C. S. Lewis and the Catholic Church

Rating:
Summary: Insightful answer to "why didn't Lewis convert" and more
Review: C.S. Lewis surrounded himself with Catholics at Oxford, immersed himself in literature written by Catholics and accepted Catholic teachings that Protestants are not supposed to (like the doctrine of purgatory). So many have wondered why he never converted to Catholic Christianity as did many of his peers. To point to his "Ulster Protestant prejudice" is a natural, but somewhat overly-simplistic, explanation when applied to this remarkable former atheist turned premier Christian apologist. This well-researched and insightful book shows both the points of convergence and divergence between Lewis's brand of Christianity and Catholic doctrine and seeks to unravel the reasons why Lewis never went the way of Newman and Chesterton. Speculative at times but always cogent in his arguments, the Catholic author always deals with C.S. Lewis and his "Mere Christianity" with great respect, demonstrating his vast knowledge of the circumstances Lewis's life and great familiarity with his writings.

Rating:
Summary: Terribly slipshod in places
Review: I'll start by saying in all fairness that if I only graded based on interestingosity {g}, this book would cap five stars.

Pearce essentially engages Lewis in debate, not over whether Christianity is true, but whether Rome's Catholicism is the truest/only Christianity. Pearce as advocate for this position sometimes uses Lewis to defend this claim, and sometimes criticises Lewis for dissenting.

Pearce's book works best when he is actually _engaging_ Lewis personally, bringing out the tensions and occasional inconsistencies in Lewis' theological positions in relation to traditional Roman Catholicism.

However, Pearce falls short in analyzing Lewis' theology itself, per se--and this is why I've rated his book only three stars.

The gravest fault would probably be a total lack of attention given (not only by Pearce but by the authors of his two introductions) to George MacDonald's theology, as Lewis learned and then applied it. Not that GMcD is absent from the book; Pearce dutifully drops him in at both the usual places (Lewis' overt comment about _Phantastes_, and Lewis' use of GMcD as his spiritual guide in _The Great Divorce_). But aside from quoting (and requoting) a brief selection of McD's (fictional) speech from TGD, Pearce never touches what Lewis learned from MacDonald's teaching, aside from an obvious belief of Purgatory. When Pearce tries to position Lewis' understanding of Purgatory, acquired from GMcD, as being essentially Roman Catholic in doctrinal character and implication--well, one only has to compare Dante's Purgatory (and Hell) with McD's (and with McD's decisive comments _against_ certain principles Dante is using), to figure out that Pearce's claim on this simply doesn't add up. (Pearce invites this comparison by mentioning Dante several times within this context, at least once with positive approval.)

Furthermore, McD's (and Dante's) understandings on such topics are derived from primary theological understandings, which McD definitely applies across the board in his theology--and which Lewis clearly judged to be a proper and useful understanding of Christian truth (though not without a couple of tensions with his "Teacher"--which the _Divorce_ itself brings out on occasion). By never including these theological principles in his arguments (pro or con), Pearce ultimately presents a terribly slipshod picture of Lewis' own understandings.

This type of oversight spills into other parts of Pearce's work. For instance, he asserts, at the end of his book, that Lewis believed he had found his true home within Anglicanism--when any even moderately thorough reading of Lewis' corpus would show Lewis' use of the Anglican church to be lukewarm at best (as Pearce himself adequately spends much of his book demonstrating). But Pearce's _real_ job is apologist for conservative Roman Catholicism, and so a main secondary theme is to demonstrate Anglican Catholicism (even the 'high' sort, much moreso the modernist liberal sort) to be deficient as an alternative to the RCs. This is quite possible to do, I think; and Lewis can be a good source for doing it. But to position Lewis as the _defender_ of Anglicanism, slowly being pulled toward the RC against Reformationistic elements that he cannot quite bring himself to reject ('bowing down to them' in Pearce's phraseology), is untenable. Along with the many Catholic authors and friends whom Lewis admired and learned from, Pearce should be accounting for the _other_ main sources of Lewis' chosen theology: including MacDonald's virtually unique anti-Calvinism. (Notably, Pearce never really devotes any time to demonstrating obvious affinity by Lewis for the Reformers, either, settling for innuendo. At least with McD he could have worked directly with the material.)

There are plenty of other nits I could pick--but again, in fairness, I _did_ enjoy the book. Readers already familiar with Lewis' work should be able to safely appreciate Pearce's study, taken in context (especially in the comparison of Lewis to today's Anglicanism--which frankly doesn't seem much different from what Lewis had to deal with in his own day, at least according to Lewis' own criticisms of it).

And perhaps Pearce will turn his attention next to demonstrating how Catholic George MacDonald was... {g!}

Note: readers interested in Lewis' theological sourcing from MacDonald, may buy copies of _Unspoken Sermons_ (three volumes collected in one hardback), _Hope of the Gospel_ and _Miracles of Our Lord_ (collected in one hardback) through amazon.com; or go to johannensen.com for free online copies of the texts or direct ordering.

Rating:
Summary: Jack's Journey on the Road to Rome
Review: In picking up a book like this, the most obvious question is "why read it?" The most obvious answer is given in the title: to explore Lewis's views of, and relation to the Catholic Church. I picked up the book with that idea in mind, but instantly discovered a much wider appeal. More interesting than Pearce's attempt to answer that question are the many byways he treads to get there. What impressed me was his skill as a researcher: in turning over stones to find things others have overlooked, in drawing odd, if plausible parallels between things that seem disconnected, in tracing some of the rich streams that fed Lewis's imagination and flowed into his works. In particular, Pearce looks at The Pilgrim's Regress and The Great Divorce, two widely-read works of fiction, and Mere Christianity, Lewis's most popular nonfiction work. Pearce probes into the "troubles" of Lewis's native Belfast and the later atmosphere of inquiry and debate at Oxford, following him from an atheist to a convert and well-known Chrstian apologist. Would that road have eventually led to Rome? he asks. Why or why not? One can only speculate, and Pearce imaginatively considers the question. Interestingly, he notes, the Anglicans of Lewis's own denomination less and less read him, while he is becoming more and more popular among two other groups: Catholics and Evangelical Protestants. A Catholic convert himself, Pearce naturally leans towards the former readers, but it would be unfortunate if the latter group missed this book by an author in so many ways in sympathy with them, and which sheds so much light on what both groups find in common in an author they both love.

Rating:
Summary: Understanding Lewis
Review: It is important to note that Lewis' conversion to Christianity in September of 1931 might not have even come about at all without the presence of an orthodox Catholic by the name of J.R.R. Tolkien. It was Tolkien and Hugo Dyson who were instrumental in persuading Lewis to see Christianity as the "True Myth". One criticism of Pearce's work by a Mr. Hutchins (in Books & Culture) erroneously asserts that Lewis recognized the supposed impossibility of creating the perfect church here on earth, and that it can only be a weak reflection of what is to come. He claims that it is foolish for any church to claim the title of the one true church. The Catholic Church, then, is condemned by Mr. Hutchins as a fraud. It is interesting to note that this view was not shared by C.S. Lewis himself. In fact, Lewis believed in Purgatory, the sacrament of confession, had concerns regarding the morality of birth control (as inferred in a letter to Mrs. Ashton on March 13, 1956), acknowledged the validity of honoring the saints (as discussed in a letter to Mrs. Arnold on June 20, 1952), and placed great significance on the sacrament of communion--referred to by Lewis himself as the "Mass" in a letter--and opposed the ordination of women as priests within the Anglican Church.

What gave Lewis trepidation concerning a move closer to the Catholic Church? While he does mention concern with certain Marian doctrines and elements of church authority,I think Joseph Pearce's insights into the man give us a distinct possibility for his inability to ford the Tiber. Based on the letters of C.S. Lewis and other writings of his, I also would suggest that verses such as Romans 14:21 played an important role. He understood that he was an important religious figure to all Christians, and he did not want to do anything to make his brother stumble, or to jeopardize the wide acceptance of his works. Our motivations for any serious undertaking are seldom black and white, but frequently of a more interwoven nature. While we can't know with any certainty what was within Lewis' heart, it is clear that his concept of faith and the church mirrored most significant aspect of the Catholic Church.

I recommend this book for anyone who wants to have a fuller understanding of Lewis' spirtual life. He takes a long look at who Lewis was and what he held true.



Rating:
Summary: Different from Other Books on C. S. Lewis
Review: Many people have had an experience of C. S. Lewis similar to mine. I have read all of his popular works - the space trilogy, Narnia, theological works, essays and letters - several times. However, I have found practically no value in books that attempt to explain Lewis. No one could make him any clearer than he already is.

Joseph Pearce's book is the first exception I have encountered. Pearce focuses on an aspect of Lewis' writing which is genuinely ambiguous - his relationship to the Catholic Church. Reared in the Ulster Protestant milieu, he had a revulsion to Roman Catholicism, which never completely left him. Yet, "papists" (e.g., Chesterton and Tolkien) played a major role in his conversion. And he embraced distinctively Catholic doctrines such as purgatory, the Blessed Sacrament and the impossibility of female priests.

Pearce asks why Lewis never became a Catholic - and whether, like many of his disciples, he would have, if he had lived longer. Although the questions cannot finally be answered, Pearce's lively attempt sheds light on a major aspect of Lewis' thought.

Rating:
Summary: Different from Other Books on C. S. Lewis
Review: Many people have had an experience of C. S. Lewis similar to mine. I have read all of his popular works - the space trilogy, Narnia, theological works, essays and letters - several times. However, I have found practically no value in books that attempt to explain Lewis. No one could make him any clearer than he already is.

Joseph Pearce's book is the first exception I have encountered. Pearce focuses on an aspect of Lewis' writing which is genuinely ambiguous - his relationship to the Catholic Church. Reared in the Ulster Protestant milieu, he had a revulsion to Roman Catholicism, which never completely left him. Yet, "papists" (e.g., Chesterton and Tolkien) played a major role in his conversion. And he embraced distinctively Catholic doctrines such as purgatory, the Blessed Sacrament and the impossibility of female priests.

Pearce asks why Lewis never became a Catholic - and whether, like many of his disciples, he would have, if he had lived longer. Although the questions cannot finally be answered, Pearce's lively attempt sheds light on a major aspect of Lewis' thought.