresy, one passage often cited is the “judge not, lest ye be judged” verse in Matthew.

Matthew 7:1-5—in context.

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”

It actually ends with judgement; with you judging your brother. You are indeed to judge; but not judge by any standard you are not ready to apply to yourself. It is a warning against hypocrisy, not judgement.

A second Biblical passage often cited is that in John of the woman taken in adultery. 

2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11 “No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

--John 7:53-8:11

Biblical scholars argue that this is a late insertion, not found in the earliest Greek texts. As a Catholic, I do not care. The Church obviously did find it significant, to insert it.

But Jesus does judge the woman—he says she has sinned. Nor does he say she should not be stoned.

When the Pharisees there to stone her fade away, she remains standing. She could have taken to her heels. Jesus is not looking, giving her this opportunity.  He is deliberately looking down at the ground. She has, by this, expressed repentance for her sin, and has acknowledged that she deserves punishment.

Under these conditions, we can and should forgive. And if we do, we can expect the same forgiveness from God.

If, on the other hand, we take to our heels, deny that we have done wrong, deny the justice of our condemnation, we are damned. 

And it is the fraternal duty of the Christian to point out to us our wrong. Unless, that is, he wants to see us in hell.

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness.

Literally Worse than Hitler

 

The Devil incarnate? Or a lesser demon?

Modern history has left us Hitler as our image of ultimate evil.

He may not be up to the task. 

Awful as he was, he is not the worst possible human. He was just theatrical about it.

None of the Seven Deadly Sins requires a victim. You could regularly indulge all of them, wrath, envy, pride, lust, gluttony, acedia (spiritual, not physical sloth), and avarice, without coming to the attention of many others. Our society even tends to celebrate some of them. 

The same could be said for seven or eight of the Ten Commandments: you could get away with coveting your neighbour’s goods, or his wife, without anyone even knowing. You could fail to keep holy the Sabbath day; you could take the name of God in vain. Many do. You could commit adultery without much social blowback. Some would cheer you on. 

Hitler was guilty of mass murder—thou shalt not kill—but murder is actually not the worst sin. It is the worst crime. There is scant evidence he indulged in lust. He lived a celibate life; he had few and discreet liaisons, so far as is visible. Or gluttony: he was a teetotaler and a vegetarian. Or avarice: he lived on the royalties from Mein Kampf, which he had the state buy in quantity, but did not loot as he might have; like his lieutenant Goering. Hitler was preoccupied with power. This is pride, the worst of the Seven Deadly Sins. And he clearly indulged his wrath. But at least he did not submit to all of them.

Hitler also had one signal virtue: courage. A worse man would lack it. 

A thoroughly bad man, precisely because he lacked courage, would not so publicly sin. He would remain an upstanding member of your community. People might feel, personally, there was more than a little “off” about him, but they would not find anything they could openly condemn.

The Devil, they say, is a gentleman. You are more likely to encounter him at your next social gathering, than in the history books.

Desecration of a Catholic Mass

 

Both right and left condemned the recent invasion of the US Capitol building. So can we expect the condemnation from all sides of this?

It does seem to me worse. Those who stormed the capitol might have reasoned it was their own property, as taxpayers and citizens. Some seem to have been invited in by guards. Here the intent was to deprive others--Catholics--of their civil rights. 

Worth noticing too here how vice typically says the opposite of the truth, and scapegoats the innocent for their own crimes. They claim the Catholic mass is "teaching hate" and violence. They are asserting hatred of Catholics and demanding the right to kill.

All evil is delusional.

The Devil and Ravi Zacharias

Scandal has engulfed the memory of Ravi Zacharias, the popular Christian apologist who died last May. He has been accused of several ethical lapses: of having falsified qualifications, of having an affair with a married woman, of having made sexual advances to employees at two massage parlours he owned. More may emerge. His own organization, after an interim report from an independent review, says they find the charges credible.

Fellow Christians are generally understanding. Most see him as a good man who fell to temptation. Who hasn’t? Did he really hurt more people than he helped? And the temptations must have been great.

This overlooks an essential point: Zacharias never admitted to any of it, and never showed any remorse.

This is what separates the sheep from the goats, and makes Zacharias a goat. It is the essential element of what we call “narcissism,” and what used to be more accurately called vice.

One sympathetic therapist suggested poor Zacharias perhaps suffered from “sex addiction.” Probably right: this is what vice is. It is an addiction to sin. This does not excuse it. This means one has thrown in one’s lot with sin. One has chosen the path downward.

Looking at Zacharias and his career give us a portrait of the narcissist. Of course he presented himself as a holy man. The narcissist always will: he will claim to be flawless. It is especially useful to contrast Zacharias’s behavior with that of Donald Trump, since so many falsely accuse Trump of narcissism.

Trump never claimed to be holy. But the biggest contrast between the two is that everyone seems to want to minimize what Zacharias did, and few seem to bear him ill will. The reaction is more sorrow than anger. By contrast, Trump provokes deep hatred, as well as strong affection. 

This is narcissism. The narcissist is concerned above all else with how he or she appears to the world. They do not, as often charged, have “delusions of grandeur.” They just want to appear better than they are; they will falsify credentials. They will hide any imperfection, and do whatever they think will please whoever is present. This is the opposite of Trump, who seems to delight in mixing it up. They are skilled manipulators. They are charming; the devil is a gentleman. This subverts just about everyone around them into enablers and flying monkeys. So the narcissist, unlike Trump, rarely has enemies. 

This illustrates the wisdom of Confucius’s observation: if a person has no friends, it is necessary to make enquiries. If a person has no enemies, it is necessary to make enquiries.

Trump, obviously, is the opposite of this. His friends are fiercely for him, and his enemies fiercely against him.

This is the mark of an honest man.

Carpool Karaoke with the Devil at the Wheel

 

In the New Testament, Jesus casts out demons from a boy who seems to be epileptic. Matthew 17:14-18.

When they returned to the crowds again a man came and knelt in front of Jesus. “Lord, do have pity on my son,” he said, “for he is a lunatic and is in a terrible state. He is always falling into the fire or into the water. I did bring him to your disciples but they couldn’t cure him.”

“You really are an unbelieving and difficult people,” Jesus returned. “How long must I be with you, and how long must I put up with you? Bring him here to me!”

Then Jesus reprimanded the evil spirit and it went out of the boy, who was cured from that moment.

Lucian of Samosata, a pagan Greek exorcist, dealt with similar cases.

“Everyone knows how time after time he has found a man thrown down on the ground in a lunatic fit, foaming at the mouth and rolling his eyes; and how he has got him on to his feet again and sent him away in his right mind.”

This is sometimes pointed to as evidence that the ancients simply misunderstood mental illness; there is really no such thing as demonic possession. We know, after all, that epilepsy is caused by physical damage to the brain.

But this does not explain how they seem to have believed they could cure it.

The long-distance diagnosis of epilepsy may after all be wrong. Falling down, rolling eyes, foaming at the mouth, jumping into the fire or the water—this also sounds like a child’s tantrum, magnified and taken to an extreme.

The thought is inspired by some recent TikTok clips of leftist women reacting to the death of Ruth Bader Ginsberg. They are throwing tantrums. And one of them, the woman with the short dark hair, the fourth in this compilation—you have a look.

What is a tantrum? It is when a person is completely under the control of some desire, some want, some urge. Not some emotion: that looks quite different. Someone overcome with sorrow, for example, will go entirely quiet. Someone overcome with fear will hide. Someone overcome with love will hug. This is desire, not emotion, a primal hunger, a violent assertion of self-will. But then again, it is more complicated than that: the desire seems to take over the will; the women in the video are no longer in control of themselves. Rather than self-willed, they may even be self-destructive: “I wish I had been aborted.” They might throw themselves into a fire, or break their own toys.

The easiest way to make sense of it is to understand this thing, this desire, as an independent will; which is to say, a possessing demon. It thinks and acts independently of the will, and controls it.

Hitler, they say, used to throw such fits. As is immortalized in a million memes. 

We commonly nowadays call such possessed people “narcissists.” This is fairly apt. Narcissus himself, in the legend, was possessed by just such a demon, a lust towards himself, which was self-destructive. But he is perhaps more instance than ideal paradigm. We have been prejudiced in his direction as a vestige of Freud’s pseudo-biological fixation on sex as prime motive.

Possessed might be a better term. Such people might be possessed by any or all of the Seven Deadly Sins: pride, wrath, lust, envy, acedia, gluttony, avarice. All of whom are traditionally, and properly, understood as demons.

For two thousand years or so, Christianity has been here to keep such demons at bay. In the East, Buddhism has done the same work, beginning with the Noble Truth that such desires are the root of all suffering. All major religions no doubt do this work.

Now we have turned away from religion, and the demons run wild in the streets.

Turning up the Gas

The term “gaslighting” has become popular; perhaps it has become overused. But if you want a clear, classic case of gaslighting, see Joe Biden’s recent belated condemnation of violence in the streets.

"The deadly violence we saw overnight in Portland is unacceptable. Shooting in the streets of a great American city is unacceptable. I condemn this violence unequivocally. I condemn violence of every kind by any one, whether on the left or the right."

"And I challenge Donald Trump to do the same."

Trump and the Republicans have been calling on Biden to condemn the violence for months. Trump has been offering federal assistance to stop it. Both Trump and Mike Pence called for it to end, and for Biden to condemn it, in speeches at the just-concluded Republican convention. And he has been silent. Kamala Harris, and members of his campaign staff, have been publicly encouraging continuing “demonstrations,” and covering bail for those arrested.

Up is down, right is wrong, lies are truth, and truth is lies.

Biden is a classic narcissist. A narcissist will gaslight automatically, robotically, and will accuse the victim or accuser of whatever they have been doing.

You see it now on the left consistently. There is no good faith there.

But “narcissist” is just modern psychological terminology for what would classically be called a “vicious” person—that is, a person who has developed a vice. It helps clarity if that is understood; not to uses the proper term is doing the Devil’s will. The Devil needs misdirection.

One vice leads to another, so “vicious” tends to develop its more common meaning. For the left as a whole, the original sin, I maintain, is lust, and abortion. But that has led as well to envy, and so to embracing Marxist dogmas; to deceit, wrath, and the rest, to varying degrees.

But even well-meaning, glad-handing old “Uncle Joe”? Everybody likes Uncle Joe, and everybody claims he is a nice guy in private. His apparent harmlessness may be the primary reason he suddenly became the Democratic nominee.

But he was never harmless. Everyone who knew him thought the same of John Wayne Gacy. The Devil is a gentleman. He is not so stupid as to appear as some ravening monster.

Being liked by all is not a good character reference. It only suggests cunning, and lack of principle. A truly good man will be fiercely disliked by many.

Marianne and the Child

I think it is wrong to pry into the lives of famous people. Celebrities whatever their field are entitled, like the rest of us, to privacy. Interest in their personal affairs is generally the sin of calumny.

I am about to break that rule for Leonard Cohen.

Cohen is too important. He is not just another famous person. He is a spiritual guide, and, in the righteous words of Jennifer Warnes, Canada’s national poet. His soul intersects with Canada’s soul, and contains multitudes.

I was listening recently to the late song “Choices,” off the “Can’t Forget” tour album. And I realized how sad it was.

I've had choices
Since the day that I was born
There were voices
That told me right from wrong
If I had listened
I wouldn't be here today
Livin' and dyin'
With the choices I've made

It is a confession. It is sung in the voice of a hopeless alcoholic. Cohen did not write it, but the fact that he chose to perform it regularly suggests it meant something to him.

I was tempted
At an early age I found
That I liked drinkin'
No, I never turned it down
There were loved ones
But I chased them all away

Cohen did have a problem with drinking; but I fear that is not what he is really talking about. It stands in here for another vice, because he cannot quite speak that truth squarely. It is too painful to admit.

His vice was sex. It was lust.

This was, after all, the title of his first, autobiographical, novel: “The Favourite Game.” The favourite game was recreational sex: the hunt, the conquest. A common and commonly celebrated vice in his young adulthood, the era of Hemingway’s machismo, James Bond, Playboy, and the “sexual revolution.” A blind alley down which too many wandered then, and wander now.

Some girls wander by mistake
Into the mess that scalpels make.

Wrapped up in this is Marianne Ihlen: “So Long Marianne.” You can see her on the back cover of Songs from a Room. I have not seen the movie, “Marianne and Leonard,” but I think the issue is clear enough. It was his first committed relationship. By all the rules and right, that was his marriage, and it should have been for life. There was a child. It is unnatural and inhumane to break such bonds. I gather Cohen walked out on her, gradually, because, starting to become famous, he suddenly had lots more opportunities for casual sex. He was tempted as few of us ever are, and it was a temptation he could never resist.

Ever since he has had to live and die with that choice that he made. A fatal spiritual mistake.

The worst of it is that the child went mad by adulthood. Cohen must have wondered if he was responsible for that.

Cohen never could commit to any permanent relationship. He could never get past the lust; and always had chances to indulge it due to fame. He was an addict.

Notwithstanding, Cohen was a good man. He was just fallen like all of us; all of us have our temptations. The sign of his goodness was that he was wracked by guilt, and continued to wrestle with it. And to confess.

What I loved in my old life
I haven’t forgotten
It lives in my spine
Marianne and the child
The days of kindness
It rises in my spine
and it manifests as tears
I pray that loving memory
exists for them too
the precious ones I overthrew
for an education in the world

But Cohen fans and all of us need to realize that his early and sometimes celebrations of sexuality, attractive to so many, are phantoms on the road, demon voices that ruined his own life, the lives of many women, and the lives of many children, and continue to do so.

Denial

Denial is an essential concept to explain the dynamics of a dysfunctional family. A family becomes dysfunctional because it is denying some core problem. The classic case is the alcoholism of a parent. Adult Children of Alcoholics reports that fully 50% of those growing up in alcoholic families will deny there is any alcoholism present.

But do not be misled; alcoholism is not the only possibility. It is only the one most visible to our materialistic society. The real issue is a parental vice of any kind. See the Seven Deadly Sins for the traditional list.

The family exists to support a parent in a vice or vices; essential to this is denying that it is a vice, or that they have it.

But if denial is such a necessary concept, why has it not been known throughout history? Why do we hear it only in the last few decades; why does it sound so much like “pop psychology”?

This is a misconception. A Google engram shows that usage of the actual term, “denial,” is no more common today that it was in 1850, or 1800; frequency of usage has been mostly consistent, with perhaps a gentle valley stretching from the beginning into the middle years of the 20th century.

 

That has to mean that, if it is being used more frequently in some new sense in recent years, it must for some reason be used less in some prior meaning; an improbable idea, and something that surely could not simply happen by chance. A prior concept has been appropriated by psychology.

Denial, of just the sort seen in a dysfunctional family, is modelled prominently by St. Peter in the New Testament. It appears in all four gospels.

We’ll quote Mark’s version, as Mark’s is most succinct:

While Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant girls of the high priest came by. When she saw Peter warming himself, she looked closely at him.

“You also were with that Nazarene, Jesus,” she said.

But he denied it. “I don’t know or understand what you’re talking about,” he said, and went out into the entryway.

When the servant girl saw him there, she said again to those standing around, “This fellow is one of them.” Again he denied it.

After a little while, those standing near said to Peter, “Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean.”

He began to call down curses, and he swore to them, “I don’t know this man you’re talking about.” (Mark 14: 66-71). 

This is just the sort of adamant and repeated denial of the obvious seen in any dysfunctional family. 

Moreover, it is from the same source.

The government—as in the family the parent—has done something wrong. They are rejecting and executing an innocent man on a false charge. Rather than standing against this government action, Peter denies the slightest inference that he might. Nobody is more loyal to the government than he.

The gospel makes it clear enough why this happens, in either case: in the first place, out of fear. Every family, to preserve the family delusion, has a scapegoat, selected by the guilty parent. The surest way to become the scapegoat is to be caught telling the truth—about the secret vice, or about anything. In the gospel, this social scapegoat is Jesus: Jesus is the ultimate scapegoat for all mankind. The treatment dealt out to the scapegoat within a family, or within society, then serves to keep others in line: they fear that, if they point out the family dysfunction, or the resulting act of scapegoating, they may be given the same treatment, be scapegoated in their turn. This then fuels the family denial.

Some may remember how this worked with homosexuality back in high school—at least as late as the Sixties or Seventies. If you did not go along with the general derision towards some unlucky classmate who acted fey, you risked being declared a fag yourself.

And so the family is kept in line: denial.

There is a yet more fundamental example of denial in the Bible. It happens in the Garden of Eden.

“Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden.” (Genesis 3:8).

This is right after they have eaten the forbidden fruit; as obvious a denial of reality as we see in a dysfunctional family. God is omniscient; hiding in the bushes is not going to work. 

Here, the cause of denial is guilt; awareness of sin.

This too is a common cause in a dysfunctional family. Aware of their own settled vice, the problem parent will almost instinctively encourage or lure their children into immorality of some kind. Once they succeed, the child is doubly afraid to acknowledge the family truth, for they have their own secrets to conceal. The parent can, in effect, blackmail them; and truth itself, in any form, comes to seem a threat.

The term “denial” may sound cheap to us now because modern psychology, in appropriating the term, has subverted it, by eliminating the essential moral issue. To put it plainly, psychology itself is in denial, and for the classic reason. The issue is sin, or vice.

Indeed, arguably, it is Adam’s and Eve’s denial of sin by hiding in the bushes that is the real original sin, the one that caused the Fall, and not the eating of the apple. Sin is inevitable, and was for them, given free will and a lifespan projected to be infinite. You sin, and you ask for forgiveness; a merciful God forgives. The problem is the denial, the refusal to acknowledge the sin, that commits one to the path of vice. This is just what original sin is understood to do.

The ur-sin of denial is then the reason anyone rejects Jesus and salvation:

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God. (John 3: 19-21).

Denial is, it seems, the sin of all sins; it is the turning at the crossroads onto the high road to Hell.

This is the most terrible consequence of growing up in a dysfunctional family.

He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. …

“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. (Matthew 18:1-6)