Catholic Thought discussion
Mere Christianity
>
Week 3: Book 3, Chapters 1-6
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
Mod
It seems, then, that if we are to think about morality, we must think of all three departments: relations between man and man: things inside each man: and relations between man and the power that made him. We can all co-operate in the first one. Disagreements begin with the second and become serious with the third. It is in dealing with the third that the main differences between Christian and non-Christian morality come out. For the rest of this book I am going to assume the Christian point of view, and look at the whole picture as it will be if Christianity is true.
Morality breaks down into three relationships: man's relationship with man, man's relationship with himself, and man's relationship with God. That is so easy to remember.
Mod
5 – SEXUAL MORIALITY
When it comes to sexual morality the virtue of chastity is the most unpopular of Christian virtues. It requires of the person to be completely faithful to one’s spouse or exercise total abstinence.
Christianity is almost the one of the great religions which thoroughly approves of the body – which believes that matter is good, the God Himself once took on a human body, that some kind of body is going to be given to us even in Heaven and is going to be an essential part of our happiness, or beauty and our energy. Christianity has glorified marriage more than any other religion: and nearly all the greatest love poetry in the world had been produced by Christians.However, in our culture sexual desire is equated with all other natural desires and that following through on these temptations is healthy and normal. This notion is also portrayed in films and books.
The real conflict is not between Christianity and ‘nature’, but between Christian principles and other principles in the control of ‘nature’. For ‘nature’ (in the sense of natural desire) will have to be controlled anyway, unless you are going to ruin your whole life.
6 – CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE
Lewis is reluctant to write of marriage, one, the Christian doctrines on this subject are unpopular, and two, he was not married when he wrote this.
The monstrosity of sexual intercourse outside marriage is that those who indulge in it are trying to isolate one kind of union (the sexual) from the other kinds of union which were intended to go along with it and make up the total union.What chafes in our time is that marriage is for life, and one should be able to move from partner to partner whenever one is no longer in love or falls in love with someone else.
As Chesterton pointed out, those who are in love have a natural inclination to bind themselves by promises. Love songs all over the world are full of vows of eternal constancy. The Christian law is not forcing upon the passion of love something which is foreign to that passion’s own nature: it is demanding that lovers should take seriously something which their passion of itself impels them to do.Being in love is a temporary state for it is dominated by feeling. Loving a person for life is a conscious choice and the grace of God will help us live it.
He touches on divorce and argues that there should be two standards, civil marriage to which is governed by the State and for Christian marriages in church one governed by the Church.
At last he discusses the Christian concept of the man being the head of the household.
Mod
This distinction is important for the following reason. If we thought only of the particular actions we might encourage three wrong ideas.
(1) We might think that, provided you did the right thing, it did not matter how or why you did it—whether you did it willingly or unwillingly, sulkily or cheerfully, through fear of public opinion or for its own sake. But the truth is that right actions done for the wrong reason do not help to build the internal quality or character called a “virtue,” and it is this quality or character that really matters.
(2) We might think that God wanted simply obedience to a set of rules: whereas He really wants people of a particular sort.
(3) We might think that the “virtue” were necessary only for this present life—that in the other world we could stop being just because there is nothing to quarrel about and stop being brave because there is no danger. Now it is quite true that there will probably be no occasion for just or courageous acts in the next world, but there will be every occasion for being the sort of people that we can become only as the result of doing such acts here.
The point is not that God will refuse you admission to His eternal world if you have not got certain qualities of character: the point is that if people have not got at least the beginnings of those qualities inside them, then no possible external conditions could make a “Heaven” for them—that is, could make them happy with the deep, strong, unshakable kind of happiness God intends for us.
Somehow we need to train in the virtues as a want to be tennis player trains in tennis.
I have always thought highly of Iris Murdoch’s definition of love. It is deeply Christian, when you meditate on it. She said, “Love is the supremely difficult realization that another person is real.’’
This section opens with an idea I like very much. That morality is the code for running the human machine.I feel like so many people think of morality as unenforceable laws imposed by prudes. Rather, morality is simply an outline of how things work. (Laws ought to be for that space between, where the human machines find themselves in conflict.) If you are moral -ie if you go along with the way things work - you will receive the blessings, and if you go with the way things don't work, you'll receive the curses.
This is basically the entire Old Testament with the exception of Job. Which is what makes Job so interesting. He goes along completely with the way things work and receives the curses. Which is right in line with how we often experience the pattern. There's a great paradox there.
Using the tennis player, one can train perfectly and lose every match or get injured. Never train and you can avoid losing and injury but you will never gain the possibility of becoming a good tennis player nor the character of Job for having endured the struggle. Again, the anti-pattern paradoxically reinforces the pattern.
Mod
I liked his explanation of why we have sexual morality in chapter 5. It is an appetite that has gone wrong. It is unlike the other appetites. It is something gone wrong in human nature and here I think we can link it to the fall from Eden.
I also like how in chapter 5 he sums up sexual morality as not being at the core of Christian values. Here's his final paragraph in that chapter:
Finally, though I have had to speak at some length about sex, I want to make it as clear as I possibly can that the centre of Christian morality is not here. If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastity as the supreme vice, he is quite wrong. The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronising and spoiling sport, and back-biting; the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two.
I think he got this from Dante's Divine Comedy. I pointed this out when we read that a few years ago. Dante puts the sexual sins towards the beginning of hell, and the further down into hell the more serious the sins. What Lewis calls the Diabolical sins are at the very bottom of hell.
Mod
The Christian idea of marriage is based on Christ’s words that a man and wife are to be regarded as a single organism—for that is what the words “one flesh” would be in modern English. And the Christians believe that when He said this He was not expressing a sentiment but stating a fact—just as one is stating a fact when one says that a lock and its key are one mechanism, or that a violin and a bow are one musical instrument. The inventor of the human machine was telling us that its two halves, the male and the female, were made to be combined together in pairs, not simply on the sexual level, but totally combined.
One organism is spot on! I love how Lewis discusses that the emotional feeling of love will not last and that true love is a “unity” formed by grace. Love is distinct from “being in love” and is ultimately a decision, not a feeling. Marriage involves love, not being in love. I love how Lewis brings out that love involves sacrifice and service for the spouse. I love how he brings out that being faithful involves justice as well as virtue and adherence to your oath before God. I sense that Lewis disapproves of divorce, but is a bit reticent so as to not offend Protestants that have rationalized it. Frankly I think this chapter should be a must read as marriage preparation.
Now where I think Lewis falls flat is in explaining why Biblically a man is head of the household. Of course he is on target that the man is head per scripture and per nature. But he justifies it by saying the “a woman is primarily fighting for her own children and husband against the rest of the world.” What? He goes on:
Naturally, almost, in a sense, rightly, their claims override, for her, all other claims. She is the special trustee of their interests. The function of the husband is to see that this natural preference of hers is not given its head. He has the last word in order to protect other people from the intense family patriotism of the wife. If anyone doubts this, let me ask a simple question. If your dog has bitten the child next door, or if your child has hurt the dog next door, which would you sooner have to deal with, the master of that house or the mistress? Or, if you are a married woman, let me ask you this question. Much as you admire your husband, would you not say that his chief failing is his tendency not to stick up for his rights and yours against the neighbours as vigorously as you would like? A bit of an Appeaser?
So because the woman is overprotective of her children she cannot be rational to reach an objective decision? And why wouldn’t the husband not have such an equally protective reaction toward his children? This is convoluted, especially of the child and the neighbor’s dog. This is the only place in the book so far that I have found muddled thinking.
So here’s my take on the head of the household and how to reach marital decisions. The husband is the head because it is natural for him to be. It is how God through nature has set it up. Now that does not mean that the man dictates over the wife, and it does not mean the wife must on all accounts submit to the husband. By all means if the husband is leading the family to ruin or sin, the wife should object. The way marital decisions should be handled is that the husband and wife should come to a consensus, an agreement that is satisfying to both, and through that consensus the natural leadership of the man will come through. A consensus requires both parties to be docile to the other’s needs. A consensus requires a solution that can fit both party’s vision. It may not come instantaneously, but with perseverance, compromise, and negotiation they will come to a solution. It just takes time. And the longer one is married, the faster these decisions come about because one just knows the other person better. It is not one lording it over the other, no matter which of the two has the stronger personality. Both must remember: docility to the other person’s needs. That’s my humble take on marital decision making.
Casey wrote: "This section opens with an idea I like very much. That morality is the code for running the human machine.I feel like so many people think of morality as unenforceable laws imposed by prudes. Rat..."
Just want to correct myself and add Tobit to Job. They run in a similar vein.
Manny wrote: "I also loved the chapter on Christian marriage, with one exception which I’ll get toward the end. I love his definition of Christian marriage.The Christian idea of marriage is based on Christ’s w..."
I disagree and I think you're really overreading. Lewis and the analogy are spot on. What you are discussing is the org structure or decision making structure or job descriptions. Who has authority over what. That's not what he's talking about. (And he's definitely not talking about the irrationality of women.)
Another analogy that may help you see what Lewis is saying is that of an eagle family. The female eagle stays with the nest, protecting the young while the male flies about hunting, returning food for the family. The nest has two needs, one interior and one exterior. The two eagles unite as one to serve those needs in opposite ways.
In human terms, women represent the family to the outside world. Men represent the outside world back to the family. One says this is what my child needs from the world, the other says this is what the world needs from the child. BTW, this is historically why only men voted. It wasn't that men were shutting women out or they thought women would mess up a man's world, rather is was because the household (not the individual) was seen as the fundamental political unit. (A unit Marx wanted to destroy.) The feminine half of that unit crafted the agenda, the masculine half went out to negotiate that agenda with all of the other Eagles. From that point of view, who is the "in-charge" of the nest? And who is "responsible" for the nest?
And also, we have these two elements inside ourselves as individuals as well. A small child is more feminine in the sense that he/she demands what it wants of the world. As the child grows he/she discovers the outside world don't play that and he must negotiate the balance. Initially swinging too far to the masculine in the teenage years as everyone gets the same haircut, wears the same clothes, same music, etc. But then the adult finds (hopefully) a balance properly reflecting the inside-out and the outside-in.
Most men and most women need marital union to complete that balance. And most children need two parent homes to help them find that balance.
Mod
21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[c] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
Where in there is anything about gender roles? It says to submit to one another, and that the husband is head as Christ is head of the Church. The question is then, how is Christ head of the Church? There is nothing about roles here. It is about dialogue and in my perhaps particular view reaching a consensus. When the Church comes across something that is not fixed doctrine, it has to dialogue with Christ to seek some sort of divine inspiration. The natural leadership of Christ will shape the consensus decision. Just so, the natural leadership of the man will shape the household decision. But it's a consensus. Both husband and wife come to an agreement.
Anyway, that's how I see St. Paul's passage, and perhaps I have a more egalitarian perspective than Paul may intend. But I don't see anything about gender roles.
No I'm not talking about gender roles. In fact quite the opposite. I'm talking about the nature of masculinity and femininity. Coincidentally, I went back and read Tobit. I think this (10:1-7) illustrates Lewis' point: Meanwhile, day by day, Tobit was keeping track of the time Tobiah would need to go and to return. When the number of days was reached and his son did not appear,
2he said, “Could it be that he has been detained there? Or perhaps Gabael has died, and there is no one to give him the money?”
3And he began to grieve.
4His wife Anna said, “My son has perished and is no longer among the living!” And she began to weep aloud and to wail over her son:
5“Alas, child, light of my eyes, that I have let you make this journey!”
6But Tobit kept telling her: “Be still, do not worry, my sister; he is safe! Probably they have to take care of some unexpected business there. The man who is traveling with him is trustworthy and one of our kindred. So do not grieve over him, my sister. He will be here soon.”
7But she retorted, “You be still, and do not try to deceive me! My son has perished!” She would rush out and keep watch every day at the road her son had taken. She ate nothing. After the sun had set, she would go back home to wail and cry the whole night through, getting no sleep at all.a
Mod
1) The God-given hierarchy of the Father and Christ, which is mirrored in the Church and in the family.
2) The complimentary nature of marriage and how it fits within this hierarchy.
Both exist simultaneously. Just like Manny, I thought Lewis was not expressing himself very well here.
Mod
The idea of 'being in love' leaves no room for marriage as a contract or promise at all.
When we marry we exchange vows. A vow is a solemn promise between bride and groom in front of God. So the promise has a trinitarian aspect to it. A vow or promise is always between persons.
A contract is a binding exchange of goods and services. Here we are dealing with objects or services to be performed. If we reduce marriage to goods and services we no longer uphold the innate dignity of the human person.
I'm going to have to go back and reread that section to try to understand how you're reading it. but for now just a couple of things that I think are important... first Lewis reminds early in this section that this section that these were prepared as radio addresses and as such there are limitations in how he can present himself. second, he's speaking analogically ( as he does but also bc of those limitations) and as with all analogies there will be similarities and a place where the analogy falls apart. third, each section is a link in the chain, connecting the previous to the following. I've read the book many times so might be difficult for me bc I know where he's going. ok , off to mass. happy Easter!
Mod
Actually Casey if you're talking about the interaction of masculine and feminine, I think that fits very well with what I'm saying. I said a consensus should be reached between a husband and wife and their natural inclinations will work into the collaboration. Yes, that's masculine and feminine inclinations.
The one place I could see some sort of gender role at play is in Lewis's point about dealing with the neighbors. I guess I overlooked the beginning part of his argument:
"The relations of the family to the outer world—what might be called its foreign policy—must depend, in the last resort, upon the man, because he always ought to be, and usually is, much more just to the outsiders."
I don't know if it's because a man is more "just" (actually I can see in most cases a man is less just than a woman - but this begins to fall into the fallacy of stereotyping) but a man may carry more weight in an argument because society views a man to carry more force - taller, heavier, broader, more muscles, deeper voice, more intimidating. In this respect I can see gender roles.
But I don't think this is what St. Paul is talking about. I really don't think Lewis did a great job on this small section of this otherwise very good chapter.
From your synopsis, I liked that he called the family relations to the outer world its foreign policy.
I went back and read the chapter today. Hope I can better articulate now. (I will say this is hard to do in Goodreads)I want to back up in the chapter a bit. Manny, you say "I said a consensus should be reached between a husband and wife and their natural inclinations will work into the collaboration." Lewis also says that but then says after exhausting that, who gets the final say? He posits two questions:
Why is there a head at all?
And Why the man?
Again, to the first, somebody has to be the final say. To the second, something like this - we have the needs of the nest and the needs of the community of nests. The nest wants its own ideal but that is in competition with other nests who want their own ideal. Let's imagine those nests in a circle with lines from each nest to the center. The wife in each nest sends the man out to negotiate the best deal for the nest. The husbands go to the center then back to the nest with a less than ideal settlements. The wives will be disappointed with their own husbands for being "a bit of an appeaser" but also feel that all other wives ought to follow the settlement negotiated by their husbands.
OK, so back to comment 12 - "...roles between man and woman. ...that is what Lewis is talking about too."
But no. He's not talking about the roles 'between' man and woman. At least not in the Ephesians way or even the postmodern way.
Remember earlier in this same chapter he opened with the idea of "a man and wife are to be regarded as a single organism." What he is getting at at the end of this chapter is roles between one organism and another. The masculine half is the "head" because it must insist on maintaining the negotiated order.
Symbolically speaking, the feminine is always represented as chaos or possibility and the masculine as order. So we see this in the Wedding Feast at Cana - Mary and Jesus acting as one:
When the wine ran short, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine."
(And) Jesus said to her, "Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come."
His mother said to the servers, "Do whatever he tells you."
Mary poses the question, Jesus insists on the established order, Mary opens the possibility, moving Jesus to introduce a new order
It is this dynamic, of how Jesus and Mary act as one in relation to the guests, that Lewis is emphasizing.
I hope that is helpful.
If I may, while I'm thinking of it, offer another angle - The Book of Judith.We're introduced to Judith in Ch 8. Her husband Manasseh has died. So the organism is now feminine.
The rulers (masculine) will hand over the city. Judith (f) approaches them (possibility) but they say "The people...were so thirsty that they forced us to do for them as we have promised, and to bind ourselves by an oath that we cannot break." (m)
So then she (f) takes things into her own hands and goes out where the masculine failed to do so and then beheads Holofernes (m).
What happens? Chaos. Flight, attack, plundering.
And then other angles on the same theme... Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel etc.
It's all the same pattern from different viewpoints and different circumstances.
Mod
Now here is an interesting question. What if the wife refused to accept the husband decision. Is she bound to under penalty of sin? Is it a sin for the wife to refuse to accept the husband's decision? What compels her to accept it?
Manny wrote: "Casey, I do see that now, "only as a last resort," in that paragraph you quote. We're probably making too much of the distinction. If the couple is going to go that far and not reach an agreement, ..."Hm, obviously I'm not doing a very good job either.
In answer to your question, no a wife is not compelled to accept her husband's decision and it certainly wouldn't be a sin. (perhaps temporarily compelled or contractually depending on what we're talking about but...) In fact, she ought to, and usually does, press him on to the advantage of the family.
I'll try two analogies... first, politics. Democrats and Republicans ought to, and usually do fight with each other. But it is the President who is the head and who goes out to the world to meet the other heads. The Prez comes back and we hash it out internally and then he goes back out. America is one organism, and the Prez is the head. But the inner workings of the organism are fluid.
Second, a good golf shot. If you want to hit a good golf shot you need a good club, the right stance, a proper swing, etc. But before you even do any of that you need to understand what a good golf shot is. Once you understand, only then can you practice toward that end effectively. And that practice will be specific to you and look different than the practice of others.
What I'm trying to outline is that the practice, or domestic politics, or the inner workings of a family is all downstream of a particular pattern. We need to understand the pattern first before we can understand the particulars.
Lewis, in addressing why a head and why the man, is just saying because there is this pattern underlying all reality. Each organism can find its own way to match this pattern internally, but to buck the pattern will result in pain for the organism. ie too much tyranny or too much chaos.
He's not actually addressing how a husband and wife ought to get along. How they get along or make decisions is entirely up to them. But there is a standard or pattern against which they can evaluate their progress or behavior. As so with everything.
Mod
CHRISTIAN BEHAVIOUR
1 – THE THREE PARTS OF MORALITY
Morality is necessary for humans to flourish, and there are two aspects where things go wrong.
1) When we drift apart
2) When we collide
Morality is concerned with three things.
1) Relationships between individuals
2) Bringing into harmony what is inside each individual
3) The purpose of human life as a whole and the power that made us
2 – THE ‘CARDINAL VIRTUES’
Prudence: practical common sense
Temperance: the healthy balance between minimalism and excess
Justice: now better understood by the term fairness
Fortitude: courage in face of danger and standing up for one’s Christian convictions
3 – SOCIAL MORALITY
Social morality is meant to be for all men at all times to build a Christian society. We have not faithfully followed through on this. Over the ages we have cherry-picked what we liked and discarded what we find troublesome.
4 – MORALITY AND PSYCHOANALYSIS
Our moral choices are made with our free will. We either progress to a union with God or we move away from God. Each of our actions will determine whether or not we are changing interiorly towards Him or not. Over time we accumulate a better knowledge of good and evil. Lewis closes with Good people know about both good and evil: bad people do not know about either.