Manichaeism

[Mustard]

In his novel, A Case of Conscience, James Blish has his main character, a Jesuit priest, admit to the heresy of Manichaeism because he (the priest) allows that evil/the devil/powers of darkness can be creative. My understanding of Manichaeism is that the heresy comes from the dualistic approach, ie, that it gives equality to light and darkness, good and evil, God and the devil; merely allowing that evil might be creative surely does not put it on the same level as good, and consequently the priest is not guilty of heresy. Ok, it’s only a novel, but am I correct here?

 

[grannymh]

In his novel, A Case of Conscience, James Blish has his main character, a Jesuit priest, admit to the heresy of Manichaeism because he (the priest) allows that evil/the devil/powers of darkness can be creative. My understanding of Manichaeism is that the heresy comes from the dualistic approach, ie, that it gives equality to light and darkness, good and evil, God and the devil; merely allowing that evil might be creative surely does not put it on the same level as good, and consequently the priest is not guilty of heresy. Ok, it’s only a novel, but am I correct here?

As I recall early dualism, it referred to two separate spiritual gods, one good god and one evil god which were in constant war with each other. What fascinates me is the various interpretations of good and evil which followed. For example, the good god was the god of light and immaterial things and the evil god was the god of darkness and material things. The key is that these two gods were real beings separate and independent of each other.

Now, if Manichaeism’s dualistic approach considered that the sources of good and evil were separate gods so to speak, then the heresy would be the denial of God’s oneness. If Manichaeism considered that good and evil were strong attributes of one God, then the heresy would be the denial of God’s infinite goodness and love. This denial of God’s goodness could have been used to answer the question of evil in the world.

Bottom line is that I think the book’s lead character recognized that he was going against Catholic teachings.

 

[catholicscot]

In his novel, A Case of Conscience, James Blish has his main character, a Jesuit priest, admit to the heresy of Manichaeism because he (the priest) allows that evil/the devil/powers of darkness can be creative. My understanding of Manichaeism is that the heresy comes from the dualistic approach, ie, that it gives equality to light and darkness, good and evil, God and the devil; merely allowing that evil might be creative surely does not put it on the same level as good, and consequently the priest is not guilty of heresy. Ok, it’s only a novel, but am I correct here?

Evil cannot be creative because it has no separate existence. Catholic doctrine, as I understand it, holds that evil is nothing other than the absence of good in the same way that darkness is the absence of light. Where good is withdrawn or rejected then evil appears but nothing can be wholly evil because that would require God to be wholly absent and the absence of God means annihilation. Something, on the other hand, can be wholly good as being filled with God who is Himself of course, wholly good. It is a heresy then to suppose that evil can create since all evil acts consist in their entirety of an attempt to do no more than expel good.

 

[Formosus]

Manichaeism was less a heresy and more an opposing religion. Its origins were with the “prophet” Mani in the second century, who decided that the Jewish prophets, Zarathustra, the Buddha, and Christ were all representatives of the Father of Light. They came to save us from the evil Father of Darkness who imprisoned our souls within matter. Essentially it is dualism, that there is positively existing Goodness with equally opposing Darkness, and that the battle between them is lived out within us.