Is it okay to read the novels of Charles Williams?

[Cecilianus]

I’m not sure if “Moral Theology” is the right forum to pose this question but it was the best I could find.

What are we as Catholics supposed to think of the novels of Charles Williams, the Inkling and friend of C. S. Lewis and Tolkien? He - along with Evelyn Underhill, a generally respected author of mystical theology - was a member of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, a Rosicrucian-allied cult that practiced ritual theurgy and was known for its association with Aleister Crowley. Ideas and themes from hermeticism seem to show up all over the place in Williams’ fantasy novels, yet every Catholic who mentions him loves him (including Tom Howard, author of “Chance or the Dance?” and “The Novels of Charles Williams”, as well as one of the history professors at Christendom College who talked about Williams at a conference hosted by the American Chesterton Society in St. Paul). What gives?

Other Inklings also seem questionable: Owen Barfield’s lifelong obsession with Anthroposophy (declared heretical by the Magisterium in 1911 or whereabouts), Dom Bede Griffiths’ founding of the Shantivanam Ashram, Martin Lings’ conversion to theosophical Islam (I’m not sure if he was an Inkling, but he was a student of Lewis), and even Lewis’ ambiguous treatment of sorcery in That Hideous Strength.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Strange question. Are you proposing that we only read things that we agree with? But this leads to the ridiculous observation:

A: I shall only read books that I will agree with.
B: I do not know whether I will agree with a book until I read it.
C: I shall not read any books.

How do you know that you will disagree with something until you read it? Now, it is one thing if the thing you read is the near occasion of sin, but in the cases you bring up, this is hardly the case.

If you want to know how Catholic theology has become so sophisticated and beautiful as it is, it is because authors like Augustine, Aquinas, and Erasmus read widely, and read tons of books they disagreed with.

The Inklings are not perfect, but this is precisely because they were *looking for *the Truth. They did not assume that the Magesterium had a monopoly on Truth, and I am very glad that they didn’t. Anti-intellectualism in the Church has a long history, but I don’t see it having very good results.

 

[kerath25]

If you want to know how Catholic theology has become so sophisticated and beautiful as it is, it is because authors like Augustine, Aquinas, and Erasmus read widely, and read tons of books they disagreed with.

Amen to that. Where would Catholic Answers be if they were not allowed to read what is written by Anti-Catholics? Our understanding grows over time because people put forward a lot of theories, most of them incorrect to some extent, and they are viewed in light of what we know is true until the truth is refined out of them.

When reading anything, even something written by Catholics, you should be cautious to some extent. It is not wrong to read things written by those that disagree with the Church on some issue, because you could come to a better understanding of the issue they disagree on! There are some cases where it would be advisable that a person not read something, but these would mostly be restricted to those who are unlikely to know or seek the truth. The very fact that you are concerned that there might be material in these author’s books puts you on your guard and signifies that you would not take everything that they say as Catholic (or even Christian) doctrine. If you do decide to read from the works you mentioned, take some time to sit back afterward and reflect on what you’ve read, especially on if it is contrary to what you already know of the teachings of the Church.

 

[Cecilianus]

His novels are fiction - it doesn’t make sense to “agree” or “disagree” with them. The question is whether the enjoyment that comes from them is good - or evil.

 

[kerath25]

His novels are fiction - it doesn’t make sense to “agree” or “disagree” with them. The question is whether the enjoyment that comes from them is good - or evil.

I’m sorry, I misunderstood.

I would think that an enjoyment from the reading would not be wrong, unless one were enjoying that the author is attacking a truth. Personally, I enjoy reading Philip Pullman because his prose is very well-written and his stories have very fascinating characters. However, I find many things that he speaks about absolute rubbish and his portrayal of the Church is next to libel. I enjoy the story, not the point the author is attempting to make with it.