I enjoyed this book, but have a few disappointments with how it ended. The author, in the last few chapters, speaks of the decline of Anglicanism which is fair enough, but he goes on and on to no end about the "evil" of female priests, as if this was the soul cause of it's disintegration. He trows a few statements around about "modernism" in general, but keeps coming back to those evil hussy "priestesses". Now, one may or may not believe women should be priests, but the author REALLY seems to focus on that. And there is a delicious irony that many married Anglican priests joined the Roman Catholic Church because women priests were "against tradition and scripture". Yet they were ALLOWED to stay married. So...where does all the Tradition we're talking come into play. Why is it okay for Roman Catholic converted priests to be married? That goes against Roman tradition at least as much as female presbyters. ( )

In C .S. Lewis and the Catholic Church, Joseph Pearce digs into Lewis's life, writings, and relationships to answer the nagging question of why so many Lewis converts have crossed the Tiber—and why Lewis himself, despite subscribing to many essential “Catholic” teachings in his faith and devotion, never did.

This in an interesting little book. I enjoy monographs on tight little topics—topics which throw light on something larger. For various reasons, I've read it pretty carefully, digested the facts and gone on to look at how the book is argued—misargued, I think.

The basic problem is empathy. Pearce ably demonstrates Lewis' asymptotic approach to Catholicism, but seems overly invested in advocating for a meeting that never happens. He doesn't have enough openness and empathy to see Lewis' Anglicanism as anything other than a dodge—to understand not only why Catholicism appealed to Lewis, and how he moved in some Catholic directions, but also why Lewis did not end up in the Catholic church.

In discussing Mere Christianity he can't accept the basic premise—a minimal statement that both Catholics and Protestants (and others) could agree on. No, Lewis, whose Great Divorce wins high marks for taking place in a sort of Purgatory—hardly proof that Lewis believed in Purgatory any more than Tolkien believed in elves—gets the sharp end of the stick for leaving out Mary, the "second Eve." I feel fairly certain Lewis had reasons for his resistance to ideas like this, and to words like this. I suspect that Lewis, like many Protestants—and some Catholics—see in "Mary the second Eve" an uncomfortable counterpart and reference to the far more ancient and universal idea of Jesus as the "second Adam." When Jesus is Adam and Mary is Eve, they're equals and something uncomfortable is suggested.

I can only guess on his reaction to this term, and, largely, as to why Lewis didn't become a Catholic. I would expect a book like this to examine the issue more carefully, and more sympathetically. ( )

COLE