I adore The Power and the Glory, and I’m a Catholic, so it was really interesting hearing a Protestant perspective on reading the novel. I see a lot of beauty in the novel, exploring how God’s grace can work even through imperfect individuals, and that no sinner is beyond redemption if they choose to open up even a little bit to God. One of the most comforting things about the sacraments, to me, is that I don’t have to worry about how “holy” is the priest administering them to me. God knows my good intentions in wanting to receive his grace through the avenues I (as a Catholic) believe he instituted-if the priest is a) still ordained and not excommunicated/laicized and b) following licit forms for their administration, I will receive Jesus in the Eucharist, and Christ’s forgiveness for my sins. Jesus administers these sacraments through priests, and He knew from the beginning that priests would be imperfect at best, and sometimes horrible sinners at worst (Peter and Judas). And that’s what we see in the Whiskey Priest-he’s a sinful man, but he is one of the few left, and through even him Christ will not abandon his church. I haven’t read the other ‘Catholic’ novel of Graham’s you discussed but it sounded soooo interesting. I really like the distinction you make between the call to be LIKE Jesus, and the reminder that we are at the same time not Jesus ourselves. We are not saviors. We can be avenues of Christ’s grace (priests in a special way) but it is always Christ who is saving, loving, judging, etc. All is ultimately his work, we merely cooperate.
I am without question bringing my own presuppositions to Greene’s work, so you should feel entirely free to disregard my reactions. Protestants have a different understanding of mediation than Catholics, but we do similarly believe that the spiritual benefits of the sacraments are not dependent on the holiness of the administrator. I guess the main difference is that we do not see grace as an infused substance but an attitude of favor, and we do not distinguish mortal and venial sins. This leads us to believe that our salvation is not compromised if we have to go without sacraments due to extreme circumstances. Even if we commit a mortal sin, we can confess directly to God and receive absolution from that quarter if no minister is on hand. The desperation some of the characters feel is therefore directly connected to their understanding of doctrine. But despite my differing beliefs, I can still sympathize with those characters. Greene was very good at creating these ethical conundrums that make you think for a long time.
I think, as I said, it’s so helpful to read the reactions of people who are looking at Catholicism from the outside in-it enriches my understanding of my own faith and what is shared between me and my fellow Christians. And those are helpful points to know for me/I understand how that perspective is different. For Catholics in circumstances where they don’t have access to the sacraments through no fault of their own (such as the characters in this story) they can confess directly to God both mortal and venial sins (and are truly repentant/contrite in that confession) and plan to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as they are able. If they die before that becomes available (again through no fault of their own) then God honors that intention. There’s a saying within the catechism in relation to baptism, but applies to sacramentality in circumstances like these I think-“God has bound salvation to the sacrament of baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.” So I would say the people are right in their understanding of doctrine that the sacraments as administered by the priest matter, but wrong to think that, if the Whiskey priest got killed/never came, they’d be damned (assuming they were truly contrite for their sins) for not receiving a sacrament they desired but couldn’t access. I hope that makes sense!
It has come as a surprise to me that I read so little now. I am busy living life. I have heard that great literature does three things: inspire, educate, and entertain. I love the Patrick O'Brian novels. Some of the best writing ever. Full of deep thoughts, technical explanations about how things worked in the British Navy in the early 1800s, humor, and pathos. It is a twenty book series, but I have read the whole thing about six times.
Also similar books in the Graham Greene/Christianity in Spanish speaking areas/countries that pack heavy theological and philosophical punches (and aren’t too long!) 1. Willa Cather’s Death Comes For the Archbishop 2. The Bridge of San Luis Rey
To your point about wanting books to double as philosophical works... I do the same thing with movies. I try to skip out on shallower works not because I thin they're all bad, but because there's so much concentrated richness in the deeper works. And there's only a finite amount of time and attention in life!
I adore The Power and the Glory, and I’m a Catholic, so it was really interesting hearing a Protestant perspective on reading the novel. I see a lot of beauty in the novel, exploring how God’s grace can work even through imperfect individuals, and that no sinner is beyond redemption if they choose to open up even a little bit to God. One of the most comforting things about the sacraments, to me, is that I don’t have to worry about how “holy” is the priest administering them to me. God knows my good intentions in wanting to receive his grace through the avenues I (as a Catholic) believe he instituted-if the priest is a) still ordained and not excommunicated/laicized and b) following licit forms for their administration, I will receive Jesus in the Eucharist, and Christ’s forgiveness for my sins. Jesus administers these sacraments through priests, and He knew from the beginning that priests would be imperfect at best, and sometimes horrible sinners at worst (Peter and Judas). And that’s what we see in the Whiskey Priest-he’s a sinful man, but he is one of the few left, and through even him Christ will not abandon his church. I haven’t read the other ‘Catholic’ novel of Graham’s you discussed but it sounded soooo interesting. I really like the distinction you make between the call to be LIKE Jesus, and the reminder that we are at the same time not Jesus ourselves. We are not saviors. We can be avenues of Christ’s grace (priests in a special way) but it is always Christ who is saving, loving, judging, etc. All is ultimately his work, we merely cooperate.
I am without question bringing my own presuppositions to Greene’s work, so you should feel entirely free to disregard my reactions. Protestants have a different understanding of mediation than Catholics, but we do similarly believe that the spiritual benefits of the sacraments are not dependent on the holiness of the administrator. I guess the main difference is that we do not see grace as an infused substance but an attitude of favor, and we do not distinguish mortal and venial sins. This leads us to believe that our salvation is not compromised if we have to go without sacraments due to extreme circumstances. Even if we commit a mortal sin, we can confess directly to God and receive absolution from that quarter if no minister is on hand. The desperation some of the characters feel is therefore directly connected to their understanding of doctrine. But despite my differing beliefs, I can still sympathize with those characters. Greene was very good at creating these ethical conundrums that make you think for a long time.
I think, as I said, it’s so helpful to read the reactions of people who are looking at Catholicism from the outside in-it enriches my understanding of my own faith and what is shared between me and my fellow Christians. And those are helpful points to know for me/I understand how that perspective is different. For Catholics in circumstances where they don’t have access to the sacraments through no fault of their own (such as the characters in this story) they can confess directly to God both mortal and venial sins (and are truly repentant/contrite in that confession) and plan to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as they are able. If they die before that becomes available (again through no fault of their own) then God honors that intention. There’s a saying within the catechism in relation to baptism, but applies to sacramentality in circumstances like these I think-“God has bound salvation to the sacrament of baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.” So I would say the people are right in their understanding of doctrine that the sacraments as administered by the priest matter, but wrong to think that, if the Whiskey priest got killed/never came, they’d be damned (assuming they were truly contrite for their sins) for not receiving a sacrament they desired but couldn’t access. I hope that makes sense!
It has come as a surprise to me that I read so little now. I am busy living life. I have heard that great literature does three things: inspire, educate, and entertain. I love the Patrick O'Brian novels. Some of the best writing ever. Full of deep thoughts, technical explanations about how things worked in the British Navy in the early 1800s, humor, and pathos. It is a twenty book series, but I have read the whole thing about six times.
Well done!
Also similar books in the Graham Greene/Christianity in Spanish speaking areas/countries that pack heavy theological and philosophical punches (and aren’t too long!) 1. Willa Cather’s Death Comes For the Archbishop 2. The Bridge of San Luis Rey
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and perspective! Very helpful.
To your point about wanting books to double as philosophical works... I do the same thing with movies. I try to skip out on shallower works not because I thin they're all bad, but because there's so much concentrated richness in the deeper works. And there's only a finite amount of time and attention in life!
I used to watch so many films. Since my son was born, hardly any. 😔