I’ve received a letter from a Catholic seminarian, requesting my opinion of an article by Eric Seddon in Mythlore which included a somewhat shrill attack on a position that I had allegedly taken in my book, C. S. Lewis and the Catholic Church. Here’s my response:
I don’t have the leisure to critique Seddon’s article in detail. Suffice it to say that it contains much that is good and much that is less so. Upon my admittedly hasty and cursory perusal it appears that Seddon has an inadequate knowledge of the nuanced differences between Protestants in general and between different branches of Anglicanism in particular. He doesn’t seem to clearly distinguish between Ulster Protestants and their bigoted Orangism on the one hand and mainstream English Anglicanism on the other, a fatal flaw in any argument on these thorny issues.
His reading of the theology of Narnia is at times odd (to say the least) …
With regard to the short section in which he criticizes me, I don’t feel that there is anything that needs answering because he accuses me of taking a position that I do not take. I do not argue that Lewis “all but ‘crossed the Tiber’”. On the contrary, I imply towards the end of my book that Lewis’s knee-jerk Ulster tribalism all but precluded there being any possibility of his conversion to Rome. I merely point out that Lewis implies the Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament in his statement that the “Blessed Sacrament” (his words, not mine) is the most important thing for a Christian, even more important than the love of neighbor, thereby equating the Sacrament with the Commandment to love God. Lewis did not seem to comprehend or believe in Transubstantiation and could not be considered a Thomist but even a belief in Consubstantiation would be much closer to a belief in the Real Presence than most Anglicans and almost all other Protestants would believe. He also believed avowedly in purgatory and went to auricular confession, both of which are decidedly odd beliefs and practices for even the “highest” Anglican.
In short and in sum, my argument is not and has never been that Lewis almost “crossed the Tiber” but that his crypto-Catholic beliefs make him a rather odd and idiosyncratic Anglican.
Hello Mr. Pearce,
It’s been a long time since I wrote that article, and longer since I read your book. Apologies if my critique of your position was inaccurate or seemed shrill. Without rereading them, I vaguely remember feeling your book had given little to no emphasis to the huge role Protestant and Anglican thinkers had gone into the formation of Lewis’s intellect and imagination (I’d include Cranmer, Hooker, Laws, and MacDonald). To me it seemed you were implying Lewis’s debts were almost entirely to Catholic thinkers, which strengthened your thesis of his ‘crypto-Catholic’ tendencies. Perhaps I’m wrong about that–anyhow, your book WAS focusing on his relationship to the Catholic Church, so perhaps I allowed indignation to get the better of me.
I stand by most of what I wrote in the article, for whatever it’s worth. Above, you make an interesting point about Ulster Anglicanism and mainstream Anglicanism. You are correct that I have little background in that sort of thing, having been raised as both a Catholic (first) then an American Episcopalian (my parents left the Catholic Church when I was ten–I returned to the Catholic Church at age 30 or so).
Anyhow, all the best to you, sir. I saw a special you’d done on Lewis and Tolkien broadcast last year on EWTN and was so deeply impressed by it that I had my children watch it. Many thanks for the work you do, even if I might consider your work containing “much that is good and much that is less so” as well!
Peace and God Bless,
Eric Seddon
Cleveland Ohio