Screwtape is Not Amused

This is what it looks like when the tempters allow the patients to get away. Excerpts:

... I had a hard time getting to the Holy Hour and Benediction. All day the day before I experienced the most dreadful spiritual crisis I have been through since I converted to the Catholic Church. My mind was deluged with negative thoughts, to the point that I began to wonder if I even was Catholic or had a right to enter any Church.

Then, at mass that evening, I prayed and prayed and it let up.

Later that night, I got hit with a sudden and rather violent gastrointestinal thing.

It was at that point that I finally recognized old scratch.

The next day, I thought about skipping the whole Benediction. I felt so terrible, and now I was tormented with thoughts that I might meet a particular person there who had hurt me in the past and who I dread ever seeing again.

I prayed, and knew that I needed to go.

I told a friend of mine that all this made me feel as if the devil thought that if Rebecca Hamilton showed up at this Benediction he would be cast back into hell. I told her that if other people were getting a dose of what I was getting, I feared that the church might be empty.

But, despite all this, I went.

And what I experienced was the Presence and Love of Christ...

For those who have no idea what I'm referring to, behold a bit of awesome.

Dr. Faust and the Harvard Black Mass

Yes, the name of the president of Harvard is Dr. Drew Gilpin Faust. Savor that for as long as you like.

Don't know why that's a funny coincidence? Because Dr. Faust was the president of Harvard during the affair of the Harvard Black Mass.

Thank heavens, the event was moved off campus, postponed indefinitely by the sponsoring organization, though Satanic Temple members claim to have still held some part of it in an off-campus restaurant. But the whole affair is instructive in a number of ways.

The response of the Archdiocese of Boston.

One of the oddities of the whole affair is the purported distinctions being made by the so-called Satanists between themselves and people who actually believe in the Devil. Excerpts (links in the original):

...The Satanic Temple is a kind of stepchild of LaVeyan Satanism, which also is not Satanic. LaVeyan Satanism–the “Church of Satan”–was founded by a ridiculous fraud named Howard Levey, who assumed the name of Anton LaVey and made himself up to look like a cartoon Mephistopheles in one of the least-convincing attempts to appear menacing since Kermit the Frog stuck a pair of vampire fangs in his mouth...

LaVey was a sham psychic/occultist and musician who hit San Francisco with his act at just the right time in the 60s and became a celebrity because he seemed transgressive. He saw Lucifer as a force of freedom and liberation (and thanks for that, John Milton), but mostly as a way to make money and annoy the squares.

He cobbled together an asinine philosophy from scraps of Nietzsche, Ayn Rand, and a book called Might is Right by Ragnar Redbeard. It’s all the usual will to power, do as thy wilt, fascistic, watered-downed Crowleyite hokum designed to empty pockets and get women naked. (Say what you will about Aleister Crowley, but the man was no idiot and he took things seriously. He would have eaten these frauds for breakfast.)

In other words, American neo-Satanism is all just a big act from people who want attention...

The problem, however, is that their deep ignorance and hatred has left them stumbling around in a very serious, very dark place.

And even though the Satanic Temple is a fraud, Satanism is quite real. It’s just that real Satanists don’t advertise the fact...

See, they may not believe in Satan, but Satan believes in them, and he knows Useful Idiots when he sees them...

This is a beautiful summary of the whole, screwy situation. Excerpts:

Ok so let’s get this straight then:

The Harvard Cultural Studies group is hosting an event on campus that includes a Satanic Black Mass from a group that claims not to actually believe in Satan never performed a Black Mass and when called on to explain the university’s position  equated a Black Mass to a Shinto tea ceremony and Buddhist meditation.

FYI if you google “diversity & “tolerance” at harvard this is the gum that comes up from the Harvard School of Public Health

we are committed to tolerance, sensitivity, understanding, and mutual respect everywhere within our community, and we hereby affirm our promise to provide a welcoming place for one and all. 

Meanwhile we are further told that the Satanic Temple does not only doesn’t actually believe in Satan, really isn’t going to use a consecrated host after confirming that they were and it’s all just a misunderstanding that wasn’t meant to offend anybody even though the claim a it’s no big deal either way.

Maybe it’s just me but these people don’t seem trustworthy. In fact I seem to recall a expert on Satan noting some credibility issues concerning those who follow Satan in the past:

You belong to your father the devil and you willingly carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks in character, because he is a liar and the father of lies.

As Harvard has a divinity school I trust they can figure out the source of this quote....

The Satanic Temple (apparently a group based out of New York) is also behind the attempt to get a statue of the devil in an Oklahoma courthouse. Tom McDonald has an important run down of the consequences of their actions:

Catholics have been reminded of something important: our precious Sacrament is the target of wicked people, and even though this incident was stopped, others continue. Now more people are aware of that fact, and are offering acts of reparation for this wounding. That would not have happened if this incident had not forced the issue into public consciousness.

We also needed to be reminded that these people–both fake Satanists and real–are also children of God. They’ve invited demons into their souls, almost certainly without realizing what that means. Jesus did not curse the possessed: he exorcised them. We, too, should pray for these tools of the enemy, that they may be freed from their bondage to evil and welcome into the light of Christ, where they shall always have a loving home.

More than one Satanist has found his way to Holy Mother Church, and if we are to be Christians, we must not lose sight that it’s our job to lead them back, while also fighting the evil they wish to bring into the world

And while we do this, we must remember that the battleground of Satan is within us as well. As Solzhenitsyn wrote, the line separating good and evil passes right through every human heart. I’d rather not lose a single soul to Hell. Not one. Not even the soul of my worst enemy..

One of the key aspects of the whole event is the attitude which the Harvard group sponsoring the event was taking toward the opposition. Excerpts:

“While it is unfortunate that many people took personal offense at rituals for which they have little or no understanding of their context, what we find most disturbing have been the demands that the rituals and beliefs of marginalized members of society be silenced,” the club wrote in the emailed statement. “It is gravely upsetting to us that some people feel vindicated on the basis that they have disingenuously mischaracterized our invited guests as being part of a hate group.”

And this, as well. Excerpts:

...Members of the Harvard Extension Cultural Studies Club, who posted fliers and notices on campus and online about the Satanic worshipping happening on May 12, said the event is educational and meant to add historical context to a lecture on the subject that will precede it. “Our purpose is not to denigrate any religion or faith, which would be repugnant to our educational purposes, but instead to learn and experience the history of different cultural practices,” the group said in a statement. “This performance is part of a larger effort to explore religious facets that continue to influence contemporary culture.”...

The language is echoed, to a certain extent, by the Satanic Temple spokespeople, as well.

...Given the group’s insistence that they are engaging in an intellectual and educational exercise meant, as Greaves put it, “as an expression of personal independence from overwhelming cultural influences”, I asked if obtaining a Consecrated Host through stealth — and using it for an “intellectual” exercise that would constitute grave abuse to believing Catholics — would pose an ethical dilemma for them which could affect their credibility. Greaves wondered whether anyone connected with the group “would waste time going to all that trouble. The odds are almost zero...”

Speaking anonymously, a spokesman added, “please understand, there is in fact, respect for the beliefs of others, and our intention was not to be in anyone’s face. We did not mean to mislead...”

They appear to me to be more interested in advocating against belief of any sort, and pricking the culture, than in actually pursuing supernatural interests. That they are more, as it were, “seculo-politico-atheo-satanists” rather than supernaturalists.

Having spoken with several people within the organization, I am not entirely sure they fully understand what they’ve gotten themselves into, with this “re-enactment”. When I asked Greaves what he would do if, in the midst of their exercise, something from the etheric plane made itself known, he laughed and said, “well, then I’d have to reassess.”

Greaves says his Satanism is “a metaphorical construct” meant to unshackle the world from belief in supernatural good or evil because belief has “led to horrible things” and “the idea of Satanists as deviants has never done the world any good...”

And here. Excerpts:

...As Mesner tells Vice writer Shane Bugbee, "While the original thinking was that the Satanic Temple needed to hold to some belief in a supernatural entity known as 'Satan,' none of us truly believed that. I helped develop us into something we all do truly believe in and wholeheartedly embrace: an atheistic philosophical framework that views 'Satan' as a metaphorical construct by which we contextualize our works.

"We've moved well beyond being a simple political ploy and into being a very sincere movement that seeks to separate religion from superstition and to contribute positively to the cultural dialogue."

Apparently, for the Temple, "contributing positively to the cultural dialogue" consists of taking the "source and summit" of the Catholic faith, the Eucharist, and using it in some sort of quasi-historical/theatrical evening of entertainment...

Dawn Eden did some digging and perhaps found what exactly motivates some of the members of this organization. Excerpts:

...All things considered, when I read that Greaves says he intends the “Black Mass”  to be “an expression of personal independence from overwhelming cultural influences,” I have to ask, from what kind of cultural influences does he seek independence? From where I can see, by engaging in a hateful mockery of the Catholic faith, he seeks to declare independence from the teaching that human beings should be protected from all forms of harmful exploitation. He seeks to declare independence from the one institution in the world that has, for two thousand years, defended the dignity of the human person against those who would use and abuse others for their own ends. Finally, in his vituperative attacks against victims (which, from his Internet trail, are clearly personal and go far beyond “debunking” psychological theories), he declares himself independent from the Church which teaches not only that intrinsic evils exist, but that one of those intrinsic evils is rape...

The language of the Harvard sponsors and, to a certain extent, the Satanic Temple folks, is entirely in conformity with the pedagogy of the oppressed. The logic can be simplified thusly:

• The status quo is imperfect/evil/actively oppressive (pick which one applies)
• Those with power/money/etc. (whom we shall call the "oppressors") benefit from the status quo, for they are at the top of the heap in the midst of it. 
• Those without power/money/etc. (whom we shall call the "oppressed") do not benefit from the status quo.
• Since the status quo is imperfect, it is the source/maintains the existence of evils.
• In order to fix those evils, the status quo must be overturned/dismantled/deconstructed.
• The status quo will be ended when those without power/money/etc. struggle to acquire said power/money/etc. from those who currently possess it. 
• Any evils done in the course of the struggle are the products of the status quo, and the fault of those who benefited from/maintained the status quo. 
• Thus, the oppressors are to blame for everything wrong/evil, and the oppressed are always and forever the victims/innocent/free from guilt for anything done in the name of the revolution.

It's a tempting way to think, and to be. There truly are the situations and people where intolerable oppression generates violent reactions. But to work to "raise the consciousness" of every group into the mindset of the oppressed, setting everyone into jealously guarding every bit of power, money, influence, privilege, what have you against the demands or depradations of anyone else always and at all times--that's a recipe for hell on earth.

In many ways, this is the basic structure of Marxism--the oppressed/proletariat must rise against the oppressors/bourgeois to achieve the revolution which shall usher in the end of the status quo and the dictatorship of the proletariat, which shall eventually resolve itself into the classless society without haves or have nots.

I call it the politics of envy. Why? It leads to an endless cycle of violence. The dictators after the revolution shall be the new haves, and the former bourgeois, the new have nots. The only real way out of the cycle is forgiveness, charity, and supernatural grace.

But Marxism has no room for God, or grace, or forgiveness--at least, ideologically. And so you get the strange hells of the gulag archipelago and the culture of the life, the lands where deception reigns and all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

And then there's what happens when you take this Marxist framework and attempt to stretch it over a Christian worldview. What happens? Well, think it through: those with power who maintain the status quo are evil. Those without power who challenge the status quo are good.

God is the Creator and Sustainer of all things, the source of all that is, the Lord, the One who gives all free will and metes out justice and mercy. The Devil is the rebel, the revolutionary, seeking to wage war on heaven, overthrow the Power that be, and redistribute power.

Who, then, becomes good, and who evil, according to the politics of envy?

How do I know I'm not just being paranoid? Simply, Saul Alinsky.

“Lest we forget at least an over the shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins - or which is which), the very first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer.” ― Saul D. Alinsky, Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals

This is a concatenation of the dictatorship of relativism (also called the culture of the lie, populated by the people of the lie) and the politics of envy. The Anchoress sums it up well. Excerpts:

Breitbart News: What is your overall impression of the entire affair?

Scalia: I think it's demonstrative of how comfortable we as a society have become with lying to ourselves and being lied to. Harvard Extension can convince itself – and others – that all it's doing is hosting an intellectual exercise; the Temple folks can convince themselves, and some, that they're not really tempting a supernatural, or etheric plane; but we know that there are "things seen and unseen" constantly at work.

It is so much easier to believe these over-rationalized-into-fantasy lies than to do the hard work of saying "no" to someone, or of respecting others, even if it involves some self-denial. It's a human condition, common to us all, but it seems to me to be in ascendance. The easier way always is.

And in thinking about and responding to the Harvard Black Mass, the Anchoress's son pinpoints the weakness at the heart of the politics of envy. Excerpts:

“But, it’s a Gift,” Buster said, “So they only cheat and hurt themselves.”

I was a little confused. “What do you mean, which is the Gift, the Holy Eucharist, or sexuality?”

“Both,” he said. “They’re both gifts, but I’m talking about the Gift of the Body of Christ. Christ gave himself to us, feely, of his own free will. A Gift freely given. If someone takes the Gift and spits on it or whatever — they’re only destroying what was given to them, they are destroying what is “theirs.” They don’t in any way destroy the Giver of the Gift, or lessen the Giver, or the Gift. So they have no power over it, they can’t dominate it. All they can do is destroy themselves within themselves.”

“Yes,” I agreed. If I freely give you a car, and you decide to smash it up, you’ve lost out, not me. If I give you my life, and you are unappreciative, it doesn’t lessen what I have done, but reveals the void within you.”

“That’s why even during the Passion, those who wanted Jesus dead could not have victory over him,” Buster mused, picking up on today’s Gospel reading. “So, no matter how they mistreated Him or misjudged Him, or tortured Him…He had consented to it. And so they lost, and He won.” The Power was always His.”

“Right,” I said, wondering what I was thinking about when I was 16 years old.

“And so, these people at the black masses — they have an illusion of power, but the power is always Christ’s, because He is the Gift.”

“Exactly.”

“It doesn’t make me feel any better to think of anyone desecrating a Host,” he mused. “But if they don’t realize that the power they think they have is only an illusion, then really…’they know not what they do.’”

40 Days in the Desert

It's the boot camp of Christianity--though J must confess that this Lent has been one of my weakest in my life. Prayers appreciated as we head into Holy Week. Anyway--an important reminder of something perennially true. Excerpts:

...Some years ago, I was approached by a rather angry woman who, having heard my sermon on the seriousness of certain sins (which were in the readings of the day), expressed great indignation that I would preach on such topics. She said, “I come to church to be consoled and have my spirits lifted, not to hear old-fashioned warnings about judgment and sins.” She felt quite a “righteous indignation,” and was most certain that I had transgressed a fundamental norm, namely, that religion exists to console, and that any challenge to one’s moral stance, (except perhaps caring for the poor), is intolerant and way out of line.

Indeed, many today have this kind of attitude: that it is their birthright not to be troubled or vexed in any way by something people might say, especially a preacher who claims to represent God! The “God they worship” would never trouble them. They will have Jesus for their consoler and best friend, but not their Lord, and certainly not their judge. And never mind the literally thousands of verses from Scripture in which Jesus himself speaks sternly and warns of sin, death, judgment, and Hell. They will have none of it, and are certain that “the Jesus they know,” would never raise his voice at them or challenge them even for a moment. Never mind that the real Jesus says to take up our cross and follow him.

With spiritual battle having been removed from many people’s spiritual landscape, the idea that the Lord would summon us to battle, or ask us to choose sides, seems strangely foreign, intolerant, and uncompassionate.

Even more dangerous, these modern conceptions not only distort Jesus, but they downplay the presence and influence of Satan. This is a very, very bad idea. Even if we cease fighting against Satan, he will never ceases his sometimes very subtle attacks on us.

Jesus called consistently for prayerful, sober vigilance against the powers of evil and sin. Like it or not, we are in a battle. Either we will soberly and vigilantly undertake the battle, or we will be conquered and led off like sheep to the slaughter...

Seeing is Believing: The Demonic, the Skeptic, and the Christian Empiricist

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. - Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio.

Mark Shea discusses the demonic and why folks believe it exists. Excerpts:

...Devils are facts of our universe. They are not psychological projections, myths, or legends (though, of course, the mind of man takes them–as it takes everything other concrete reality of creation–and makes up stories about them so that devils, like kings, lamps, ants, elephants, and grasshoppers, become part of the vast legendarium that man has been creating ever since he spun the first yarn around a campfire. But just only a fool would conclude that elephants are unreal because somebody once told a tale about one that could fly, so only a fool conclude that devil cannot exist because he once saw a picture of horned gent with a goatee in red tights...

Years ago, I heard a Black Pentecostal pastor in Spokane talking about a time he and some other local non-denominational pastors had been asked by a family they knew to come and pray for their granny who, her family said, “had an evil spirit”. One of the pastors was of a more modern frame of mind—the sort of frame of mind that fancies itself “open-minded” by closing itself off to the very possibility of the supernatural ever actually occurring. He somehow found himself invited to this meeting of pastors who were going to the house of this family to pray for granny. The liberal pastor reluctantly agreed and joined the circle as they gathered round granny and began to ask God to intervene on her behalf.

The doubting pastor happened to have taken up a position right behind granny, perhaps due to his reluctance to look at her face during what he considered to be a hugely superstitious bit of medieval hocus pocus. Granny, who was quite long in the tooth and rather frail, submitted to the prayer, but as it went on she began to act oddly and, quite suddenly reached behind her (over her shoulders), seized the doubting pastor and lifted him clean off the ground.

“That kind of thing changes your theology,” observed the Black Pentecostal pastor drily.

...Rationalist skeptics love to pride themselves on being tough-minded empiricists with the courage to follow the evidence wherever it leads–and to accuse Christians of relying on dogma in the teeth of the evidence.

Rubbish. Nine times out of ten it is the materialist who is the kneejerk dogmatist.

“Even if all the sick in Lourdes were cured in one moment, I would not believe [in miracles]!” – Emile Zola

On the other end of the spectrum, we have the sort of worldview espoused by Dan Brown, who's quite busily encouraging every sound scientist and reasonable person out there to become a materialist magician--to accept the occult as one more branch of science and to study it seriously in the hopes of regaining the knowledge so viciously suppressed by Catholicism and the rest of the Christians of the world.

"The Christian Life is A Battle"--Fought with Prayer

Moses, putting the warrior in prayer warrior. By the way, the Sacred Page blog is an excellent resource for Catholics wanting to learn more about Scripture, and for non-Catholics who want to know what Catholics teach about Scripture. Excerpts:

...Our First Reading is Exodus 17:8-13:

In those days, Amalek came and waged war against Israel.
Moses, therefore, said to Joshua,
"Pick out certain men,
and tomorrow go out and engage Amalek in battle.
I will be standing on top of the hill
with the staff of God in my hand."
So Joshua did as Moses told him:
he engaged Amalek in battle
after Moses had climbed to the top of the hill with Aaron and Hur.
As long as Moses kept his hands raised up,
Israel had the better of the fight,
but when he let his hands rest,
Amalek had the better of the fight.
Moses’ hands, however, grew tired;
so they put a rock in place for him to sit on.
Meanwhile Aaron and Hur supported his hands,
one on one side and one on the other,
so that his hands remained steady till sunset.
And Joshua mowed down Amalek and his people
with the edge of the sword.

We should recall the context here. After the Ten Plagues and the Passover, Israel has left Egypt a few weeks ago, crossed the Red Sea, and now entered into the Sinai Peninsula: a vast, rocky, mountainous desert. Amalek was a nation of nomads that controlled the northeastern part of the Sinai Peninsula and the southern part of the Negeb (the south Judean desert). The Amalekites were not happy to have the Israelites moving through the outskirts of the their territory, and they sent bands of scouts to trail them. According to Deut 25:18, the Amalekite raiders killed off the weakest of the Israelites who lagged behind the main camp—the ill, the elderly, poor families with many children, etc. The Amalekites were an ancient expression of the culture of death.

Now on their way to Mount Sinai, in Exodus 17 the Israelites are attacked outright by the bulk of the Amalekite forces, and they are forced to respond, despite the fact that they are not military men but former slaves, and have few if any proper weapons. It is a situation of great peril that could end with the complete annihilation of the Israelite people in the middle of a desert wasteland.

The young man Joshua goes out to lead those forces the Israelites could muster, while Moses goes to the mountaintop to beseech God in prayer. The moral sense of this text is a good example of the complementarity of prayer and action, of ora et labora. The people fight and pray: both are necessary, for the same reason that faith and works operate together.

How curious that Moses’ prayers are necessary! Why doesn’t God just send victory without them? Surely he could! Yet this is the mystery of God’s will: that he chooses to incorporate our participation in the fulfillment of his plans (See Aquinas, Summa 2, 2, Q. 83, art. 2). He ordains to grant victory to Israel through Moses’ intercession. Prayer is a cooperation with God’s will for us.

In the Old Testament, there were no “secular” wars. Every battle was both a physical and spiritual conflict, because the opposing armies always called on their respective gods. The conflict of nations was the conflict of their divinities, and the stronger divinities won. So in Exodus 17 as well: there is a spiritual battle going on here between the LORD God of Israel and the gods of the Amalakites, just as earlier in Exodus the LORD took on the gods of Egypt through the ten plagues, defeating the Nile god, the crop god, the livestock gods, the sun god, etc. In this spiritual conflict, prayer is vital—God chooses to use it as his means to victory. This calls to mind later spiritual conflicts in the ministry of Jesus, when the disciples cannot defeat and demon and the Lord tells them: “This kind comes out only by prayer.”

As a Church, we find ourselves very much in the position of the Israelites on their way to Sinai. We have left Egypt (=slavery to sin by crossing through the sea (=Baptism), but now that we are free people we find we have a fight on our hands.

People are surprised sometimes to discover that the Christian life is a battle. They supposed, perhaps, that things would be easier after baptism, or after conversion. But you see, slaves don’t have to fight. In Egypt, the Israelites weren’t in the army—they just slaved away in obedience to their Egyptian masters. That’s like the life of sin: its not really a struggle. You don’t fight temptation, you just obey it. It’s not slaves, but free men who have to fight, who have to serve in the army. So it is in the spiritual life. When we leave our addictions behind, having experienced conversion, we enter this life of freedom, but discover that freedom entails struggle, that freedom cannot be maintained without fighting.

What gives us the power for this fight? Prayer. That’s the true source of our victory. But it must be persevering prayer that continues until the final victory is won.

Benedict XVI points out that Moses, with both arms lifted up in prayer, strikes a pose on the mountaintop much like Christ on the cross. So we can see Moses here as a type of Christ, prefiguring the great prayer to the Father that was the Passion and Crucifixion, the great prayer which defeated the Enemy of God’s people definitively. We participate in that great Prayer of Christ on the cross at every Mass...

Scalia on Pope Francis and Prayer

Elizabeth Scalia, that is.  Excerpts:

The Holy Father continues to speak with a sharp sense of urgency:

“Yes, you have to come to know Jesus in the Catechism – but it is not enough to know Him with the mind: it is a step. However, it is necessary to get to know Jesus in dialogue with Him, talking with Him in prayer, kneeling. If you do not pray, if you do not talk with Jesus, you do not know Him. You know things about Jesus, but you do not go with that knowledge, which He gives your heart in prayer. Know Jesus with the mind – the study of the Catechism: know Jesus with the heart – in prayer, in dialogue with Him. This helps us a good bit, but it is not enough. There is a third way to know Jesus: it is by following Him. Go with Him, walk with Him.”

It is necessary, “to go, to walk along the streets, journeying.” It is necessary, said Pope Francis, “to know Jesus in the language of action.” Here, then, is how you can really know Jesus: with these “three languages - of the mind, heart and action.” If, then, “I know Jesus in these ways,” he said in conclusion, “I involve myself with Him”:

“One cannot know Jesus without getting oneself involved with Him, without betting your life [on] Him. When so many people – including us – pose this question: ‘But, who is He?’, The Word of God responds, ‘You want to know who He is? Read what the Church tells you about Him, talk to Him in prayer and walk the street with him. Thus, will you know who this man is.’ This is the way! Everyone must make his choice.”

...The prayer is the key. Without it, we can know the Catechism back and forth, and we can seek to serve others and look for Christ in each other, but the root of all of that — the root that feeds our understanding of the books and helps us to see Christ in others, and to recognize the promptings of the Holy Spirit — is prayer. Daily prayer is what nourishes all of the rest: feeds it, supports it, connects it, grounds it, as Mary grounded Martha...

And if I may, here are some books to get you started (scroll down). Or if that's too much, just say, "Jesus, my Lord and my God! Help! Thanks! Love you!" Rinse, repeat...

Or "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, have mercy on me a sinner."

Or the Our Father. Or the Sign of the Cross. It's not hard to get started. Make it a habit. Do it as needed, and do it daily even when you don't think you need to.

Other great prayers:

• the Rosary
• the Chaplet of Divine Mercy

A few excellent basic guides to prayer:

• Fr. Thomas Dubay, Prayer Primer : Igniting a Fire Within
• Peter Kreeft, Prayer for Beginners
• Mark Shea, The Heart of Catholic Prayer: Rediscovering the Our Father and the Hail Mary 

For an overview of the life of prayer/interior life/spiritual life/life in the Spirit:

• Ralph Martin, The Fulfillment of All Desire
• ed. by Mike Aquilina and David Scott, Weapons of the Spirit: Selected Writings of Father John Hugo
• Fr. Thomas Dubay, Deep Conversion/ Deep Prayer 
• Fr. Robert Barron, The Strangest Way: Walking the Christian Path
• Dan Burke, Navigating the Interior Life: Spiritual Direction and the Journey to God
• Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, OP, The Three Conversions in the Spiritual Life

For in-depth explorations of Christian prayer:

• Father Jordan Aumann, OP, Christian Spirituality in the Catholic Tradition
• Father Thomas Dubay, Fire Within: St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, and the Gospel-On Prayer
• Fr. Harvey Egan, SJ, An Anthology of Christian Mysticism (Pueblo Books)
• Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, OP, The Three Ages of the Interior Life (2 Volume Set)

We Live in a Novel II

“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”--Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

Cause this isn't like something out of a Christian novel about spiritual warfare or anything.  Not, At.  All.

From Get Religion. Excerpts:

Texas blogger Adam Cahm, who recorded the video, says, “For the record: They’ve been doing this all day, this is just the first time we caught it on video.” So if the protestors were chanting “Hail Satan” all day yesterday, why have we not seen reports about today by mainstream outlets?...

No doubt the number of Satan-hailers is small compared to the number of non-Satan invoking demonstrators. But if it’s worth noting when pro-lifers “clutch crosses” why is not newsworthy when abortion rights supporters invoke the Prince of Darkness?

Why is no one reporting on the chants? Is some lower power compelling reporters to be silent? (Could it be . . . Satan?) Or should we just chalk it up to the ongoing, ever-persistent media bias in mainstream news coverage of abortion?

Who seriously thought it was a good idea to do this where there would be cameras and the opposition present?

The Anchoress has good commentary. Excerpts:

...When people assured me it was true, I didn’t have to see it last night to go to bed understanding why I had felt compelled to write this, before turning in.

That Strange God — the idol that is the idea of I — has the full force of the press, the United States Government and a lot of mindless, deluded sloganeering drones, who have no notion that they are no further enlightened than Eve; that they are standing in Eden, before a slithering hisser of lies, who introduces death to their hearts and souls with a single promise, “consume it and be like gods…”

You get a gang of already pumped up, hysterical (and in some cases terribly, terribly young) idolators fully indoctrinated to the creed and the church of the Idol-of-I, and start singing “Amazing Grace” you’re striking at a jugular vein of the idol and the hysterics — having nothing to fall back on but the empty creed of self-worship, which contains no grace at all — have no depth in their recourse. All they have left in their bag of tricks is shock and chaos.

Last night they fell back on “shock.” Chaos will come later, and believe me, a mindless, stupidly spiteful chanting of “hail satan” won’t be the half of it...

It's spiritual combat, come right out into the open.

Mark Shea also. Excerpts:

You know, pro-aborts, you can reach a point where, in your effort to be all postmodern and ironic you circle back to simply speaking the truth about yourselves. I would submit that you have just achieved that goal as you chant “Hail Satan” in your struggle to make sure that child slaughter remains unsafe, legal and common.

What Does Evil Look Like?

This.  Excerpts:

...When faced with mindless massacres, we don't have a rational answer—and that is the rational answer. What I mean is that the further one goes down the path of Evil, the more it becomes irrational and mindless. Evil, by its very nature, is a lie, a subterfuge, a deceit and a vast web of contradictions and inconsistencies. Evil is, by it's nature, the darkness and the chaos—where what seems reasonable is only a smoke screen for the absurd, and what seems logical is a pretext for irrationality.

Exorcism: The Docudrama

This looks interesting:

Desecration Days

Well.  This is both vile and, oddly, seems symbolic during Holy Week.  Excerpts:

...Every case seems to go according to the same script, with the underlying signature of followers of the occult: sacristies cracked open by the tools of thieves, the theft of containers of hosts, tabernacles split in two.

Saint Jean Vianney and Satan

A match made in...wait...excerpts:

...In 1829, a young priest, the son of the good widow whose acquaintance we made in the first pages of this book--the Abbe Bibost--came to Ars, in order to make a retreat in the parish of the man he so highly revered. M. Vianney, who had directed his first steps in the priesthood, received him with much kindness, and offered him a room in his house.

"I was intimately acquainted with this priest," says the Abbe Renard, "and it happened that Providence also led me to my native parish at the time of his stay there. In our first interview the conversation turned upon the extraordinary events which were occurring at Ars, and of which the whole country were talking.

"'You sleep at the presbytery,' said I, 'tell me, is it true that the devil makes all this clamour at night?'

Sir Christopher Lee--A Remarkable Life

Well, holy crud.  In his youth, the man who played Saruman, Count Dooku, Dracula, Sherlock Holmes, and the head of a murderous occultic cult, among a lot of other parts, fought Nazis.  Indeed, he fought Nazis to such a degree that he has expert knowledge of what the sound of someone getting knifed in the back should be.

What Do You Do When The Devil Comes Calling?

Who ya gonna call? Excerpts:

...I always wear my cassock on Sundays, so I still had on the full cassock, collar and cincture with my Benedictine scapular on top. I made my way to a modest home on the edge of town and knocked on the door. The wife was taken aback. "Wow! I haven't seen a Catholic priest like this forever!"

I asked some questions about the problems, explained the complexity of the supernatural and paranormal phenomena and said that usually a house blessing was all that was required to clear things up. Then I asked where they go to church. "Well, when we do go we attend DaySpring". That's one of the Protestant mega churches in town.

"And I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything. I'm just curious..." I asked, "But why did you call me instead of one of your pastors fro DaySpring?"

"We knew it was a Catholic priest who would know what to do about demons and all that stuff."...

Satanist Funerals

A subject, I'm sure, to which you never thought you'd be giving serious thought.  But there it is.  Excerpts:

You probably won't hear "Amazing Grace" at a Satanist's funeral, but you just might hear "My Way" by Frank Sinatra. A researcher from Concordia University recently published a journal article with some rare access to high level Satanists exploring what they think about death and dying.

Members in the Church of Satan are traced back to Anton LeVey who in 1966 founded the church in San Fransisco. He is also the author of the cannon [sic] of sorts for the group, The Satanic Bible first published in 1969. Today, the church is based in New York and membership numbers are hard to come by.

One of the main tenets of the faith is atheism. Not just a disbelief in God but also in the devil or Satan. Satanists believe God is an invention of man and instead deify themselves...

Can anyone point out a few of the apparent issues with the previous statement? Anyone? Bueller?

Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle.  Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.  May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou, oh Prince of the Heavenly Hosts, by the power of God, cast into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl throughout the world, seeking the ruin of souls.  Amen.

For a realistic introduction to the Devil himself, I've had The Deceiver: Our Daily Struggle with Satan recommended to me.  See also Peter Kreeft's Angels and Demons: What Do We Really Know about Them?, The Rite: The Making of a Modern Exorcist, and, of course, the Bible.

They Got It "Rite"?: Of Exorcism and Hollywood Execs

Apparently, according to the priest whose experiences served to inspire Matt Baglio to write The Rite: The Making of a Modern Exorcist. CNA has the story.  Excerpts follow:

...In an interview with CNA on Jan. 19, Fr. Thomas – who currently serves as pastor of Sacred Heart Parish in Saratoga, California –  explained that he served as a consultant for the film,  particularly the scenes featuring exorcisms.

For a week in June last year, he said he was on the movie set working with cast members and producers. The priest added that “to their credit,” the directors and producers wanted the exorcism scenes to be as accurate at possible.

“The environment of that movie set was very reverential towards the Church,” Fr. Thomas said. “The producer and the director and the cast whom I worked with at the time were very open.”

Fr. Thomas said he recently saw a screening of the film alongside Anthony Hopkins at a New Line Cinema studio in Los Angeles. In his words, the movie has a “loose” basis in Baglio's book.

One discrepancy Fr. Thomas pointed out was that he went to Rome as a 50-year-old seasoned priest with a desire to learn more about the rite of exorcism  – hardly a cynical seminarian in the midst of a faith crisis.

Despite the differences, however, he called the film “very good.”

“The human side of the priesthood is very well developed,” he said, adding that the portrayal of “the institutional Church comes out very positively...”

Fr. Thomas also said that the intensely eery trailers for the film are “deceptive” in the sense that they make it look like a “horror movie,” which he says is inaccurate...

The movie comes out January 28.  Here's the trailer: