Today’s election of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina as Pope Francis I has any of us with even the slimmest connection to Roman Catholicism tapping on our iPhones or opening up TweetDeck. It has been a wonderful clash of worlds this week: the solemn formality of cardinals filing reflectively into the Sistine Chapel while a hundred thousand iPad cameras tilt toward an improvised copper chimney. I even followed @ConclaveChimney on twitter: the building papal suspense from the perspective of the chimney itself. “Habemas Papem!” the chimney’s digitally projected self-image cried as it puffed out white smoke. “Habemas Papem!” a million people cried in St. Peter’s Square. We have a Pope!
The excitement put me to mind of C.S. Lewis’ relationship with Catholicism, which grew throughout his life. He grew up in Belfast, Ireland, in a period of hardening Catholic and Protestant identity. When he was almost ten years old, Lewis was sent to boarding school in England just a few weeks after his mother died. He never had good experiences at “public school,” and one of his first letters to his father betrays the boyhood impressions of an Ulster Protestant:
“I do not like church here at all because it is so frightfully high church that it might as well be Roman Catholic” (Oct 3, 1908).
He calls the church “Romish” in his boyhood diary, and later recollects the experience in his spiritual memoir, 
Surprised by Joy:
“On the conscious level I reacted strongly against its peculiarities—was I not an Ulster Protestant, and were not these unfamiliar rituals an essential part of the hated English atmosphere? Unconsciously, I suspect, the candles and incense, the vestments and the hymns sung on our knees, may have had a considerable, and opposite, effect on me. But I do not think they were the important thing. What really mattered was that I here heard the doctrines of Christianity (as distinct from general “uplift”) taught by men who obviously believed them” (C.S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy, 36).
Evidently, his anti-Catholicism softened. There were a number of reasons for this, not least, perhaps, the gradual passing of time and intellectual maturity. Part of Lewis’ growing appreciation for Catholicism may have been aesthetic. From a longer letter I quote here, he describes a walk just before he went to the front line in WWI:
“I struck a very pretty little village however: the houses are mostly clay walled, which gives them a lovely colour, and are very ramshackle. The roofs are all of old old tiles and there are lots of old stone crucifixes, with their little offerings of grass & beads & things on them. Catholic Christianity is certainly more picturesque than Puritanism” (Feb 21, 1918).
By the time C.S. Lewis is studying at Oxford, he has rejected Christianity but is complaining about “anti-Catholic propaganda” in the books he’s reading (letters in February 1920). Some of Lewis’ key literary influences are Catholic, including G.K. Chesteron, Dante, and J.R.R. Tolkien—a key figure in Lewis’ conversion to Christianity. Famously, Lewis said of Tolkien:
“Friendship with the latter marked the breakdown of two old prejudices. At my first coming into the world I had been (implicitly) warned never to trust a Papist, and at my first coming into the English Faculty (explicitly) never to trust a philologist. Tolkien was both” (Surprised by Joy, 205).
By the time he converts to theism (though not yet to Christianity), Lewis is able to appreciate Dante’s spiritual perspective:
“its blend of complexity and beauty is very like Catholic theology–wheel within wheel, but wheels of glory, and the One radiated through the Many” (letter to Arthur Greeves, January 1930.
Three years later, as a Christian convert writing to a student who had become a monk, he said,
“I have had a Catholic among my most intimate friends for many years and a great deal of our conversation has been religious. When all is said (and truly said) about the divisions of Christendom, there remains, by God’s mercy, an enormous common ground” (letter to Dom Bede Griffiths, Apr 4, 1934).
While there are occasional digs toward Roman Catholics in his letters, Lewis continued this ecumenical approach to his faith. When he began writing books defending and explaining his faith during WWII, he approached his subject as someone who is “merely Christian”—speaking only where the most Christians in most of history could agree with him. He sent the scripts for his famous BBC talks to Roman Catholic and Protestant clergy for their critique, including Griffiths.
While Lewis was open to fellowship with Roman Catholics and had Catholic ideas like purgatory, he never converted to Catholicism. Perhaps this note to H. Lymen Stebbins, an American Protestant considering a conversion to Catholicism, captures some of the reasons that Lewis himself never converted:
“The Roman Church where it differs from this universal tradition and specially from apostolic Xtianity [Christianity] I reject. Thus their theology about the B.V.M. [Blessed Virgin Mary] I reject because it seems utterly foreign to the New Testament: where indeed the words ‘Blessed is the womb that bore thee’ receive a rejoinder pointing in exactly the opposite direction. Their papalism seems equally foreign to the attitude of St Paul towards St Peter in the Epistles. The doctrine of Transubstantiation insists in defining in a way wh. the N.T. seems to me not to countenance. In a word, the whole set-up of modern Romanism seems to me to be as much a provincial or local variation from the central, ancient tradition as any particular Protestant sect is. I must therefore reject their claim: tho’ this does not mean rejecting particular things they say” (May 8, 1945)
Though some of these phrases seem like fighting words, he said them quite respectfully. Stebbins did, in fact, convert to Roman Catholicism. In general, Lewis avoided the controversies of the Christian church. In 1947 he began a conversation in Latin with Italian Catholic priest, Don Giovanni Calabria. In his Sep 6, 1947 letter, addressed to Calabria as “Reverend Father,” he shares his vision for conversation with Catholics:
“I am a layman, indeed the most lay of laymen, and least skilled in the deeper questions of sacred theology. I have tried to do the only thing that I think myself able to do: that is, to leave completely aside the subtler questions about which the Roman Church and Protestants disagree among themselves–things which are to be treated by bishops and learned men–and in my own books to expound, rather, those things which still, by God’s grace, after so many sins and errors, are shared by us.”
The common ground, that which was “Mere Christianity,” was most important to Lewis. As the world’s Catholics celebrate a day of Papal election, we have an opportunity to share a moment of common ground. While we view authority differently, in a sense, on this day, we all cry “Habemus Papem.”
I guess its technically Pope Francis (not Pope Francis I); it will only be Pope Francis I when there is a Pope Francis II. But, it is exceedingly awesomeness that Francis of Assisi is gettin some #represent! Hopefully this will be a good thing. Tis about time. Our brothers and sisters the animals may finally get a bit more love.
i was thinking of your, Josh, when he was named. I, of course, was hoping for a Paul!
Pingback: Idea-Seeds in C.S. Lewis’ Letters | A Pilgrim in Narnia
Perhaps you might update this article with this quote from a letter to Dom Bede Griffiths (8 May 1939):
“A united Christendom should be the answer to a new Paganism. But how reconciliation of the Churches as opposed to conversions of individuals from one church to another is to come about, I confess I cannot see. I am inclined to think that the immediate task is vigorous co-operation on the basis of what is now common – combined, of course with full admission of the differences. An experienced unity on some things might then prove the prelude to a confessional unity on all things. Nothing would give such a strong support to the Papal claims as the spectacle of a Pope actually functioning as the head of Christendom. But it is not, I feel sure, my vocation to discuss reunion.”
I also don’t believe it was an accident that the High King of Narnia is named Peter. 🙂
I suppose this is the beauty of comments–you yourself have updated the article! I think, though, the whole thing needs updating. It’s a great quote.
Great quote? Do you mean the 8 May 1939 quote? It’s a terrible quote! It contradicts and undermines what Lewis said elsewhere in which he gave clear Biblical reasons for rejecting the papacy and other Roman Catholic dogmas. If the pope is not God’s idea, having all professing Christians unite in professing allegiance to him as virtual “High King” is a disgusting and demonic prospect. The unbelieving world would no doubt approve but what is the chaff to the wheat?
I think your updating of yourself left things far muddier and further from Biblical truth.You quote Lewis, “An experienced unity on some things might then prove the prelude to a confessional unity on all things. Nothing would give such a strong support to the Papal claims as the spectacle of a Pope actually functioning as the head of Christendom.” [O wait, that was Peregrinator. I recommend an Author Line at top of page, Not clear as it is].
No doubt. Clearly much of the Catholic-Protestant co-laboring on political issues has resulted in the “spectacle” of moral cowardice on the part of Protestants afraid to offend their new political allies by pointing out their unbiblical dogmas. But Lewis’ apparently earlier writing stands better alone “Their papalism seems equally foreign to the attitude of St Paul towards St Peter in the Epistles”. This appears to be a reference to Galatians 2:11-16 wherein Paul publicly rebukes Peter and sees the need to give him a refresher course on the subject of justification by faith. So much for “Papal infallibility”. Lewis could have equally made a logical objection on the basis of the direct teaching of Christ : “Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven” – Matthew 23:9. Thus the Papacy is not just extra-biblical but Anti-Biblical. As Jesus said on more than one occasion, “You reject and nullify the Word of God to pursue your own traditions”.
When the unbiblical Cardinals elected their unbiblical Pope, Christianity Today put out an edition with the cover slogan, “A Pope for Us All”, a statement just as inaccurate, mush-minded, and repugnant as “Habemus Papem.”. It is quite logical for me to say “You have a pope” but I cannot logically say “We have a pope”. This is not a matter of ill will or non-irenic spirit, just a matter of accuracy and truth.
Thank your for your note. We are clearly not in the same conversational space to have a discussion on this point. There are many things with which I have a disagreement about Roman Catholicism, but I choose to use their terms to describe themselves. This means (for me) trying to learn their doctrines before critiquing them.
Regards,
Brenton
I came across your blog again by accident so this is belated by 5 years. In 2016 I replied to your March 2013 blog titled “”Habemus Papam!’ C.S. Lewis on Catholicism.” In that article you seemed to not have profited from Lewis’ clearly stated objection to the papacy when you closed with, “As the world’s Catholics celebrate a day of Papal election, we have an opportunity to share a moment of common ground. While we view authority differently, in a sense, on this day, we all cry “Habemus Papem.” I attempted to point out what an absurdly illogical statement this is, based on clear Biblical teaching that Lewis understood on this subject. WE, or at least I, do not have a pope. Do you?
In reply, you posted an equally illogical and somewhat subtle rebuke of my critique. You stated, “There are many things with which I have a disagreement about Roman Catholicism, but I choose to use their terms to describe themselves. This means (for me) trying to learn their doctrines before critiquing them.” But you did not “use” their terms, you adopted them and broadcast them. “We have a Pope.”
And your “trying to learn their doctrines before critiquing them” seemed to be saying that one should not dismiss the Roman Catholic dogma of the papacy out of hand just because the Bible clearly contradicts it. I might point out to you the well known fact that banks to not train their tellers to spot counterfeits by teaching what counterfeits look like, but rather what real currency looks like. I know the papacy is a lie because I know what the Bible teaches. Likewise the Roman Catholic teaching on merited grace, praying to Mary, transubstantiation, salvation by sacraments, confession to priests, papal infallibility, required celibacy, purgatory, indulgences, etc., etc.
Pingback: 2016: A Year of Reading | A Pilgrim in Narnia
Pingback: “Not Because I am Anyone in Particular”: C.S. Lewis’ Original Preface to The Broadcast Talks (1942) | A Pilgrim in Narnia
Pingback: Idea-Seeds in C.S. Lewis’ Letters (Throwback Thursday) | A Pilgrim in Narnia
You’ve misspelled the first two words of this post’ title. You meant: “Habemus Papam!” Please fix that.
You’ve misspelled the first two words of this post’s title. You meant: “Habemus Papam!” Please fix that.
Yes, I clearly wrote that in a hurry during the event. I remember that I was marking papers at the time. I forgot about this post.
Well, here we are ten years later and I still do not have a Pope. I do have a heavenly Father however which is the point Christ was predictively making in Matthew 23:9.
Your post and some of the posted comments only go to prove that even the brightest merely human minds will occasionally contradict themselves.
Best wishes on your pilgrimage further up and further in.