The Great Divorce: Chapter 7

Summary

Made uncomfortable by the Water-Giant, Lewis leaves and continues to make his way downstream again. He meets a “tall…a lean hard-bitten [ghost] with grev hair and a gruff, but not uneducated voice” leaning against a tree.

The ghost asks Lewis if he’s going back and Lewis says he’s unsure. The ghost explains that he is since he’s seen about all there is to see.” He just came up to “have a look around”. He did the same on earth: “Pekin… Niagara Falls, the Pyramids, Salt Lake City, the Taj Mahal” and didn’t think much of any of them, claiming that they were “All run by the same people…a World Combine”.

He’s exceptionally disappointed with Hell, saying “They lead you to expect red fire and devils and all sorts of interesting people sizzling on grids… but when you get there its’s just like any other town”.

The Hard-Bitten Ghost claims that there’s no possibility of staying in Heaven since You can’t eat the fruit and you can’t drink the water and it takes you all your time to walk on the grass… All that idea of staying is only an advertisement stunt.”

After complaining about how uncomfortable Heaven is, Lewis said that “There seems to be some idea that if one stays here one would get…acclimatised.” The ghost rejects this, saying he’d been told that lie his entire life. In the nursery he was told that if he were good, he’d be happy, at school they said Latin would get easier, he was told marriage would would “settle down”, during the World Wars that peace would eventually come.

Our ghost is a conspiracy theorist. He goes on to claim that, just in the same way “[Mummie] and Father were the same firm”, that Heaven and Hell are run by the same people and it’s an elaborate joke. He argues that Heaven and Hell can’t be at war, otherwise Heaven “would attack and sweep the Town out of existence”.

After complaining that there’s nothing to do, either in Heaven or Hell, Lewis asks the ghost would he would like to do if he had a choice. The ghost rejects the entire idea, saying “It’s up to the Management to find something that doesn’t bore us, isn’t it? It’s their job. Why should we do it for them?” He goes on to say that the same thing was wrong with the parsons and moralists” who “keep on asking us to alter ourselves. But if the people who run the show are so clever and so powerful, why don’t they find something to suit their public?” Regarding the idea of becoming “solider”the Hard-Bitten Ghost cynically asks Lewis what he would think of a hotel which told you that you’d grow to enjoy eating bad eggs eventually!

The ghost prepares to leave and asks Lewis if he’ll join him. Lewis cheekily responds that
“There doesn’t seem to be much point in going anywhere on your showing”. When he comments that at least it’s not raining here, the Hard-Bitten Ghost points out at that it’s bound to soon and, when it does rain, the raindrops “will make a hole in you, like a machine-gun bullet”. Convinced that “they” won’t catch him that way, our ghost leaves.

Questions

Q1. What do you make of the Hard-Bitten Ghost?

Q2. Why do you think the ghost was so unimpressed with everything on earth?

Q3. Why is the ghost so unimpressed with Hell?

Q4. Why is the ghost so unimpressed with Heaven?

Q5. Why does he reject the idea that the ghosts will become solider over time?

Q6. Why does the ghost not think Heaven and Hell are at war? Why does he think they are colluding?

Q7. Why does the ghost not suggest anything he’d like to do?

Previous Episode | Index | Next Episode

Catholic Dating: “Pursuit”

Today’s post may be somewhat controversial, but I’d like to talk about this particular topic because it was an aspect of dating which most infuriated me in my early twenties.

In an earlier post, I spoke about a counterfeit, passive masculinity which one often finds within Christianity. However, thanks to writers such John Elridge and Jason Evert, there has been a growing shift with regards to the expected behaviour of men within the Church.

As a result, the ladies are encouraged to expect a lot more from the guys. Courageous valour, rather than niceness is the order of the day. Related to this, you hear constant mention of one word in particular, “pursuit”.

Pursuit

Today I would like to address some of the potential hazards with the idea of pursuit and suggest what can be done to safeguard against them.

Read more

At the name of Jesus…

bowIf you have ever visited an Eastern Catholic parish or Eastern Orthodox parish, you will have noticed that whenever the Trinity or any of the divine names are mentioned, the priest and people will cross themselves and incline their heads in a bow, even if only slightly.

This is a practice I really like and I’ve often wished that this would be more present at western parishes. Well, I recently found out that, at least in theory, it should happen there too…

The place where you discover this is the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), which is basically a commentary on the Missal, explaining how Mass should be celebrated:

A bow of the head is made when the three Divine Persons are named together and at the names of Jesus, of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the saint in whose honor Mass is being celebrated.
– GIRM 275

How about that?! I did a little more digging and found out that this practice has considerable antiquity. For example, in the 13th Century, the Fathers of the Council of Lyons seem to have been inspired by the epistle to the Philippians where St. Paul talks about how “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on the earth and under the earth” (Philippians 2:9-10). Here’s what the Council said:

Each should fulfill in himself that which is written… that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow; whenever that glorious name is recalled, especially during the sacred mysteries of the Mass, everyone should bow the knees of his heart, which he can do even by a bow of his head.
– Council of Lyons II, Constitution 25

So, even if it’s not common practice in your parish, I’d invite everyone to follow the guidance offered to us by the GIRM and to honour the Lord, His Mother and His Saints with this small gesture of reverence.

Saints or Suckers?

When I was at University, I read a book by Jean Vanier in which he said that whenever a homeless person asked him for money, he would reach into his pocket and hand over the first coin he found, whether big or small.

Likewise, in an interview with Fulton Sheen’s niece, she said that her uncle would give money to the poor whenever it was asked of him. When she asked him if he might be being lied to by those asking for help, he simply responded “I can’t take the chance”.

Beggar

A little while ago I did a post about tithing where I spoke about the general responsibility Christians have towards the poor. However, this begs the question: what is the best way in which to help the poor?

For example, most social workers I’ve known have always said that you should never give money to beggars. Following this advice, some of my friends no longer hand over cash, but instead make sure that their car, purse or bag is always stocked with snacks, so that they have something to give when asked for help.

I recently read an article in Crisis Magazine which looks at this issue. I’d be interested to see what you think about it. What you think is the best way to help the poor?

Qur’an Cover-to-Cover: Day 18 (“Jonah”)

jonah

I hope everyone had a nice Christmas. If you had to go to work today, then you can at least comfort yourself with the knowledge that I’ve waded through 109 verses to bring you this commentary on Surah 10:

Surah 10 – “Jonah” (Yunus)
The opening few pages of this chapter are pretty standard stuff:

  • Muhammad’s critics object that Allah’s revelation would come through a man.
  • Allah’s role as creator is emphasized and the natural world (the sun and moon in particular) are held up as signs pointing the people to God.
  • We have the usual statements about the disbelievers heading to the Fire and the believers going to “Gardens of Pleasure”.
  • Several times man’s fickle and forgetful nature is lamented and that Allah saves him from affliction, but yet he continues his path unaltered.

Read more

Mere Christianity – Book IV – Chapter 6 (“Two Notes”)

Book-4

Picking back up my notes for C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity”…

1. Why did God not beget many sons at the outset?

“…if God wanted sons instead of ‘toy soldiers,’ He did not beget many sons at the outset instead of first making toy soldiers and then bringing them to life by such a difficult and painful process”

(a) There are two kinds of answer:

(i) The easy answer

“The process of being turned from a creature into a son would not have been difficult or painful if the human race had not turned away from God centuries ago. They were able to do this because He gave them free will: He gave them free will because a world of mere automata could never love and therefore never know infinite happiness”

(ii) The answer beyond human knowledge

All Christians are agreed that there is, in the full and original sense, only one “Son of God.” If we insist on asking “But could there have been many?” we find ourselves in very deep water. Have the words “Could have been” any sense at all when applied to God? You can say that one particular finite thing “could have been” different from what it is, because it would have been different if something else had been different, and the something else would have been different if some third thing had been different, and so on. (The letters on this page would have been red if the printer had used red ink, and he would have used red ink if he had been instructed to, and so on.) But when you are talking about God-i.e. about the rock bottom, irreducible Fact on which all other facts depend- it is nonsensical to ask if It could have been otherwise. It is what It is, and there is an end of the matter. 

(b) How could there be many sons?

But quite apart from this, I find a difficulty about the very idea of the Father begetting many sons from all eternity. In order to be many they would have to be somehow different from one another. Two pennies have the same shape. How are they two? By occupying different places and containing different atoms. In other words, to think of them as different, we have had to bring in space and matter; in fact we have had to bring in “Nature” or the created universe. I can understand the distinction between the Father and the Son without bringing in space or matter, because the one begets and the other is begotten. The Father’s relation to the Son is not the same as the Son’s relation to the Father. But if there were several sons they would all be related to one another and to the Father in the same way. How would they differ from one another? One does not notice the difficulty at first, of course. One thinks one can form the idea of several “sons.” But when I think closely, I find that the idea seemed possible only because I was vaguely imagining them as human forms standing about together in some kind of space. In other words, though I pretended to be thinking about something that exists before any universe was made, I was really smuggling in the picture of a universe and putting that something inside it. When I stop doing that and still try to think of the Father begetting many sons “before all worlds” I find I am not really thinking of anything. The idea fades away into mere words. (Was Nature-space and time and matter-created precisely in order to make manyness possible? Is there perhaps no other way of getting many eternal spirits except by first making many natural creatures, in a universe, and then spiritualising them? But of course all this is guesswork.)

Read more

“If Protestantism Is True” Review

About a month ago I received my copy of Devin Rose‘s new book “If Protestantism Is True”. I’ve been a subscriber to Devin’s blog for some time, distributed some of his podcasts at the JP2 Group and occasionally interacted with him over the Internet.

I was therefore looking forward to read his book. Unfortunately, I had Vocation Director prescribed reading this month and that had to be done first! Last week I finally completed my reading assignments and so I finally got started on Devin’s book and, since it’s nice and compact at 162 pages, I read it from cover-to-cover this weekend.

Read more

1 56 57 58 59 60 137