Why such an intelligent, righteous, well meaning etc etc (praise on him) man such as C.S.Lewis, being in the epicentre of a catholic "earthquake" which began with Newman and went on with Chesterton, Tolkien etc (being this last his best frient, to my knowing) never gave the "last step" into our church?

Generalising a bit the question, I would very much like to understand what makes an intelligent, informed and well-meaning englishman in general prefer to stay in a church founded in the circumstances it was founded, instead of turning to Rome, specially when that church is (or at least was) essencialy identical to catholicism, seeming even closer than eastern orthodoxy (at least before they started ordaining women). It seems to me it is just a case of comparing the two, acknoledge they are almost identical, being the only difference the one was founded by Christ, and the other by a wife-murderer King that effected the schism to be free to marry again. And then decide, which should not be a great difficult task.

For me, who have no anglo-saxon blood nor culture in me, it seems amazing! Does it have to do with Bloody Mary and other scars inside England4s History?

-- Atila Belloquim (atila@choose.com.br), September 07, 1999

Answers

Maybe you should go and read C.S.Lewis' books, letters, and essays and find out for yourself. Please don't make patronizing statements about someone being intelligent, righteous, well meaning, informed etc, but then express such shock about these qualities failing to result in membership of the Catholic Church, as if the RCC is the "natural" home for such a mind.

The answer to your question is that he probably didn't care - he had much more important things to do like formulate a no-nonsense exposition of Christian belief that all denominations could refer to and admire(as they all do - that man's influence is quite remarkable and, dare I say it, much more significant than any Pope).

-- Matthew (mdpope@hotmail.com), September 07, 1999.

Sorry, I didn4t mean to offend anybody with this question, and perhaps have not been very clear in my meaning.

It is not that I think that *good* people should be "naturally" in RCC. My question meant to be very specific. Lewis was *part* of the RCC movement in England startad by Newman, drank on Chesterton4s fountain and his best frient was Tolkien, who has been instrumental in influencing Lewis thought towards a catholic point-of-view. I am only echoing the amazement present in most caths that know Lewis, his writings and his life. And yes, in his case, it was all too natural to expect his conversion, given that all his mentors (above mentioned) tread exactly that path. Perhaps there4s something there that I do not know of, so I made the question.

As for the sencond question, it is not aimed at Protestantism in general, but specifically at Anglicanism, or even more specifically, High Church Anglicanism. I was taught that it was so identical to RCC that a catholic was allowed to take sacramentents validly AND lawfully in case of danger of death, in the absence of a catholic priest, from an Anglican priest, as all their sacraments were valid. Contrary to other denominations, founded by people like Luther and Calvin, who made substancial doctrine changes, the Anglicanism was more of a schism than properly a protestant denomination. Until their recent decision to ordain women, it was believed in RCC that reconciliation was close at hand. That4s why it amazes me that a Church of England follower may look and their founder and be proud of their origin, specialy if, to become catholic, it4s as easy as accept the Pope, without substancial changes in thinking and believing.

-- Atila Belloquim (atila@choose.com.br), September 08, 1999.

Lewis' rejection of Catholicism was very much cultural. He had much Irish Ulster influence and the anti-Catholicism in that culture is thick. Same reason for Dorothy Sayer, I think. Both she and Lewis were extremely close to being Catholic in their doctrine; basically only papal supremacy and a couple of Marian dogmas separated them. It is always a hoot to me when Lewis continues to be the darling of very low church American evangelical Protestants, despite his very strong Catholic leanings.

There is a book, now out of print and hard to find, called something like "C.S. Lewis and the Church of Rome", publisher Ignatius Press.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), September 08, 1999.

But Lewis isn't the "darling" of anyone, and wouldn't you be the first to say that "Catholic leanings" were no substitute for a full acceptance of Catholic doctrine. I don't believe in papal supremacy, but I love Catholic cathedrals - does that mean I have Catholic leanings?

-- Matthew (mdpope@hotmail.com), September 08, 1999.

Micheal & Mathew - The lady Atila I felt brought forward a sensitive and intelligent question to be looked at not to have it bandied about and scorned. This is always the issue when non-Catholics attemtpt to express their sadly close-minded opinions.

This Catholic site offers many platforms of both emotional and intellectual expressions in hopes for the good of all. David has brought a very legitimate reason for the Ulter Anglican not joining the Church as cultural.

When history is read from a view of learning and not as weaponary then we are able to decern our understanding of the elemeents which both divide and bring to-gether the family of man.

C.S. Lewis along with the very fine thinkers Atila has pointed out are modern cornerstones of true Christian thought. Close in time we have Bishop Sheen Thomas Merton and Teilhard de Chardin.

These type of thinkers are not for the faint of heart or closed minded surface Christians as they challenge pride and prejudice directly.

Atila you obviusly have a fine mind and please do continue with your input and never apologise for your feelings.

Peace And Well Being A Little Brother In Christ

-- jean bouchardRC (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), September 08, 1999.

I'm sorry - I shouldn't have responded in the way I did. Every now and then I get frustrated when Catholics describe conversion to their faith as being a painless task, and I suppose you caught me on a bad day. I do not believe it is easy to "accept the Pope without substantial changes in thinking and believing", even if you are a High Anglican.

You may be aware of Chris Patten's(former Governor of Hong Kong, and former Chairman of the UK Conservative Party) recent recommendations for the reform of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland. The most controversial recommendations is that the name of the RUC be changed to the "Nothern Ireland Police Force", and a lot of people are very angry indeed - mainly royalist Protestants who can't understand why a police force that emphasises it's allegiance to the Britsh Monarch cannot be trusted by 43% of the population whose loyalties lie somewhere else(His Holiness, the Pope). "Of course its ok for Catholics to join the RUC, but they have to renounce their allegiance to the Pope first". I've argued this in reverse by explaining why the royalist aspect of the RUC has to be abandoned if there is ever to be a policing authority in Northern Ireland that has cross-community support[sadly, I believe this is impossible, but that's a different matter], but hopefully I've explained by switching one's allegiance from the Queen/King of the United Kingdom to the Pope is not as easy at is seems. It is a question of loyalty, and that anglo-saxon-separatist-independent-island-mentality blood has a lot to do with it too. I know that using a bigoted(and immensely frustrating) Protestant/Catholic example to discuss an Catholic/Anglican split isn't ideal, but the Anglican refusal to accept the supremacy of the Pope is based on similar feelings. It is the Church of _England_ after all.

[I cannot be a member of either institution because of my republican beliefs; Milton saw Popery and Monarchy as being indistinguishable (and un-Christian), and I agree with him. Some of the things Anglicans say about the Monarchy are ridiculous, and no more objectionable to me than some of the claims made for the Papacy. The Queen and His Holiness JPII are immensely learned people, but I have no respect for their respective offices, and their opinions stand or fall on their own merits]

Perhaps such a nationalistic reason for staying out of the RCC does seem rather old-fashioned, but at one the time the RCC and the Pope were perceived as a distinctly foreign power, and not the global institution that it is today. In some ways this is even more frightening; I was in Paris during the summer of 1997, and sharing the place with half a million young Catholics was terrifying. One is supposed to be awe-struck when you see the Eiffel Tower for the first time, but I just wanted the thing to fall down and squish a few people so I could actually breathe!

I think many people have anxieties about the communal aspect of religion in general(the next time someone mentions hot coals to me I am going to make them eat a few). You have described my agnosticism as being "suspect", but it isn't. Anglicans feel more comfortable in an "English" church, but I feel comfortable just flitting about between several(I have Christian friends from all demoninations, but I still _choose_ to be a satellite: acquainted with several groups, but a member of none). I do this because I don't actually like that many people to be honest, and I believe that "politeness" and "civility" are worse than lying. Whenever I detect an ounce of insincerity in my behaviour towards anyone I back off. This may be honest, but it is not Christ-like in the slightest.

I've waffled on again, but I think your question emphasises how demonition need not be important. It would seem that all the "modern cornerstones of Christian thought" have somehow transcended the things that keep some Christians apart. I'm not sure whether it matters what church Lewis belonged to. Many Anglicans just end up being Anglicans because that is all they have known - it isn't really a choice. The Church of England is a bit like warm beer, village greens, and general all round "pleasantness"..

Apologies again for my initial response.

I now have a question of my own:

For whatever reasons, C.S.Lewis never took the final step towards Catholicism, but how much does this matter? How do orthodox Catholics respond to truthful insight/exposition that does not orginate from within the RCC? I know this can be asked both ways, and I do know that if it wasn't for the RCC none of these people would have a Bible to work on, but this isn't an answer in itself. The Bible is now common intellectual property; it doesn't matter who preserved it. Everyone is indebted to the RCC, but does the RCC ever feel that it is indebted to anyone else? Is there such a thing as spiritual plagiarism? I ask this because the Pope's "recent statement on Hell" sounds awfully similar to the argument in "The Great Divorce"(Lewis' best book). I'm not accusing the Pope of stealing ideas; I'm just suggesting that are not as novel/original/controversial as some individuals think they are.

-- Matthew Pope (bizarrely enough) (mdpope@hotmail.com), September 10, 1999.

"Every now and then I get frustrated when Catholics describe conversion to their faith as being a painless task."

Now its my time to apologise. I live in a country where almost everybody is (nominaly) catholic, so the concept of conversion for us is more applied for people who ware born catholic and decide to live as real ones. Being one of these "converts", I actually have very little unsdertanding of what a conversion from another religion is all about.

By the way, the joke runs that, when there is fog on the Channel, the britishman looks to his friend and says "The Continent is Isolated !"

" You have described my agnosticism as being "suspect" "

I meant that you don4t seem to disbelieve in God, in spite of not wanting to join a particular denomination.

"but does the RCC ever feel that it is indebted to anyone else?"

Of course! First of all, to all good thinkers that came before, specially Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, who are the "fathers" of catholic philosophy (which is the rational basis of our Theology; in fact Theology = Philosophy + Revelation). Aquinas, for example, credited the rediscovery of Aristotle to the Islam philosophers, because he had been seen as "suspicious" before Thomas. The Church sees all knowlegde as a gift God gave to humanity, and She does not in the least claims to be the source of all knowledge. Its claim is that She is the depositary of Divine Revelation, nothing else. All knowledge apart from Revelation may come from wherever it may be, and the Church has allways felt free to incorporate whatever truth may be discovered, wherever it may come from. It includes of course philosophical and religious truths.

" Is there such a thing as spiritual plagiarism?"

That4s a funny question. In fact, all the concept of "copyright" is quite modern. In the Middle Ages, intellectuals thought of truth as something pertaining to God, so that no one could boast of being the "author" of an idea. Quotations were appropriated without reference to whom had the idea first. When a mediaeval writer quotes another, is because he thinks that quotation will enhance the value of his affirmation (Argument of Authority), because of the publicly recognized wisdom of the quoted.

" I ask this because the Pope's "recent statement on Hell" sounds awfully similar to the argument in "The Great Divorce"(Lewis' best book). I'm not accusing the Pope of stealing ideas; I'm just suggesting that are not as novel/original/controversial as some individuals think they are. "

Indeed the skill Lewis had at inventing "parables" was amazing. I love for example those he uses in "Mere Christianism". As for the idea of Hell (or Heaven for that matter) as not being a place is as old as theology (and a simple derivation of Aristotle4s teaching: as souls are immaterial, they cannot occupy space; so, Hell and Heaven must be "states" rather than "places"). I4m not talking here of whether they *will* be places after the Ressurection of the Dead, that4s another issue.

-- Atila Belloquim (atila@choose.com.br), September 10, 1999.

a little trivia re: anglican vs. roman catholic. not too long ago i found out that a great, great grandfather of mine was a minister in the anglican church and he officiated at the wedding of my great grandmother and great grandfather in jamaica. he, the anglican minister, unfortunely or otherwise, (for himself or whatever) had his ministry revoked and removed from the anglican church for/////teaching roman catholicism. pax domini. juan

-- juan (declined@aol.com), September 10, 1999.

Matthew,

Your thoughts on this topic were very engaging.

With respect to understanding the difficulty of conversion, I hope I did not downplay that aspect too much. When I say Lewis' failure to convert was due to "cultural" reasons, I made no value judgment on whether those reasons were weighty or trivial. I am a convert myself and I understand very well the barriers -- theological, psychological, social, and cultural -- against such a conversion to Catholicism.

With respect to your stated problem with Catholicism and political systems and freedom, do remember that our Lord Jesus came to set up the Kingdom of God, not the Republic or Democracy of God. The Lord, as the new and eternal Davidic King, reestablished in his Kingdom the office of prime minister (compare Matt 16:16-19 and Isaiah 22:22ff.) and a "cabinet" of ministers, the Apostles and later their successors. I think we import a lot of our late-blooming political ideas back onto the New Testament and the early Church; they had no concept of democracies or republics and nothing the Lord said leans in that direction for His Church.

And finally, does the Catholic Church draw positively on non-Catholic spirituality? Yes, and from the most official source, the Second Vatican Council:

"Nor should we forget that whatever is wrought by the grace of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of our separated brethren can contribute to our own edification. Whatever is truly Christian never conflicts with the genuine interests of the faith; indeed, it can always result in a more ample realization of the very mystery of Christ and the Church" (Unitatis Redintegratio, 4).

God bless,

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), September 11, 1999.

Dear Atila, I know a lot of Anglicans that have converted to the RCC for various reasons-marriage, their own search,etc..., So it isn't fair to clump them all in with C. S. Lewis. Ellen

-- Ellen K. Hornby (dkh@canada.com), September 12, 1999.

Dear Atila: there have been many answers why C.S. Lewis did not convert to Catholicism. In fact he is not around anymore to ask him, he being the only one to give the true reasons. And about the question of no Anglican becoming catholic I completely disagree with you. I have many friends that are former Anglicans. Didn't you read about the 3000 or so Anglican priests that joined the Catholic Church after the recent acceptance of priesthood for women on the part of the Anglican Church?

Enrique

-- ENRIQUE ORTIZ (eaortiz@yahoo.com), September 12, 1999.

Not so pertinent to the C.S. Lewis discussion, but I've been in England several weeks in last 2 years. I had to admire very much the lovely way English Roman Catholics worship. I was at Bampton Oratory, and Arundel Cathedral among other sites. It is a beautiful experience, to see how this country, which has been blessed with the blood of many martyrs, still preserves its love for the Catholic Church. When I was in Westminster Abbey, the extravagant and historic center of Angicanism, it did my Catholic heart good to find Edward The Confessor's tomb within it. A cannonized Catholic saint and English king; he holds a place of honor at the very center.

-- Eugene Chavez (rechavez@popmail.ucsd.edu), April 03, 2000.

[Posted by J. F. Gecik, April 3, 2000 p.m.]

As I understand it, people are still tremendously impressed by the beautiful Anglican church buildings and the solemn liturgies of the "Church of England." And not so many years ago, I had hopes that the Anglican Communion might, during our lifetimes, be reunited with the Catholic Church. But now it seems that the A.C. may be a moribund body with fast-dwindling numbers. I did not expect another self-inflicted wound to follow so soon upon the approval of ordination of women priests, but according to the following article (just sent to me), the hara-kiri continues. It is really sad. C.S. Lewis must be spinning in his grave.

"Perdition demoted? The hell, you say" by Jonathan Petre -- LONDON SUNDAY TELEGRAPH
Hell, recently downgraded to a state of "nothingness" by the Church of England, will make a comeback this week with a group representing millions of British Christians claiming that it is all too real, and that sinners consigned there face unimaginable torment.

The strongly worded report by a working party of five - including an Oxford theologian - argues that the level of punishment meted out to the wicked will be linked to the severity of their sins in life. And while it warns against a literal interpretation of biblical images of lakes of fire, undying worms and the wailing and gnashing of teeth, it says that they are symbolic of the true horrors awaiting those who reject the teachings of Christ. It urges Church leaders not to shy away from teaching the realities of Hell to their congregations, though "fire and brimstone" sermons are discouraged. At the funeral of someone whose relationship to God has been "unclear" or even hostile, for example, the report cautions against "explicit pronouncement on that person's eternal destiny."

The 140-page report, "The Nature of Hell," was drawn up under the aegis of the Evangelical Alliance, which represents 1 million Christians, including many Anglicans. Its working party included an Anglican theologian from Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, a Baptist academic and a senior lecturer at the London Bible College. Its conclusions are in sharp contrast to a Church of England report approved by the General Synod in 1996 that criticized traditional images of hellfire and damnation and said annihilation was a more accurate picture than eternal torment. The new study, which was welcomed by spokesmen for the Catholic Church Saturday, concedes that many find the doctrine of Hell "indefensible and obsolete," but it was an uncomfortable truth.

"Hell is more than mere annihilation at the point of death," the report said. "As well as separation from God, Hell involves severe punishment. Scripture depicts this punishment in various ways, using both psychological and physical terminology. Although this terminology is often metaphorical and we should be wary of inferring more details about Hell than Scripture itself affords, Hell is a conscious experience of rejection and torment. There are degrees of punishment and suffering in Hell related to the severity of sins committed on Earth. We should, however, be wary of speculating on how exactly the correlation between sins committed and the penalties imposed will operate."

But the report does concede that there are differences among evangelicals over whether those in Hell suffer eternally, or whether the unrighteous are "destroyed" after a period of torment. The Rev. David Hilborn, the convener of the working group, said that from the Christian group's perspective, the Church of England's report was "lacking in fullness." He said Hell consisted of three elements - privation, separation from God and punishment - and the Church of England's report failed to emphasize the punitive nature of Hell.

"When people talk about the likes of Ian Brady, the Moors murderer, they often say they want him to 'rot in Hell,' " said Mr. Hilborn. "That shows how deep the idea of divine justice is in our language. The same is true of people such as Hitler, Stalin and Attila the Hun. From all the evidence of their lives, it is possible to infer that they will be in for a pretty rough time. There are indications in the Bible that there are gradations of punishment but no one can second guess God." He criticized popular visions of Hell, such as the paintings of Hieronymous Bosch, for going far beyond scripture and taking an "almost pornographic delight" in suffering, as if it was public entertainment. "Christians should approach the subject of Hell with tears and a heavy heart," he said.

Mgr. Ciaran Conry, a senior spokesman for the Catholic Church, said Catholics would welcome the report because it focused "on the reality of the afterlife and that our actions in this life have serious consequences."

Lord, I believe. Help me fight every temptation to disbelieve.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), April 03, 2000.

My readings years back of Chesterton, later Apologia Pro Vita Sua, of Newman, and the lives of the English Martyrs, A man For All Seasons, etc., had me understand that most Anglicans in fact consider themselves true Catholics. They claimed since far back that their church came down in unbroken succession from the Apostles, therefore it remained Catholic, despite England's break with Rome. It was the Oxford movement which eventually removed all doubt form certain Anglican clerics, as to the authority of the Pope. John Henry Cardinal Newman chief amongst them. It is exhilarating reading, and I would recommend it highly, to both Catholics and Anglicans (if they can bear it)/

-- Eugene Chavez (rechavez@popmail.ucsd.edu), April 04, 2000.

I like the cultural answer.

Born in politics even before the King Henery incident, the AC church is often a refuge for those who have been hurt in their RC (or other) church, a passage from RC to non-denominational, and a passage from non-denominationalism to RC. It has contributed much to the body of Christ. Since it is democratic it suffers from that form of goverment's bad points, and rejoyces in those good points.

'Kingdom of Heaven' -- and what medifor would echo in the souls of His listeners? the Republic (as of the oppressors??), the 300yr dead democracy of a forign country, Greece? Or a kingdom as David had and they longed to harken back to? You use what you can, and what works.

Also God as king I have no problem with. Man as king leads to the problems (and good qualitys) of that kind of goverment. The RCC is a monarchy in its internal govermental form. Right now the RCC has had the best of this. Wait until they get a 'King George III' problem! I will post elsewhere sometime the question of what happens then. Sean

-- Sean Cleary (sean_cleary@bigfoot.com), August 11, 2000.

Sean, when the incident you predict will come about Christ's words will still be valid: "..I am with you always, even unto the end of the world" Mt 28,20

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), August 12, 2000.

You seem to spend most of your site apologizing to your respondants. Lewis & Tolkien both wrote books in which they couched their own paedophilic tendancies in the guise of pixies elves and fairies. Though why that should deter them from becoming fully fledged members of the Catholic church, I dont know. You may do well to look at www.jtolkien.com

-- Christopher Carrie (kloneit@aol.com), November 11, 2000.

dear sirs and madams,

i think my question will be totoally irrelevant to what you have put on in you web pages. but i want to try first.

i am a 16 years old student, who studies histroy for my GCSE. i have to answer this question about northern ireland, which i am really stuck and my answer due in on 26/01/2001. i have not yet done any reserches, well i have been looking at some very irrelevant web sites for most of the time. i really want to get this question done and get a good mark if i possibly can, so pleassssssse help me i will be so grateful, but if you don't nver mind because i know how busy you are ( you can still suggest some good web sites or books for me to answer the question below;

' How did protestant politicians EXPLAIN the social, economic and political differences between catholic and protestant?'

thank you ever so much and sorry to bother but i am desperate!! sorry again!!!!!

yours faithfully

chao roberts

-- chao roberts (chao_roberts_uk@yahoo.com), January 24, 2001.

dear sirs and madams,

i think my question will be totoally irrelevant to what you have put on in you web pages. but i want try first.

i am a 16 years old student, who studies histroy for my GCSE. i have to answer this question about northern ireland, which i am really stuck and my answer due in on 26/01/2001. i have not yet done any reserches, well i have been looking at some very irrelevant web sites for most of the time. i really want to get this question done and get a good mark if i possibly can, so pleassssssse help me i will be so grateful, but if you don't nver mind because i know how busy you are ( you can still suggest some good web sites or books for me to answer the question below;

' How did protestant politicians EXPLAIN the social, economic and political differences between catholic and protestant?'

thank you ever so much and sorry to bother but i am desperate!! sorry again!!!!!

yours faithfully

chao roberts

-- chao roberts (chao_roberts_uk@yahoo.com), January 24, 2001.