C.S. Lewis and Mother Kirk

In Books and Culture, S.M. Hutchens looks at why Lewis was Protestant,

taking on Joseph Pearce's contention that the bottom line with Lewis was that while you can take the boy out of Ulster, you can't take Ulster out of the boy:

Let us begin by admitting that we all assign Christians not of our communion to whatever purgatories we can muster—or at least, this Protestant reviewer will admit it for himself. We have our opinions on where they have gone wrong that can hardly be articulated in a sociable way, apart from what the other will perceive as patronizing and belittling of the kind that Pearce here visits upon Lewis. It is impossible, after all, from a purely Catholic point of view, to see non-Catholic Christianity as anything but systemically flawed and any non-Catholic as what he is apart from sins that blind him to the truth, particularly when it faces him full-on, as it did Lewis, in friends like Tolkien and writers like Dante, Newman, and Chesterton. For those who are interested in a well-researched, well written, and eminently Catholic solution to the riddle of Lewis the Protestant, this book will serve. I put forward here, however, another, non-Catholic, one.

Hutchens' takes another view:

It is psychologically impossible for those who think this way to give to any earthly church the allegiance the Church of Rome requires of her members, and even more difficult to take her claims to ultimacy seriously. When they are pressed hard, one may reasonably expect the reaction to be the kind of anger and disgust Pearce notes in Lewis, and Catholics and Orthodox may have noticed in other Protestants who may praise what is best in their churches but will not submit to them as what they claim to be. The search for the kind of finality on this earth that seems to energize so many converts was not present in Lewis precisely because he had given it up as part of what is required to be a Christian—"non-Romanness," whether of an eastern or western Rome, was an essential part of his faith, for what Rome offers the convert, he believed, as every Protestant believes, is a pale shadow of (or in the cases of the angry Protestant—Lewis, in the frame of mind in which Pearce sees the most intense Ulster bigotry—a diabolical imitation of) the true End of every pure desire.

...Those who understand this will, I believe, go a long way toward understanding not only Lewis himself, but why the manifest glories and integrities of the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches not only do not move Protestants like him toward those churches, but rather are likely to make them—quite unlike the bishops at Whitby or the legates of Prince Vladimir—suspicious and move them away. This is not because their consciences are troubled by suppressed knowledge that they are in revolt against the Truth, but because—and this is putting it in the mildest terms—they will not have Leah for Rachel.

Comments

[Dale Price]

I'm far from a Lewis expert, but I think Hutchens is correct here (though I think Hutchens may be a little harsh toward Pearce, who has earned a reputation for fairness and careful research).

That Lewis ultimately succumbed to his Inner Paisley seems to be a great disservice to the man. He examined Rome's claims and found them wanting, even as he began to experience a growing disquiet about the state of his own communion. He simply rejected the idea that Rome was immune to the same problems, and was disturbed by the "development" of doctrine:

"The real reason why I cannot be in communion with you is not my disagreement with this or that Roman doctrine, but that to accept your Church means, not to accept a given body of doctrine, but to accept in advance any doctrine your Church hereafter produces. It is like being asked to agree not only to what a man has said but also to what he is going to say."

That's not an Ulster reflex--that's a considered examination and rejection. And a fair one, truth be told. I wonder what Lewis would have made of the post-conciliar tumult in the Catholic Church (if you don't know, he died in 1963). He probably would have felt a sad vindication.

For my part, I chalk up his non-conversion to Providence--a non-Catholic Lewis is able to welcome and gather essentially like-minded Christians around a common "campfire," so to speak.

Fairly or not, Catholic Lewis would be regarded as a partisan--rather like Chesterton. Instead, Lewis remains a profound influence on those with a true inclination to reject the Roman at all costs.

[George]

The terms Ulster Protestant and Mother Kirk imply that C.S. Lewis was raised a Presbyterian in Northern Ireland. I don't think that is accurate--he was raised an Anglican. Although the Church of Ireland (Anglican) at the time was "low church" and suspicious of Catholicism.

There is no questions that later Lewis was a high church Anglican, and that the sacraments of Holy Communion and Penance were regular parts of his life, and that he received Extreme Unction on his deathbed. He wrote often of his sacramental life, which was atypical of an Ulster Protestant.

I can understand an investigation into this High Church Anglican's relationship with the Roman Catholic Church, which I think is what Mr. Pearce is doing in his book. I don't understand how S.M. Hutchens can claim, as he does in this article, that Lewis was a mere Protestant.

[Sandra Miesel]

In a letter to one of my college professors, Lewis said he wouldn't become a Catholic because he didn't want to take "a pig in a poke." This correlates with what Dale Price says above. And a Lewis who's converted before VII might have scandalously unconverted afterwards.
Although Lewis took the sacraments seriously, his preferred style of worship was simple. The beauties of the Anglo-Catholic liturgy didn't move him. This argues a Low Church taste.

[George]

Oh my, the author Joseph Pearce is a fascinating man. He turns out to be a Catholic convert who was formerly "present" at several confrontations in Northern Ireland as part of various Protestant paramilitaries. The first chapter of this book is available as an excerpt on Amazon.com and this is mentioned in a footnote.

I suspect this is a truly interesting book, especially in its look at Lewis's Ulster roots. And despite what I say above, Pearce describes the Church of Ireland at the time as Protestant and anti-Catholic, although Lewis's father thought high church. I trust his judgement.

[Dale Price]

Pearce was also a skinhead member of Britain's racist National Front, and did time as a result of violence associated with that movement. His conversion to the Catholic faith began during his imprisonment, IIRC.

His would be a truly fascinating conversion story, if he could ever be persuaded to put it into print.

[Jason]

>>>"His would be a truly fascinating conversion story, if he could ever be persuaded to put it into print."

If I recall, he did so not too long ago in "This Rock".

[Patrick Rothwell]

I think its safe to say that Lewis was, in some ways, what used to be called a "high and dry" Anglican, which was a sane, sober "Anglican Catholicism" that was somewhat suspicious of demonstrative effect. And, it used to be the case that all high Anglicans (except for the Anglo-Papalist fringe which I was sort of a part) were fiercely anti-Roman for lots of different and not entirely compatible views. Since Vatican II, more high churchmen have stronger Roman sympathies than before, interestingly, although some high churchmen are even more implacably anti-Roman because of the sex and gender issues.

I think it is totally impossible to know whether Lewis - had he lived until the 1970s-1980s would have had stronger or weaker Roman sympathies.

My hunch, for what its worth, is that both Pearse and Hutchens might be partly right. Lewis' opposition to Rome was a well thought out and principled opposition, but it is hard to see how he could ever have a favorable opinion of Rome, given the deep mutual hostility between the Protestant and Catholic Irish. A.N. Wilson's biography (which I haven't read in several years) somewhat gleefully pointed out Lewis' bigotries, and not just against Catholics. It is to Lewis' great credit that he was able to transcend his biases by having working friendships with those whom he might otherwise be totally unsympathetic towards.

[Rich Leonardi]

I wonder what Lewis would have made of the post-conciliar tumult in the Catholic Church (if you don't know, he died in 1963).

Lewis died within hours of both John F. Kennedy and Aldous Huxley, the premise of Kreeft's "Between Heaven and Hell".

When asked by the "humanist" JFK to make distinctions between Catholicism and Anglicanism, Kreeft has Lewis defer and say that he preferred to spend his time on the front lines of the culture war, preferring to leave the skirmishes in the back to others.

[Patrick Rothwell]

"When asked by the "humanist" JFK to make distinctions between Catholicism and Anglicanism, Kreeft has Lewis defer and say that he preferred to spend his time on the front lines of the culture war, preferring to leave the skirmishes in the back to others."

I think that comment may be more telling of Kreeft than Lewis. Also, substitute "social justice" or "civil rights" for "culture war" and Kreeft sounds very much like one of those liberal Christians that so many conservative Christians claim to detest for prioritizing social causes over revealed truth.

[Kurt]

Not to underestimate either C.S. Lewis' good will or his intellectual difficulties with Roman Catholicism, but 'a thousand difficulties do not make a doubt.' As a wise old priest used to say to me on the issue of Lewis not converting, "remember, faith is ultimately a gift."

[Maclin Horton]

Patrick--

Agreed, this is not necessarily an either-or situation. I'm of the genteel Southern Anglo-Protestant tradition and have often noticed among products of that culture an anti-Catholicism which has an edge of which the holder, who thinks of himself as tolerant, is not entirely conscious.

It's not the crude & ferocious Pope-is-the-Antichrist stuff. It seems at times almost genetic and no doubt has something to do with the detestation of all things Roman that grew up in England after the Protestant takeover & subsequent counter-attack by foreign Catholics (the Armada, Guy Fawkes, etc.).

For a perfect case in point, see Charles Kingsley, the antagonist whose charge that telling the truth was not considered a virtue among the Roman clergy provoked Newman's Apologia. I have heard Episcopalians who would never dream of using an ethnic slur make very crude jokes about Catholics.

Anyway, it's not at all unreasonable to suggest that this gut-level animosity continued to operate in Lewis and influenced his reception of the intellectual arguments for Catholicism. Which is not to say that he was blind or bigoted--none of us operate on the basis of perfectly pure reason.

By the way, I am not painting myself as having overcome by my own virtue this prejudice, which I certainly held at one time and of which I can still detect traces. It had more to do with the palpable bankruptcy of the leading Anglo-Protestant denominations (as denominations--the organizations still hold plenty of good Christians).

As long as we're speculating, I think it's at least possible that Lewis (and Eliot) would have been more sympathetic to Roman claims if they had seen the crack-up of Protestantism in the '60s and '70s. (Yes, the RC went pretty bad, too, but the essential core remained & remains intact.)

[Gerard E.]

This thread is flying off the road and into the ditch. Criticism that Lewis didn't convert to Catholicism is like the slamming of Thomas Jefferson because our third President and author of the Declaration of Indpendence still owned slaves. The response is- maybe so. And look at what they accomplished anyway- in spite of our wishful thinking or misused contemporary standards.

[Rich Leonardi]

... substitute "social justice" or "civil rights" for "culture war" and Kreeft sounds very much like one of those liberal Christians that so many conservative Christians claim to detest for prioritizing social causes over revealed truth.

The bit about the culture "war" may be my word choice. His main point was that Lewis preferred to engage and challenge the humanist culture at large rather than debate the finer points of intra-Christian theology.

Whether it's a war or a challenge, confronting the culture with the message of salvation is the Christian's most important responsibility.

That's what Kreeft (and Lewis) recognize and that "liberal" Christians with "social [read: material] causes" don't.

But perhaps that's a discussion for another thread.

[L.T.]

My problem is with Hutchens' sloppy rendering of Catholic ecclesiology. He draws a false contrast between the "eschatalogical displacement" of brave Protestants like Lewis (and I suspect like himself) and the "realized eschatology" of Catholicism, under which Catholics have fallen prey to the "temptations" of a singular, visible, and authoritative Church as the subsistent True Body of Christ. But ascribing the Nicaean four notes of the Church to the Catholic Church is actually the opposite of realized eschatology--it's an object of faith in Christ, an eschatological hope that this messed up renegade (but sacramentally identifiable) people may one day be fully sanctified to be the pure Bride of Christ. Hutchens also ignores the critical nuance that the one Church *subsists* in the RCC (though he uses the word in passing). Instead he collapses the tension into the stereotypical notion that the RCC believes itself to have exclusive trademark rights on the True Church. If we were to extend Hutchen's lionization of Lewis' alleged ecclesiology, why not displace our faith in Christ or the Scriptures to the eschaton as well? It's only a short hop and skip over to the Unitarians. Hutchens demonstrates zero comprehension of the apophatic and sacramental nature of Catholic ecclesiology. Furthermore, he still fails to explain Pearce's argument away. But he doesn't even quote Lewis, unlike Mr. Price, whose post made a better argument for Hutchens' thesis than the Hutchens article itself. If Hutchens is being true to Lewis by dressing him up in this Lutheran-Kierkegaardian existentialist hero outfit, then I'm not feeling any love lost. Or am I missing something?

[Patrick Rothwell]

"The bit about the culture "war" may be my word choice. His main point was that Lewis preferred to engage and challenge the humanist culture at large rather than debate the finer points of intra-Christian theology."

Oh, yes. I would definitely agree with you, Rich, that this was Lewis' main interest. It's just hard to imagine him becoming an activist participant in the political program of what is called - for lack of a better term -the religious right. It's been some years, but he wrote a piece once that was rather critical of the suggestion that a Christian party be established in England. (Was it in "God in the Dock?" And certainly, a American style "religious right" movement is not possible in England, due to the political cross-currents that exist over there that don't exist here.

Speaking for myself, I have an abiding distrust in the highly policticized religious right or religious left. Joan Brown Campbell and Jarry Falwell are both individual clergy who, in my view, are committed Christians, but their energies seem to be most devoted to political causes rather than Christian causes. (Those are the two names that come to mind). This is not to say that they should leave the public square because they are religious figures; it is rather that in my view, they have not taken enough time and pain to make sure that their Christian identity hasn't been hijacked or eclipsed by their political ideology.

[Rich Leonardi]

It's just hard to imagine him becoming an activist participant in the political program of what is called - for lack of a better term -the religious right.

Agreed. He conspicuously avoided partisan politics and once turned down an honorific title offered to him by Churchill on the grounds that he'd be perceived as entering the political fray.

His instincts, though, were quite conservative. In one of his letters he once said, "Lord! how I loathe great issues ... Could one start a Stagnation Party--which at General Elections would boast that during its term of office no event of the least importance had taken place?"

[Bob]

Isn't that an interesting image ("leaving Rachel for Leah") Hutchens gives at the end of his review? I know it's meant to be a gentle slam against Catholics, but it may backfire when you think about it. Jacob's love and/or infatuation for his second wife compels him to attribute less personal value to his first wife. Scripture does not say that Rachel was morally superior or a better wife than Leah, does it? Rachel was just more attractive to Jacob. Seems somewhat superficial? And perhaps self-centered on Jacob's part? Not a very flattering analogy to Protestants, when you think of it this way.

[Chris Sullivan]

"The real reason why I cannot be in communion with you is not my disagreement with this or that Roman doctrine, but that to accept your Church means, not to accept a given body of doctrine, but to accept in advance any doctrine your Church hereafter produces. It is like being asked to agree not only to what a man has said but also to what he is going to say."

It strikes me that this attitude, which is clearly a considered view from Lewis, really amounts to fear of the unknown or fear of what will happen tomorrow. It amounts to a fear of the unkown aspect of God - that tomorrow a new aspect of him might be revealed which we might not have considered before.

One finds this attitude alive and well amongst Catholics also - in those opposed to the development of doctrine.

God Bless

[caroline]

It seems Lewis's biggest problem with Roman Catholicism was the development of doctrine. It wasn't easy for Newman to wrap his head around that one either. And it is a subject that raises many questions with me. Is development going on right now? and about what? And in which particular human brains is the Holy Spirit making the development happen? And how? Logic? Apparitions? Visions? Are any brains excluded from the process? Or does He work outside the human brain in the development of doctrine? And how would that be? Are any doctrines off limits to development? Does the Holy Spirit work in our heads (if He works in our heads at all) toward development of doctrine purely by deductive reasoning? Can He work through inductive reasoning? Does the development apply to morals? and many more.

Sorry if I'm off track. Seems to me the main track is Lewis's problem and I suggest we don't really take his difficulty with due seriousness.

[Jason]

>>>"tomorrow a new aspect of him might be revealed which we might not have considered before."

All revelation ceased with the death of St. John. A fundamental necessity for true development of doctrine is that the development doesn't contradict the previous doctrine, but only further draws it out.

Just as one example, the change in emphasis in the Eucharist from a "what" to a "who" can be said to be a development of doctrine in the early Church. Worshipping the Holy Eucharist as the person of Christ does not negate the fundamental purpose of the Holy Eucharist as something to be consumed, but rather develops its significance.

[Jason]

Caroline,

That's a lot of questions :). I'll try to answer two of them.

>>>"Is development going on right now?"

It may be. Though after 2000 years, most major developments have come and gone. We've had some pretty smart people studying God's Revelation.

>>>"Does the development apply to morals?"

I think it can. For example, a new situation in the world might necessitate a development of a moral truth in light of that circumstance. For example, different circumstances in the world gave us a new insight into the Church's teaching on usury. She didn't contradict herself. She just developed the teaching.

[Chris Sullivan]

I think the development of doctrine takes many forms and is continual and ongoing.

There is continual development in the understanding of doctrine. For example, the popular understanding of "no salvation outside the church" is quite different to what it once was.

The understanding of even fundamental moral teachings like "though shalt not kill" has changed markedly. Where once the Church acquiesed in the execution of heretics, this is now seen clearly as something which is wrong.

The horrific wars in the last 100 years have led to a new understanding of the nature of war and a steady (and still ongoing) tightening of the Church's restrictions on the use of military force.

New social conditions require new teachings about them eg stem cells, globalisation, genetic engineering.

New challenges to established doctrine lead the Church to develop deeper understandings of what has always been believed but sometimes justified with incorrect reasons, for example the restriction on ordination to the priesthood to men.

God is infinite and we are finite. There will always be more to learn about him.

The meaning of holy scripture is itself very deep and as yet only little probed. Jason is correct that development of doctrine is limited to the deposit of faith but that deposit is very much deeper and more profound than we often suppose. The Jewish rabbis were right when they said that scripture had 70 different meanings (70 being symbolic of the infinite).

God Bless

[Neil]

Just a couple points about the Hutchens article:

1. One might say that an important achievement of Catholic ecclesiology since Lewis' death has been a reincorporation of what Hutchens terms "eschatological displacement." Here are, for instance, a couple paragraphs from Avery Cardinal Dulles' "A Half Century of Catholic Ecclesiology," Theological Studies 50 (1989):

"Another notable development in the 1950's was the re-entry of eschatology into ecclesiology. As already mentioned, some ecclesiologists, drawing on new biblical studies, came to look upon the Church as the pilgrim people of God, still on the way to its heavenly destination. The biblical concept of the basileia theou was seen not as identical with the Church but as God's sovereign lordship bringing the Church, and indeed all creation, to their eschatological goal. The recognition that the Church was still groping within the darkness of history led to a more modest ecclesiology and encouraged a more critical stance toward the actions of the Church at various stages of its development. ...

"The Church, in Vatican II's dogmatic constitution, is depicted as the intial budding forth of the eschatological kingdom. Its catholicity is appealingly presented in language reminiscent of Congar. Regional and local churches are seen as having a distinctive character, adapted to their cultural milieu. Episcopal conferences are given a new canonical and theological status."

Furthermore, notes Cardinal Dulles, the Council claimed that the Church of Christ "subsists in" the Roman Catholic Church - "an expression deliberately chosen to allow for the ecclesial reality of other Christian communities."

This means that a Lewis who saw the seemingly uniform and intolerant Roman Catholic Church of the 1950's as subject to a "deep suspicion of realized eschatology" might not have that objection today.

2. Nonetheless, Hutchens' mention of "eschatological displacement" does touch on a very important ecclesiological distinction between Anglicans and Roman Catholics. The Anglican tradition has historically justified provincial autonomy against papal centralization on the grounds of eschatology. I'll give one example. Edward White Benson was the Archbishop of Canterbury who presided over the important 1888 Lambeth Conference. Mark Chapman summarizes part of his ecclesiology:

"In so far as all provincial churches were to recognise their own particularity and were to be relativised by reference to an eschatological goal, then no one expression of Christianity was to be given priority: there was no decisive authority. As Benson pointed out, there is a parallel between this understanding of unity and that of Cyprian's response to the Novationist heresy which emerged after the Decian persecution of AD 249-250. It is indeed not surprising that Benson should have been so attracted to St Cyprian, who is surprisingly reminiscent of Benson himself: a bishop threatened with disunity, asserting his authority, and refusing to submit to any extra-provincial authority. Against the authority of Pope Stephen, Cyprian held that it was wrong to admit those who had received schismatic baptism without rebaptizing them. For Cyprian (at least on Benson's typically Anglican reading), no particular bishop, including the Pope, had absolute authority: instead all bishops exercised the authority granted to Peter. The bishops formed a college, for the episcopate was one and indivisible, and the several bishops enjoyed a plenitude of it exactly as did shareholders of a joint property. The bishops were equal and in mutual respect were entitled to their own views and to administer their dioceses as they felt fit. ...

"Cyprian could thus quite easily be brought up to date: his was not a centrally imposed unity but a unity arising from a mutual respect between all bishops. Although this principle is seemingly anarchic it nevertheless implies a toleration of all bishops of one another as each exercised the further duty of submitting to the higher authority, the judgement of Christ. In the words of Cyprian:

"'No one of us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyrannical terror forces his colleagues to a necessity of obeying; inasmuch as every bishop in the free use of his liberty and power, has the right of forming his own judgement, and can no more be judged by another than he can himself judge another. But we must all await the judgement of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has the power both of setting us in the government of his Church, and of judging of our acts therein.'"

Thank you.

Neil

[Richard]

Hello Dale,

For my part, I chalk up his non-conversion to Providence--a non-Catholic Lewis is able to welcome and gather essentially like-minded Christians around a common "campfire," so to speak.

Fairly or not, Catholic Lewis would be regarded as a partisan--rather like Chesterton. Instead, Lewis remains a profound influence on those with a true inclination to reject the Roman at all costs.

There is a lot of truth in that.

I had not ever thought to put it in precisely those terms. But Lewis has long provided a bridge for conversation with Protestant acquaintances that would have been much harder to come by otherwise.

Just the same, of course, one wishes he could have taken the final breastroke across the Tiber, however considered (and it clearly was to some extent) his refusal was.

best regards

[JG]

Chris Sullivan:

Frankly your 'theology' strikes me as more Matthew Fox than Mabillon.

The 'fear of change' slur is typical of Modernists, Voice of the Faithless and other dissident activists.

Chris, I think you are sincere - but I'm afraid sincerity is not enough. I suggest you immerse yourself in Catholic doctrine before making any more public service announcements.

The thing is, Chris you're (at the very least) flirting with heresy. Let's get this straight: the Church clearly affirms that after Christ and the Apostles no further Revelation will be made. There can be no alteration. (I know Jason has already said as much but I feel this point needs to be hammered home.)

Personally, I'm also getting tired of the implicit smugness of those mask their heterodoxy by painting orthodox Catholics as fear-driven, frenzied reactionaries.

Give us a break.

[john hearn]

Neil,

Sounds great in theory, but what about the fruit of this doctrine? The failure of many in the AC to ever maintain their Christianity amid an ecclesial chaos that these "bishops" seem helpless and in many cases disinclined to control. And when exactly did our Lord hand over the Keys to *all* the bishops? Talk about a legal fiction!

[john hearn]

JG,

Are you saying that there has been no development of doctrine in the last 2000 years? Anyone who knows anything about the history of the Church whould laugh that one out of court!

[JG]

John:

I'm saying that there has been no alteration as regards Revelation and the dogmas of the Church. By that I do not mean to suggest that there has been no progress made regarding the development of doctrine. I simply mean that Divine Truth is immutable. There can be no alteration of the essence of Catholic truth.

[john hearn]

JG,

Thanks for the clarification.

[Neil]

Dear John Hearn,

I suppose that you are right to ask about the fruits of the doctrine of provincial autonomy, whether in Anglicanism or Orthodoxy. Anglicans are, I think, asking the very same question. The recent Windsor Report suggested the creation of new secondary structures for the sake of mutual accountability - these would include an enhanced role for the Archbishop of Canterbury, granting Lambeth Council resolutions an authoritative standing, and the adoption of a communion-wide "covenant," among other things. The 1996 Virginia Report of the Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission had already noted, "Questions are asked about whether we can go on as a world Communion with morally authoritative, but not juridically binding, decision-making structures at the international level. ... A further question concerns the wider ecumenical community. Is there a need for a universal primacy exercised collegially and respecting the role of the laity in decision-making within the Church?"

So you are asking the right question. You'll note that my post above wasn't meant to recommend Anglican conciliarism at all, merely to note that it exists. But, I do have to say, while we can either be optimistic or pessimistic about Anglican eccclesiology, we can't completely dismiss it as a "legal fiction." Remember that Archbishop Benson could appeal to St Cyprian, who wrote about the "keys":

"Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers."

Thank you for your generous reply.

Neil

[Chris Sullivan]

There can be no alteration.

Development of doctrine isn't an alteration of revelation but a better understanding of it and how to apply it to the world today.

The Church has always developed doctrine. It's part of tradition. If you don't accept development of doctrine then you are not orthodox.

Fear-driven, frenzied, reactionary Catholics there certainly are. But they are not orthodox.

God Bless

[kathy t]

JG, you did not read carefully what Chris Sullivan wrote. Regardless of when Revelation may have stopped, our understanding of what has been revealed is not perfect, and it is that which produces development of doctrine by the Church. There may be no alteration in what has been revealed, but there is certainly alteration in our apprehension of Truth which, because it is God's truth, is beyond our capacity while we are still here stuck in time. To assume that because Revelation is complete we have no right nor obligation to discern is presumptuous.

[JG]

Chris Sullivan:

There's is a world of difference between development of doctrine and the bizarre notion that the Church's "understanding of even fundamental moral teachings like 'thou shallt not kill' has changed markedly..."

Furthermore, I could make no sense of your contention that, "New challenges to established doctrine lead the Church to develop deeper understandings of what has always been believed but sometimes justified with incorrect reasons, for example the restriction on ordinations to men." Perhaps you could clarify?

The "popular understanding" of 'nulla sallus...' may have changed but the doctrine itself hasn't.

Reading you Chris, I am reminded increasingly of the likes of Loisy, and even Derrida.

[Liam]

Another example of development of the understanding of doctrine would be slavery. While there remains a limited area of forced labor that would still be considered moral -- reasonable labor required of the justly imprisoned -- generally enslaving another is considered gravely sinful, something that would bar one from reception of communion.

This was not always so.

I find more interesting the examples of things that have been gradually understood to be gravely sinful more than those that have undergone the more common reverse process...

[john hearn]

And thank you Neal! Your reply was more than generous!

I was aware that you were simply stating the ecclesiology of the AC promulgated at that 1888 meeting, so I didn't mean to say that you were promoting those views.

As for St Cyprian, one Father's teaching does not a settled doctrine make. As I'm sure you are well aware, it is the consensus of the Fathers on a particular teaching the lends it the status of a Tradition, which I think may lend some light on the meaning of St Cyprian's views of the collegial nature of episcopal authority. But the center has proved vital in Church history in keeping the Deposit of Faith safe and operative in the world - the rock. Even today we see Catholic bishops that defy Rome to one degree or another, but are not cast from their sees, much to the consternation of those of us who morns for the souls that these shepherds may be leading astray. This I see as the living proof of what great respect the office of bishop is held in our Church and why it is so vital for us layman to pray constantly to the Holy Spirit for our bishops. But in the end, it is only when a bishop teaches in union with the pope that he truly fulfills his high office. I see St. Athinatious(sp?) as the example of a bishop the AC could learn the meaning of collegiality from.

[JG]

Kathy:

I'm afraid you did not read carefully what I wrote. I do not deny the development of doctrine. I do reject anything which smacks of an attempt to make "...dogma a reed, which is driven hither and thither by the wind."

[Chris Sullivan]

the bizarre notion that the Church's "understanding of even fundamental moral teachings like 'thou shalt not kill' has changed markedly..."

The Catechism has this to say about the use of torture and executions against heretics, a practice the Church once participated in CCC2298. The Catchism makes clear that the Church's doctrine on torture and execution of heretics has changed. Compare it with the views of St Thomas, views which the Church once promulgated and promoted.

On the ordination, I think its clear with the statements from the SCDF and the Holy Father that the Church has a clearer understanding of the theological reasons why she can't ordain women to the priesthood than she once had. JG is right that this isn't a development of doctrine but a better understanding of it.

BTW, I don't read Matthew Fox, Mabillon, Loisy, or Derrida so the references to them don't mean much to me.

God Bless

[Rich Leonardi]

Development of doctrine isn't an alteration of revelation but a better understanding of it and how to apply it to the world today.

Quite right. It's like a lens constantly focusing to see the same object more clearly.

The Church has always developed doctrine. It's part of tradition. If you don't accept development of doctrine then you are not orthodox.

But if you take that development where the Church does not go, i.e., injecting pacificism into her teaching on war, you also are not orthodox.

[Chris Sullivan]

Rich,

Both your bishops and mine, and the Catechism, teach united that pacifism is a valid option for catholics, "provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies" CCC2306.

To reject the validity of the pacifist option is to reject one of the teachings of the Church. That is not orthodox.

God Bless

[Rich Leonardi]

But you don't promote pacificism as a "valid option" among many; here and on Mark Shea's blog, in direct contravention of the Church's teaching on what constitutes a just war, you have stated that war is intrinsically evil, the logic of which inescapably leads to the conclusion that pacificism is the only morally valid option. And that 'ain't orthodox.

[JG]

Yes but with you, Chris, pacifism is not 'another option': it's a substitute religion.

At least that's how I see it.

[James Kabala]

The Rachel/Leah metaphor is indeed a strained one. The typologists of the medieval and Renaissance churches did tend to portray Rachel as better than Leah, making Rachel a type of the contemplative life and the Gospel, Leah as a type of the active life and the Mosaic Law. The Bible is much more ambivalent. Leah is blessed with more children because God feels sorry for her being unloved by Jacob. Leah lives a long life and is buried beside her husband (not to mention Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, and Rebecca); poor Rachel dies in childbirth and is buried alone. Hutchens has followed the lead of the Catholic typologists instead of being a sola scriptura Protestant!

P.S Where do Bilhah and Zilphah fit in? Unitarians? Mormons? Shakers?

[Jason]

>>>"To reject the validity of the pacifist option is to reject one of the teachings of the Church."

The Catechism says "provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies"

All the Church allows is for someone to choose NOT to fight, and even that has prerequisites. They must not harm the "rights" of other men and societies. All men have a right to life. Thus, if a person's refusal to fight and to kill infringes upon other people's right to life, then they are morally bound to fight and kill (if necessary to protect that right). Further, they must not harm the "obligations" of other men and socities. This is the obligation to protect human life, even if it requires deadly force. And so said pacifist must always maintain what the Church teaches, that killing in defense of life is not only not immoral, but a supremely just act. If they fail to acknowledge that doctrine of they Church, they are harming the obligations of other men to carry out that doctrine when necessary.

[Chris Sullivan]

Rich,

War is intrinsically evil.

The church teaches that violence is always wrong and condemns the savery of war.

The recent Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church clearly shows the development of Catholic doctrine on violence and war.

Section 496 categorically and unequivocally rejects all violence :-

Violence is never a proper response. With the conviction of her faith in Christ and with the awareness of her mission, the Church proclaims "that violence is evil, that violence is unacceptable as a solution to problems, that violence is unworthy of man. Violence is a lie because it goes against the truth of our faith, the truth of our humanity. Violence destroys what is claims to defend: the dignity, the life, the freedom of human beings"

And section 497 is perhaps the strongest condemnation of war that the Church has ever issued :-

497. The Magisterium condems "the savery of war" [1032] and asks that war be considered in a new way [1033].

In fact, it is hardly possible to imagine that in an atomic era, war could be used as an instrument of justice. [1034] War is a "scourge" [1035] and is never an appropriate way to resolve problems that arise between nations; "it has never been and it will never be", [1036] because it creates new and still more complicated conflicts [1037].

When it errupts, war becomes an "unnecessary massacre", [1038] and "adventure without return" [1039] that compromises humanity's present and threatens its future. "Nothing is lost by peace; everything may be lost by war [1040]

The damage caused by armed conflict is not only material but also moral. [1041]

In the end, war is "the failure of all true humanism", [1042] "it is always a defeat for humanity": [1043] "never again some peoples against others, never again! ... no more war, no more war!" [1044]

The references are :-

[1032] Gaudium et Spes, 77
[1033] Gaudium et Spes, 80
[1034] Pacem in Terris
[1035] Leo XIII, Address to the College of Cardinals: Acta Leonis XIII, 19 (1899) 270-272.
[1036] John Paul II, Meeting with official of the Roman Ciacariate, 17 Jan 1991.
[1037] cf Paul VI, Address to Cardinals 24Jun65
[1038] Benedict XV, Appeal to the Leaders of the Warring Nations 1Aug1917
[1039] John Paul II Prayer for Peace during General Audience 16Jan1991
[1040] Pius XII Radio Message 24Aug1939
[1041] cf Gaudium et Spes, 79
[1042] John Paul II, Message for 1999 World Day of Peace
[1043] John Paul II Address to Diplomatic Corps 13Jan2003
[1044] Paul VI, Address to UN General Assembly 04Oct1965

The document says The Magisterium condems "the savery of war". How much clearer does it have to be ?

One can see why protestant Lewis, whom I understand also rejected pacifism, wouldn't want to subscribe to the doctrines of a Church which is moving against war.

God Bless

[Liam]

Might I suggest that the Just War topic be taken offline? Having been raised and flogged, it contributes nothing further to our hostess' topic.

Besides, all regulars at St. Blog's sadly know the next 100 posts on the ill-begotten sub-topic. Sigh.

[Rich Leonardi]

War is intrinsically evil.

That which is intrinsically evil cannot be just. Until there is an explicit revocation of the just war teaching, you have no grounds to make your statement above. That is why, Chris, you open yourself to the charge of being a pacifist dissenter and why you should be more circumspect before challenging the orthodoxy of others.

[Rich Leonardi]

Agreed, Liam. Over and out.

[JG]

We're on to Chris Sullivan's hobby-horse now: monomaniacal(and essentially anti-Catholic) pacifism.

My advice to readers is not to debate Chris on this topic.

Mark Shea, in point of fact, was forced to start deleting Chris's postings regarding his idiosyncratic views on Just War.

He simply refuses to 'take a telling'.

[Chris Sullivan]

That which is intrinsically evil cannot be just. Until there is an explicit revocation of the just war teaching...

Rich, you appear to be assuming that the Church teaches that there are just wars. Where does the church teach this ?

If noone can quote any official Church document to prove that an alleged teaching really is a teaching, then the alleged teaching simply isn't orthodox.

I'm not challenging the orthodoxy of individuals, but the orthodoxy of what they allege the Church teaches.

It seems to me that the alleged Just War needs a Prove It !

God Bless

[kevin]

Catechism of the Catholic Church #2309-2310?

[Jane M]

Concerning Rachel and Leah, let's not forget also that salvation comes through Leah (Judah's mother) not through Rachel (Joseph's mother), though Joseph is essential to the continued existence of Judah.

[Whitcomb]

"In the litany this morning we had some extra petitions, one of which was 'Prosper, O Lord, our righteous cause...' When I met [the reverend] in the porch, I ventured to protest against the audacity of informing God that our cause was righteous--a point on which He may have his own view....I hope it is quite like ours, of course: but you never know with Him."

--C.S. Lewis, September 1939

[walker]

In his book, God on the Dock, Lewis includes an article about the new prayer book and the direction of the Anglican church. He says something to the effect that 'if it keeps going like this, Anglicans will either become evangelical or Roman.' I think if Lewis were alive today, he would probably become Catholic, as Sheldon Vanaukan did. I remember this quote because most of the Episcopalians I grew up with are now evangelical or Catholic. Most are evangelical.

[c matt]

Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers

Neil - I presume this part of the quote is Polycarp, not Christ.

As for CS objection re: I don't disagree with a particular doctrine, but I can't submit to agreement with what may be said in the future - this seems to be his reasoned objection. But upon close scrutiny, it demonstrates a lack of faith.

If I had a compass that for 2,000 years consistently pointed north, I'd have very little faith indeed if I started doubting it would continue to do so. What's more, every other compass I might turn to took this compass to mark its true north (ie, where did the bible come from?).

As for development of doctrine, I think the terminology may be what gets folks uneasy - rather than development (which most folks equate with change), it is more accurately described as understanding of doctrine. That is, we understand it more deeply than before as the RCC matures - not unlike what a 12 year old child's understanding of how a car works vs. a mechanical engineer's. The car and how it works has not changed - the understanding of how it works has in the sense it is more fully understood.

[Neil]

Dear C Matt,

Of course. My quote comes from Cyprian, Epistle 26 (1). It can be found online:

http://www.synaxis.org/ecf/volume05/ECF05EPISTLES_XXVI__XXVIICYPRIAN_TO_T.htm

Best,
Neil

[AH]

Just when I thought it was safe to go into the Anglican Use Catholic water, pulled back by the scruff. I had not considered that I would be asked to forswear myself that the Roman Catholic Church and Body of Christ are co-extensive.

A useful and relevant discussion. Lewis (and incidentally also the brave and honest Hutchens in Touchstone) has been very helpful to me over the years of wandering. Surely we all agree that CSL was a Christian, even if not a confirmed Roman Catholic?

My own confusion is heightened by the looming collapse of doctrine in Western Anglicanism, once a sacramental way through the middle. (Many of you may be nodding wisely that we only now see the jerry-built nature of the compromise.) What would be Lewis' solution for himself today? He would not have tolerated the vacant uncelebrated Sundays through which some of us flounder. Yet he was not forced to hold his nose and swim.

In thinking about Catholic parishes where the priest turns out to be a libertine or very uncertain trumpet, and thus wondering about how much second-guessing the accuracy of doctrine and life may be necessary for a faithful church member, I wonder, are we all Protestants now, required to consult advisors and the sources, pray, then think for ourselves?

[JG]

I must say that given the fearsomely anti-Catholic milieu in which Lewis was raised, I think it unlikely that Lewis would ever have converted.

But of course with God "all things are possible".

[TSO]

A side-effect of Lewis never converting is it gives Protestants aid & comfort in not converting themselves. They can say if so great a man as Lewis didn't convert....

[Mary]

Isn't it just possible that God in His infinite wisdom didn't grant Lewis the gift of faith in the Catholic Church? So many people whom one thinks should be Catholic are not for this very reason.

[Donald R. McClarey]

C.S. Lewis is a Christian apologist whose work, I predict, will ring through the centuries. We are too close to him now in time to appreciate just how great a champion of Christ he was and is. His books and articles serve as invaluable reminders of the clarity and simplicity of the message of Christ. He will aid in men and women coming to Christ long after 95% of writers of the last century are forgotten and unread. It is therefore a great tragedy that this Paladin of Christ never realized that Mere Christianity is Catholicism and that Catholicism is Mere Christianity. Having said that, I wish that even a twentieth of Catholics could render the same amount of service in defense of the Faith that the Anglican Lewis did. May God have granted him a fit place in heaven for his service here on Earth!

[Dale Price]

Oops--a retraction and an apology.

Joseph Pearce wasn't sentenced to jail for violent acts. It was for publishing material likely to incite racial hatred under Britain's Race Relations Act.

Still ugly, but a huge difference. I apologize for the error.

[Faith]

Joseph Pearce is an excellent biographer whose life was changed by God's Grace, which he found in large part due to the writings of the men he has written about.

[Chris Jones]

C.S. Lewis is a Christian apologist whose work, I predict, will ring through the centuries.

Amen.

St Augustine famously said how many sheep without. St Isaac the Syrian, for example, lived and died as a Nestorian, outside the communion of the Catholic Church. But such was the orthodoxy, and the spiritual power of his writings, that the Church recognized him as a Catholic Christian and a saint, despite his heterodox affiliation. I believe that CS Lewis deserves similar treatment.

For this reason I (a sometime Orthodox and now a Lutheran) have no qualms about asking the intercessions of him whom I affectionately call "St Clive".

[Edwin]

Two comments re Hutchens's use of _Pilgrim's Regress_. First, "Leah for Rachel" is a metaphor he draws from Lewis (who uses this as the heading for the part of the story where "John" uses lust as a substitute for his vision of the Island). Second, the big problem with Hutchens's interpretation is that his central quotation from _Regress_ is taken flagrantly out of context, and the view he attributes to Lewis is one that Lewis condemns to Limbo. I hope to post more on this at my blog in the next day or two.