Pagan Inspiration in C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien

I asked ChatGPT to summarize pagan influence in the work of C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, and below is the result.  I'm very familiar with both of these authors, and, as I suspected would be the case, ChatGPT's summary is very helpful and accurate.

There are rays of truth in all human religions and cultures, and a Catholic Christian worldview encourages us to approach various cultures and religions with a nuanced perspective, recognizing elements of incompatibility and difference, but also recognizing and appreciating elements of truth and beauty.  I think the works of Lewis and Tolkien provide an excellent example of such nuanced appreciation, and how Christians can derive inspiration from paganism.  I've discussed this more here, here, and here.

I should note that neither Lewis nor Tolkien advocated an uncritical acceptance of pagan ideas.  They were critical of certain aspects of paganism, particularly where pagan ideas conflict with Christian beliefs and values.  There is a lot of diversity in paganism, as I discuss in this post.  But what I want to emphasize here is the positive value they found in pagan myths, themes, motifs, and practices, as they appreciated them from a Christian point of view.

I should also note that, while Tolkien's fictional works were influenced profoundly by his Christian worldview, he did not see his works as allegories referring to Christian themes but as myths and stories with their own unique integrity as "sub-creations" (see below).

The analysis below was generated with the assistance of OpenAI's ChatGPT sometime in August (with just a little bit of editing by me).

C.S. Lewis

C.S. Lewis, renowned for his profound Christian writings and imaginative fiction, intricately wove pagan motifs, themes, aesthetics, practices, deities, and magical elements into his works. This synthesis was not merely artistic but stemmed from his belief in the intrinsic value of myth and its role in pointing toward deeper truths. Lewis saw pagan myths as echoes of a universal longing for redemption and truth, which he believed were ultimately fulfilled in Christianity. This integration showcases how Lewis reconciled pagan elements with his Christian worldview, using them to enrich his narratives and convey spiritual truths.

Incorporation of Pagan Elements in Lewis's Works

1. Mythological Creatures and Deities:

   • The Chronicles of Narnia series is replete with creatures from Greek and Roman mythology, such as fauns, centaurs, dryads, naiads, and satyrs. For instance, Mr. Tumnus, a faun, plays a pivotal role in "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe."
   • In "Prince Caspian," Bacchus and Silenus, figures from Roman mythology associated with revelry and nature, appear and participate in the narrative, symbolizing liberation and the restoration of rightful order.

2. Pagan Practices and Rituals:

   • Lewis incorporates festivals and celebrations that echo pagan rituals. The joyous romp led by Bacchus in "Prince Caspian" mirrors ancient rites celebrating nature's bounty and the gods' favor.
   • The emphasis on deep magic and ancient laws in Narnia reflects a world governed by timeless, mystical principles reminiscent of pagan cosmologies.

3. Aesthetic and Thematic Elements:

   • The natural world is sacralized, embodying a living, enchanted universe where trees and rivers possess spirits, akin to animistic beliefs in pagan traditions.
   • Themes of sacrifice, rebirth, and redemption are explored using pagan symbols, such as the dying-and-rising god motif, which parallels Aslan's sacrificial death and resurrection.

4. "Till We Have Faces":

   • This novel is a retelling of the Cupid and Psyche myth from Greek mythology. Lewis delves deep into pagan religious practices, exploring themes of love, jealousy, and the human longing for the divine.
   • The protagonist's journey reflects a spiritual pilgrimage from ignorance to understanding, using the framework of a pagan myth to explore universal truths.

Relation to His Christian Worldview

1. Myth as a Precursor to Truth:

   • Lewis viewed pagan myths as "good dreams" given by God to humanity, preparing the way for the ultimate truth revealed in Christianity.
   • He believed that these myths contained fragmented reflections of the same truths fulfilled in the Christian narrative of Jesus Christ.

2. "Myth Became Fact":

   • In his essay "Myth Became Fact," Lewis argues that myths are expressions of profound truths and that Christianity is the true myth that became historical fact.
   • By incorporating pagan elements, Lewis bridges the gap between myth and history, showing how ancient stories find their culmination in the Christian gospel.

3. Redemption of Pagan Elements:

   • Pagan motifs are not presented in opposition to Christianity but are redeemed and integrated into a Christian framework.
   • The presence of pagan deities and creatures in Narnia acknowledges the validity of their symbolic meanings while subsuming them under the sovereignty of Aslan, the Christ figure.

4. Imagination and Faith:

   • Lewis championed the role of imagination in understanding and experiencing faith. Pagan myths stir the imagination, opening hearts to spiritual realities.
   • He used pagan imagery to make Christian truths more accessible and resonate deeply with readers' innate sense of wonder and longing.

Lewis's Theological Perspective

1. Natural Law and Deep Magic:

   • The concept of "Deep Magic" from the dawn of time in Narnia represents a moral order inherent in the universe, akin to the natural law tradition in Christian theology.
   • This reflects Lewis's belief in a universal moral code that transcends cultural and religious boundaries, which pagan myths also touch upon.

2. Common Grace and General Revelation:

   • Lewis acknowledged that truth and beauty in paganism are a result of God's general revelation to all humanity.
   • He believed that God imparts wisdom and glimpses of truth even outside the specific revelations of Christianity.

3. Transformation and Fulfillment:

   • Pagan elements are transformed within his stories to serve a higher purpose, illustrating the fulfillment of human myths in divine reality.
   • This aligns with his view that Christianity does not discard pagan truths but fulfills and elevates them.

Conclusion

C.S. Lewis masterfully integrates pagan motifs into his works to enrich his storytelling and to highlight the universal human quest for meaning, truth, and redemption. By doing so, he demonstrates how pagan myths are not antithetical to Christian belief but can be harmoniously woven into a Christian narrative that fulfills the deepest longings expressed in those myths. Lewis's approach reflects his conviction that all myths and stories find their ultimate significance in the Christian story, where the myth becomes reality, and the ancient hopes of humanity are realized.

Through this synthesis, Lewis invites readers to explore the depths of their own imaginations and desires, guiding them toward the spiritual truths he cherished. His works stand as a testament to the power of storytelling to bridge cultures, epochs, and beliefs, revealing a tapestry of divine truth threaded through the diverse expressions of human longing.

J.R.R. Tolkien

J.R.R. Tolkien, best known for his epic works The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings trilogy, was a devout Roman Catholic whose deep faith profoundly influenced his writing. However, his works are richly infused with pagan motifs, themes, aesthetics, practices, deities, and magical elements drawn from Norse, Celtic, and other mythologies. Tolkien's intricate blending of these elements serves to create a mythopoeic world that explores universal themes such as good versus evil, sacrifice, and redemption. This synthesis reflects how Tolkien reconciled pagan elements with his Christian worldview, using them to illuminate spiritual truths and moral principles.

---

Incorporation of Pagan Elements in Tolkien's Works

1. Mythological Creatures and Beings:

   • Elves and Dwarves:
     • Tolkien's Elves and Dwarves are heavily inspired by Norse mythology. Elves (Álfar) and Dwarves (Dvergar) in Norse myths are supernatural beings with their own realms and cultures.
     • In Middle-earth, Elves are immortal, wise, and possess a deep connection to nature, while Dwarves are skilled craftsmen and miners, echoing their mythological counterparts.
   • Ents and Dragons:
     • Ents resemble the tree-like beings found in various mythologies, symbolizing the personification of nature.
     • Dragons like Smaug draw from European dragon legends, embodying greed and destructive power.
   • Valar and Maiar:
     • The Valar and Maiar are god-like beings that govern the world, similar to pantheons in pagan religions. They represent various aspects of creation and natural forces.

2. Pagan Themes and Motifs:

   • Heroic Quest and Destiny:
     • The narrative structure follows the classic hero's journey found in mythologies, where characters embark on quests that shape their destiny.
   • The Cyclical Nature of Time:
     • Tolkien's world operates in ages, reflecting the cyclical concept of time present in pagan cosmologies.
   • Fate and Prophecy:
     • Prophecies and predetermined fates play significant roles, akin to the Norse concept of fate (wyrd).

3. Aesthetic and Cultural Elements:

   • Runes and Languages:
     • Tolkien, a philologist, created languages like Quenya and Sindarin, inspired by Finnish and Welsh. The use of runes echoes ancient writing systems like the Futhark runes.
   • Cultural Practices:
     • Rituals, songs, and storytelling within the cultures of Middle-earth reflect pagan traditions of oral history and celebration.

4. Magic and Supernatural Elements:

   • Magic as a Natural Force:
     • Magic in Middle-earth is an inherent part of the world, wielded by beings like wizards (Istari) and Elves. It is not "supernatural" but a natural aspect of existence.
   • Artifacts and Relics:
     • Objects like the One Ring, swords like Narsil/Andúril, and the Silmarils hold immense power, reminiscent of enchanted items in myths.

5. Creation Mythology:

   • "The Silmarillion":
     • Tolkien presents a creation story where Eru Ilúvatar (the One) creates the world through a great musical theme sung by the Ainur, paralleling creation myths in various pagan traditions.

6. Nature and Respect for Nature:

   • Reverence for the Natural World:
     • Tolkien's works exhibit a profound respect for nature, reflecting pagan animism where natural elements are imbued with spirit and agency.
     • Forests like Fangorn and Lothlórien are depicted as living entities with consciousness and memory.
   • Harmony with Nature:
     • Characters such as the Elves live in harmony with their environment, embodying a deep ecological wisdom and stewardship over the natural world.
   • Environmental Themes:
     • The destructive impact of industrialization is personified in characters like Saruman, whose defilement of Isengard represents a violation of the natural order.
     • The scouring of the Shire highlights the consequences of environmental neglect and the importance of restoring balance.

---

Relation to His Christian Worldview

1. Sub-Creation and Reflection of Divine Creation:

   • Concept of Sub-Creation:
     • Tolkien believed that humans, made in the image of the Creator, have the innate desire to create (sub-create). His myth-making is an act of sub-creation that reflects divine creativity.
   • Moral Order and Providence:
     • Despite the pagan elements, the underlying moral order in Middle-earth reflects a Christian understanding of good and evil orchestrated under divine providence.

2. Redemption and Sacrifice:

   • Christ-like Figures:
     • Characters like Gandalf, Frodo, and Aragorn embody aspects of Christ's journey—sacrifice, resurrection, and kingship.
     • Gandalf's fall and return as Gandalf the White mirrors resurrection.
   • Self-Sacrifice:
     • The willingness of characters to sacrifice themselves for others aligns with Christian virtues.

3. The Fall and Corruption:

   • The Corrupting Influence of Power:
     • The One Ring resonates with the idea of sin and the corrupting nature of power, reflecting the Christian concept of original sin and temptation.
   • The Fall of Races:
     • The decline of Elves and Men echoes the Fall of Man, a central theme in Christian theology.

4. Hope and Eschatology:

   • The Triumph of Good Over Evil:
     • The ultimate defeat of Sauron reflects the eschatological hope in Christianity that good will prevail.
   • The Undying Lands:
     • The Elves' journey to the West can be seen as a metaphor for the soul's journey to the afterlife.

5. Integration of Pagan Elements into a Christian Framework:

   • Universality of Truth:
     • Tolkien believed that pagan myths contain fragments of the true light, which Christianity fulfills.
   • Christianity as the True Myth:
     • Concept of the True Myth:
       • Tolkien viewed Christianity as the "True Myth"—a myth that is also a historical fact. This concept suggests that the story of Christ is the fulfillment of the truths and archetypes expressed imperfectly in pagan myths.
     • Discussion with C.S. Lewis:
       • Tolkien played a pivotal role in C.S. Lewis's conversion to Christianity. In their famous conversation, Tolkien explained that myths are not lies but convey profound truths.
       • He argued that the pagan stories of dying and resurrecting gods are echoes of the ultimate truth realized in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

---

Tolkien's Theological Perspective

1. Free Will and Moral Choice:

   • Emphasis on Choice:
     • Characters are defined by their choices, highlighting the Christian belief in free will and moral responsibility.
   • Resisting Temptation:
     • The struggle against temptation, as seen with Frodo and the Ring, underscores the spiritual battles described in Christian theology.

2. Suffering and Providence:

   • Purpose in Suffering:
     • Suffering leads to growth and fulfills a greater purpose, aligning with the Christian understanding of redemptive suffering.
   • Hidden Providence:
     • The unseen guidance of a higher power reflects the Christian belief in God's providential care.

3. Community and Fellowship:

   • Importance of Fellowship:
     • The unity and cooperation among diverse races symbolize the Christian ideal of community and the Body of Christ.
   • Hospitality and Generosity:
     • Acts of kindness and hospitality are recurrent, echoing Christian virtues.

---

Conclusion

J.R.R. Tolkien masterfully weaves pagan motifs and elements into his works to create a rich and immersive mythological world. While deeply rooted in various pagan traditions, his narratives are imbued with Christian symbolism and themes, reflecting his faith. Tolkien does not reject the pagan myths but reinterprets them, integrating their universal truths into a Christian framework.

Through this synthesis, Tolkien explores profound themes of creation, fall, redemption, hope, and the sanctity of nature. His works emphasize the intrinsic value of the natural world, advocating for a harmonious relationship between humanity and the environment. This respect for nature aligns with both pagan reverence for the natural world and Christian stewardship of creation.

Central to his integration of pagan elements is the concept of Christianity as the "True Myth." Tolkien believed that while pagan myths express fundamental truths about the human condition and the divine, these truths find their fullest and most concrete expression in Christianity.

His stories invite readers to ponder the complexities of good and evil, the significance of free will, and the possibility of redemption. By harmoniously blending pagan elements with his Christian worldview, Tolkien's narratives resonate with a timeless appeal, offering both an epic adventure and a reflection on the spiritual truths that transcend culture and time.

---

References to Key Works:

• "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings": Exploration of heroism, sacrifice, the battle between good and evil, and the deep connection to nature.
• "The Silmarillion": Detailed mythology of Middle-earth, including creation myths and the history of its peoples.
• Letters and Essays: Tolkien's correspondence and writings provide insight into his intentions and the theological underpinnings of his work, including his concept of Christianity as the True Myth.

By delving into the rich tapestry of Middle-earth, readers encounter a world where pagan and Christian elements coalesce, offering a profound reflection on the human condition and the divine narrative that Tolkien believed encompasses all of history. His emphasis on respect for nature and the idea of Christianity as the True Myth serves as a reminder of the interconnectedness of all creation and the ultimate fulfillment of human longing in the Christian story.

Published on the feast of St. John of Capistrano

Christianity and Self-Love

I would like to respond to a concern that some people have regarding the Christian worldview.  Let me first try to articulate the concern:

Christianity is harmful to a healthy, positive self-image and self-esteem.  It tells us that God is everything and that we are nothing.  We are mere worms in comparison to God.  It tells us that we are all fallen sinners, that God is angry with us and always judging us, that we are so bad we deserve to go to hell for all eternity.  It tells us we are never good enough, that we can never be enough ourselves.  This attitude leads to an unhealthy, negative self-image that harms mental health and keeps people from seeing their true value.  It leads them to despair and depression.  It leads them to see themselves as ugly, as deserving of all the bad things that happen to them.  This hinders people from having the self-love that gives them what they need to be the best they can be.  It causes them to be endlessly introspective and self-doubting, and to feel endlessly and hopelessly defeated.  People with this attitude will be miserable with self-loathing, fearful, and inclined to accept abusive situations, believing they deserve what they get.  What we need instead is to be told that we are enough, that we do have what it takes, that we are doing great, that we are beautiful and valuable and worthy, that we don't have to put up with bad situations in our life because we deserve better.  We need to love ourselves and relax, feeling confident, freed from our neuroses of self-doubt, so we can live our life to the fullest and make the world a better place.

Going along with this, Christianity teaches people to be ashamed of central aspects of their humanity.  It encourages a sense of shame with regard to the body and human sexuality, for example.  It encourages people to see their physicality and their sexuality as shameful, harmful things that must be guarded against, that make them bad people.  Instead, we need to encourage body-positivity and sex-positivity.  We need people to feel, not shame, but pride for their bodies and for their feelings and their nature as human beings.

I want to respond to this concern with a two-pronged response.  I want to acknowledge, first of all, that there is a good deal of legitimacy and validity in the concern.  There is a true need to emphasize a positive attitude towards the self and towards human nature.  And it is true that Christianity has often been presented in a way that harms this positivity and encourages self-loathing, a constant sense of shame, and neurotic attitudes towards self, body, sexuality, etc.  But then I want to go on to claim that Christianity, rightly understood, actually promotes a very positive view of the self, and yet it also teaches that these truths about "positivity" need to be balanced with other truths about humanity and the human condition that rightly encourage within us a proper humility, a recognition of our creaturely finitude, our need for grace, etc.  Christianity, taught in a balanced and full-orbed way, captures both of these sides of the human condition in a way that tells us the full truth about ourselves and gives us the tools we need to understand who we are so we can live most effectively.

Humility and Affirmation

In the Christian view of human nature, both the "positivity" and the "humility" strands run through everything.

There is one God, one Supreme Being, who is the fullness and source of all reality.  God is the Creator of the finite universe.  There is a fundamental dichotomy at the heart of reality - there is the Creator, and there are creatures.  We human beings are creatures.  God is infinite being - unbounded, all-encompassing.  He is infinitely superior in being to all creatures.  Creatures are nothing in comparison to him.  A good way to get at this is to look at the difference between the divine and the creaturely point of view.  God's point of view is all-encompassing.  He sees all in one view.  His conscious experience includes reality as a whole.  Because of this, his consciousness transcends space and time.  On the other hand, as finite beings, our view and experience constitute a mere infinitesimal point in a universe that extends out from us with potential infinity in all directions of space and time.  We see/experience only from one limited vantage point among an infinite number of other possible vantage points.  We are bound within space and time.  God's consciousness and experience constitute the true, ultimate reality, while ours is nothing but an infinitesimal sliver of reality - and our sliver is derived from his fullness.  God is thus the center of reality, and we are infinitely far from it.

Tbis is a realization, of course, that leads to deep humility.  What Christianity teaches here has been recognized by many human philosophies and religions to varying degrees.  One great example is Buddhism.  The enlightenment of the Buddha came precisely when he recognized that it is an illusion to think of this world, or even of our own selves, as if they are a true, ultimate, substantial reality.  Buddhism goes so far as to view the world as an illusion.  "There is no self" is one of the key ideas of Buddhist philosophy.  As a Christian, I recognize that Buddhism is perceiving the very same thing that I perceive - the utter distance between ultimate, substantial reality and this comparative nothingness we tend to think of as reality.  (Christianity does not tend to refer to the world as an illusion, because, despite its finitude, it does exist in its own sphere - something I think Buddhism would not deny, though they would put it in other terms - but we agree with the truth that this language is pointing to - that, compared to Ultimate Reality, this world is nothing, and to treat it as ultimately substantial is to seek fullness in nothingness and therefore to be utterly miserable.)  Hinduism is another religion that recognizes these realities, as do all religions and philosophies, at least to a degree, that hold to a supreme state of reality beyond this one.

It is here that I would bring into the picture the Christian view of humanity as "fallen".  According to the Christian worldview, our first parents, who were created in a right relationship with God, turned away from that relationship in an effort to declare independence.  They wanted to be their own ultimate principle instead of trusting in God to fill that role.  But God is the fullness and source of all being, goodness, life, power, wisdom, knowledge, and happiness.  To declare independence from God, then, is to plunge oneself into a condition of emptiness, evil, death, weakness, foolishness, ignorance, and misery.  This is what our first parents brought upon themselves, and this condition has been passed on to the whole human race.  We are not blamed for what our first parents did, but we inherit the consequences - cut off from the life of God and experiencing the condition of alienation from him.  This is what Christians mean by speaking of humanity as being in a "fallen" state.  But we should not think that there is any injustice done to us in this situation.  We would have done the same thing had we been in the situation of our first parents, for we, like them, have nothing in our nature that, without God's special gift to us of his own divine life, would keep us from falling away from God.  We fall together as a human race because we all share the same fundamental nature and condition.  The final conclusion of the narrative begun by the Fall is the condition Christians call "hell".  Hell is nothing other than complete alienation from God and all that that entails.  That is the destiny of all of us, and justly and naturally so, unless God chooses to give to us something we cannot deserve - the gift of his divine life.  And that is the gospel - that God has come into the world in Jesus Christ and united himself to our fallen human nature, absorbing our weaknesses, sins, death, and misery, so that he can share with us the power, goodness, and ultimate blessedness and happiness of his divine life.  From him, and not from ourselves, we receive all that we need.

According to Christianity, this is who we really are.  We may react positively or negatively to this account of things.  But I think the first question should not be whether we find this view of things attractive or repulsive, but whether or not it is actually true.  Reality is reality whether we like it or not, and we have a duty to accept it as such.  That is yet another thing true humility teaches us.  Now, I believe that the Christian worldview is ultimately one of supreme beauty once we see it fully for what it is; but if we are used to thinking more highly of ourselves than we ought, it can seem very bitter at first.  It is like the sabra fruit of Israel - prickly and off-putting on the outside, sweet and delightful on the inside.

Now, having addressed the humility required of us as creatures, let's address the other side of the equation - the side of "positivity."

We are creatures of God.  All that we are is derived from God.  And God is the fullness of all that is good, beautiful, and valuable.  Therefore we, too, in our intrinsic nature, are good, beautiful, and valuable, and we should see ourselves as such.  Yes, unlike God, our being comes to us from without.  We cannot be enough on our own.  But we are not on our own.  We are never on our own.  To the extent that we exist, we are like God.  We reflect the divine beauty.  Love of God entails love of creatures and love of ourselves - for our existence is a participation in God's.  In a sense, I can say that I am nothing and God is everything, and this is a central and crucial truth.  And yet, at the same time, I can say that because God is everything, I am something too, and that is also a central and crucial truth.

Yes, I am nothing without God.  But God has created me, and so I am not nothing.  Yes, without God's grace in Christ, I am a sinner bound for hell.  But I am not without God's grace in Christ.  He has come into the world to give grace to us all.  "Grace" is nothing other than the gift of the divine life.  So what we are given through the redemption of Christ is the gift of sharing truly in the beauty and glory of that life.  This is true even in this current life we live, and it will be infinitely more true when we grow up into the fullness of our redemption and come to partake fully in the glory of God.  This is our destiny.  No, it is not something we have of ourselves apart from God.  But we are not apart from God.  In God, we are legitimate heirs of infinite glory and beauty.  This, also, is who we truly are, and we should see ourselves accordingly.  (We do have free will.  If we choose to reject the divine life offered to us, we are still valued and loved beings participating in God's life, but we will have cut ourselves off from the eternal fruition of this reality and sentenced ourselves to lose it all in the end.  But if we receive what God offers us, we will grow up fully into the glorious identity God has planned for us.)  In the words of C.S. Lewis:

It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which,if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations - these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit - immortal horrors or everlasting splendors. This does not mean that we are to be perpetually solemn. We must play. But our merriment must be of that kind (and it is, in fact, the merriest kind) which exists between people who have, from the outset, taken each other seriously - no flippancy, no superiority, no presumption. And our charity must be a real and costly love, with deep feeling for the sins in spite of which we love the sinner - no mere tolerance or indulgence which parodies love as flippancy parodies merriment. Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbor is the holiest object presented to your senses (C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory [HarperOne, 2001], 45-46).

We must recognize that we are creatures and not God - but having recognized that, we should value ourselves as icons of the divine.  We should have great and humble self-love, positivity, and self-esteem.  If we recognize who we really are, we should know that we are enough, by the gift and grace of God.  And we should bask and delight in our beauty and value and in the beauty and value of all our fellow creatures.

A More Balanced Christian View

OK, so having laid this foundation, let's tie up some loose ends.  There are better and worse ways of living out Christianity, just as there are better and worse ways of living out any religion or philosophy.  And Christians haven't always lived and taught in ways that have encouraged the best that Christianity can be.  Let's address some of these areas.

Shame - We should not have an attitude towards ourselves centrally characterized by shame.  Yet there are things it is proper to be ashamed of.  When we fail to live in love towards God, our neighbors, or ourselves, that is something we should not view positively.  And yet these failures don't characterize us.  We are not perfect, but if, by God's grace, we are choosing to be the best versions of ourselves that we can be, even if there are areas where we are not that great at it yet, then our lives are characterized fundamentally not by shame but by beauty.  If we are trying to be good people in this world, that is something we should be proud of!  Sure, it is a gift of grace.  We could not do it on our own.  But that doesn't make it any less ours.  Christianity, rightly applied, encourages a kind of paradoxical "humble pride."  We do not see ourselves as superior to everyone else or as existing independently.  And yet, recognizing our limits and our dependence on God and others, we see the beauty of what God is making out of our lives and we are proud to be that sort of person!  Catholic theology has always emphasized (against those who would advocate an overly pessimistic view of human nature and goodness) that while our merits are pure grace, yet they are, at the same time, our merits.  With God's help, we are not shameful but beautiful beings.  Our sins, failures, mistakes, and weaknesses are things we struggle with, but they do not fundamentally define us.  It is true that Christians have sometimes failed to keep this balance.  But Christianity, properly defined, teaches us to do so.

Scrupulosity - It is true that many Christians live a life full of what Catholics call "scrupulosity" - a neurotic, obsessive focus on fearing to do the wrong thing, feeling guilty, feeling ashamed, wondering if we are in a right relationship with God or if God is angry with us, feeling useless, ugly, and defeated.  There is a sense in which Christianity, as such, can even be "blamed" for this tendency.  Christianity teaches us to take goodness very seriously, and whenever we take something seriously some of us are going to be prone to excessive introspection, obsessive doubt, a sense of shame and despair for failures, etc.  I would say that this is one of many examples of a case where a true and good thing naturally brings along with it unique, specific dangers.  (For another example, notice that conflicts and wars happen because people care about things.  A society full of completely apathetic people who value nothing would never fight, but would that be a good thing?  It is better to care and therefore to have to take extra precaution to control our immoderate tendency towards conflict.)  But Christianity does not truly recommend this excessive scrupulosity.  In fact, the Catholic tradition warns us away from it, giving it a label ("scrupulosity") and addressing it explicitly as a problem for our spiritual lives.  God is not following us around, looking for minor infractions so that he can zap us!  Remember, as God's creatures, we bear his image and divine beauty.  He loves and delights in us.  He wants to give us good gifts and make us happy, and to help us in every way.  He is looking out for our good.  As I said earlier, we do have free will, and we can fundamentally reject him and turn away from him and persist in this to the end of our lives.  But if we do so, we have to do it "against the wind," as it were, of all of God's pleadings, warnings, encouragements, helps, graces, and opportunities to turn around.  And if we do choose, fundamentally, to pursue the path of goodness, that is what matters in the end.  Sure, we are not perfect, but our imperfections do not characterize us.  God does not look on us with shame and disgust, but with love and delight.  If we don't do something perfectly, if we mess something up - well, we recognize the fact, acknowledge it, ask for forgiveness if necessary, try to fix our mistakes, and move on.  We do not, we should not, continue to dwell on our mistakes.  This is something many Catholics find delightful about the Sacrament of Confession.  If you've committed a sin, you don't go into despair and fear.  You go to Confession, admit your mistake, receive forgiveness, and leave it behind.  All God asks of us is that we pursue goodness.  Sure, that takes effort and diligence.  But obsessiveness does not further our goal but rather hinders it, for it stops us from seeing clearly and objectively.  Rather, we should approach our pursuit of goodness and efforts towards personal growth and improvement with common sense.  Don't be lazy and apathetic about doing the right thing, but don't be neurotic and obsessive either.  (And, of course, if you struggle with neurosis, or scrupulosity, or any other such thing, don't obsess about that either!  It's not something to feel shame over.  These things are a part of our human condition in this life.  We do the best we can in our own particular circumstances.  None of us, in this life, have arrived at our destination.  We're on the journey, struggling with our own peculiar trials and difficulties.  There's nothing wrong with that - it's the way it should be.  We should give ourselves a break, and make sure to give each other a break as well!)

I addressed the problem of scrupulosity in an earlier article, and I'd like to copy here some of what I said there:

As Aristotle famously pointed out, a lot of times error and vice are found in the extremes, and virtue is found in the mean between the extremes.  One set of extremes that is often a pitfall for those seeking to live a holy life involves, one the one hand, laziness and carelessness with regard to sin and bad habits, and, on the other hand, an excessive fear, obsession, or even paranoia about these things.  Those inclined towards the former extreme need to be reminded that sin is a serious matter.  The fundamental nature of sin is opposition to God and the moral law, and this attitude is the essence of all wickedness and the fount of all misery (because God is the Supreme Good).  We need to take God with the utmost seriousness, and therefore sin needs to be our mortal enemy.  This is why the Bible is always telling us to "fear" God--that is, to have a proper recognition of the gravity of who God is and to fear being against him as the greatest of all calamities.  To be righteous is to love God above all things, so our ultimate goal in life should be to please him and enjoy him perfectly and eliminate all sin and all tendencies to wickedness in our life.  The more virtuous a person becomes, the less such a person will come to tolerate even venial sin, for the clearer our vision is of the greatness and beauty of God, the more repulsive all sin will seem to us.  This should be the chief aim of our entire life.

But the other extreme--obsessive fear and obsession about sin--can also be a serious problem, especially for those particularly inclined towards it.  Such people need to be reminded that what really matters is the fundamental choice of our life--are we choosing God as our chief good, or are we ejecting him out of that place in order to put something else there?  Is God the one we choose above all else?  This is not a matter of feelings or the strength of feelings, but of the will.  What do we choose to put supreme value on?  If we choose to follow God as our chief goal, and we orient our lives towards seeking him as our greatest value and ultimate end, then we can be sure that we are in a right relationship with him, a state of grace, and everything will come out fundamentally right in the end.  The only thing that can put us out of the reach of God's salvation is mortal sin--and mortal sin doesn't mean all sin; it doesn't even mean all serious sin (objectively speaking).  Mortal sin involves a deliberate, fully-informed, fully-aware, intentional choice to adopt an attitude or pursue a course of action which involves rejecting God as our supreme value and end in life, choosing instead to break from him fundamentally and go our own way.  Mortal sin is defined by being incompatible with "charity"--that is, with supreme love to God as the choice of our will.  Mortal sin is not the ways in which we regularly slip up and act inconsistently with our chief goal, the bad habits we have that tend to draw us into foolish and sinful actions, the difficulties we face in developing virtuous habits, how many times we tend to slide back into sinful tendencies, etc.  These are all natural and ordinary parts of life in a state of grace as we pursue holiness in this fallen world.  When we understand this, it will help us to relax a bit, to let go of obsessive fear.  We will remember that "there is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear: because fear has torment. He that fears is not made perfect in love" (1 John 4:18).  To "fear" God in the biblical sense is not to be obsessively afraid of him, but to recognize his supreme value and importance and therefore to take holiness with the utmost seriousness.  If we love God, and trust God, we need not live in obsessive fear, but can rest confidently in the help of his grace as we grow in holiness.  If we fall into sin from time to time, well, that is to be expected of fallen creatures struggling to be holy.  The Council of Trent actually condemns as false doctrine the idea that people can avoid all sins throughout their entire life.  "If any one saith . . . that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,-except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema" (Sixth Session, Canon 23).  When we sin, we don't need to dwell on it.  We can learn what we need to learn from it, get back up, repent, go to confession if appropriate, and then move on--like a gymnast who doesn't fall into despair every time she falls onto the mat, but just keeps getting back up and resuming her practice.  (In fact, overly obsessing about sin often has the effect of making it worse rather than better.  There's hardly a better way to ensure that something will have a strong presence in one's mind than to continually be worrying about how strong a presence it has.)

Another practical tip to make our path to holiness smoother is to recognize the difference between concupiscence and sin.  Concupiscence is the Catholic theological term for our fallen, disordered desires that have a tendency to lead us into sin.  But concupiscence, while it tends towards sin, is not itself personal sin.  Acts of sin involve the consent of the will.  Insofar as our desires happen to us without such consent, they are not sin.  So stop feeling guilty for having such desires.  You can't just banish them away with some strong act of the will.  We will all struggle against concupiscence throughout our entire lives, for that struggle is the pathway to holiness.  Holiness isn't only about avoiding sinful acts of will; it is also about developing virtuous habits and unlearning vicious (that is, un-virtuous) ones.  We are trying to learn not only to avoid individual sinful acts of will in particular cases, but also to develop habits such that we will become more and more naturally inclined towards virtuous attitudes and actions in general and away from vicious or sinful ones.  So even when you are avoiding particular acts of sin, you will still have plenty to work on in terms of building habits of virtue.  Don't be paranoid about that, but just go forward, like the gymnast I mentioned in the previous paragraph.  Keep practicing.  Don't worry if you mess up, or you haven't got a particular skill down yet very well.  Just keep going forward.  You'll keep getting better (but don't get paranoid about your rate of progress!).  You won't get fully where you want to be until after this life, though, so don't be impatient.  Be diligent, but also be tolerant of yourself and where you are.

Just briefly, before moving on, I want to mention for the sake of non-Christian readers that, in the Catholic view, being in a right relationship with God is not a matter of passing a theology exam.  It is about the fundamental orientation of our will towards the Supreme Good.  A person can have proper theology but be, in spirit, very far from God and even against him, while another person might have very bad (from the Catholic point of view) theology and yet, in spirit, in terms of the orientation of the will, that person might be very close to God and in a right relationship with him.  This is not to say that correct doctrine is not important.  It is just to say that there is a complex interplay in our lives between the intellectual, volitional, emotional, and spiritual components of our souls.  God is the Supreme Good, but the Catholic Church recognizes (see, for example, Lumen Gentium #16) that people are in different places in terms of how well (from a Catholic point of view) they consciously realize or can articulate this reality.  It is the orientation of the will towards the Good, as that is understood with greater or lesser clarity, that is of central importance in terms of a person's moral character.

The Body and Sex

Now let's look a bit at the Christian view of the body and sex.

Body Positivity - Remember, we are creatures of God.  Our bodies come from God as well.  Therefore they are intrinsically good.  They are to be celebrated and delighted in!  We should not be ashamed of our bodies.  We can recognize their weaknesses and oddities in an affectionate way (we remember St. Francis, who called his body "Brother Ass"), but we should acknowledge the body's intrinsic goodness and beauty.  And that means all bodies.  Our culture tends to put forward such unrealistic standards of beauty, and so many people are ashamed of their bodies because they don't match up with these standards.  But it's all fake.  Real human bodies come in lots of shapes and sizes.  They all have their unique beauty.  Just as each of us should celebrate the uniqueness of our individual personalities (quirkiness and all!), so each of us should celebrate the uniqueness of our individual bodies.

In some circles, body positivity is expressed in an openness to public nudity.  The Christian virtue of modesty is sometimes characterized as a kind of shameful embarrassment we are supposed to feel towards our bodies, and that is why we are supposed to keep them covered up.  And it must be said that, particularly in some circles, Christians have sometimes twisted modesty into this kind of attitude of shame.  But this is not what Christianity, properly understood, truly points us to.  Modesty is about recognizing and valuing the dignity of a human person as a human person.  The body is not to be treated as an object for another's use or personal pleasure, detached from respect for the entire person.  Before the Fall, humanity is portrayed in Scripture as naked.  This is because, in that unfallen condition, when the grace of God was still ruling human attitudes and behavior, the human body could be expressed in all its beauty without being reduced to an impersonal object (objectified).  After the Fall, the parts of the body most prone to abuse and objectification should ordinarily be covered as an expression of respect for the dignity of the body and for the safeguarding of that dignity - just as a person's private thoughts should ordinarily not be expressed entirely without any guard, as that also tends to lead to abuse and objectification.  The body is so worthy of value and respect that it should not be promiscuously exposed without guard in a fallen world.  That is the moral reason for clothing - not because the body is shameful, but actually quite the opposite!  There are particular circumstances, however, where nudity can be appropriate - when there is a situation established where the body can be seen with a proper understanding of its dignity as part of a person who deserves our respect as a person.  In marriage, for example, assuming the marriage relationship is healthy, there is a mutual giving and sharing of selves in a uniquely deep and profound way, and that involves the sharing of bodies.  That sharing is recognized as the gift of something of great dignity and value and is received in that attitude, and the body is not divorced from the person and made an object for another person's personal use or pleasure.  There is a special relationship of trust established there.  Another context would be the arts, when they are governed by proper values - where the body is appreciated in an artistic fashion and there is a recognition of its dignity and value and its context as part of a whole person, where objectification is absent by agreed consent and understanding.  In the Catholic view, then, nudity is normally avoided but occasionally allowed, not because the body is shameful, but precisely because it is recognized as something that deserves special protection and respect.

Sex Positivity - Some people believe that the Christian view of sex is that it is a bad thing, or at least a shameful and negative thing, and that is why there are so many sexual taboos in Christian teaching.  But, as with the body, the truth is very different.  However, it is true that many Christians have indeed twisted Christian teaching into this kind of overly-negative attitude, and that has done a lot of harm.  As with the body, sex is part of God's creation from the beginning and is essentially good.  In the Catholic view, sex was created by God for the enjoyment and bonding of spouses and for the procreation of children.

Everything I said above about scrupulosity applies here in particular.  It is true that Christians, at some times and places in history, have tended to promote or model a kind of morbid, overly introspective and obsessive, and fearful attitude towards sex.  Sex is a powerful thing.  It is easy for human beings to become enslaved to sexual desires or to fall into immoderate and overly-indulgent sexual habits.  Aware of this, Christians have often approached sex with great wariness, warning of the dangers that accompany sex.  As I said above, when people take something very seriously or are acutely aware of its dangers, an inevitable side effect is that some, at least, will tend to fall into an overly scrupulous attitude.  Such an imbalanced attitude has definitely been a real issue at various times and places in Christian history.  And yet the Church has never fundamentally lost sight of the essential goodness of sex.  She even recognizes marriage (with its ordinarily essential component of sexuality) as one of the seven sacraments - a high status that is pretty hard to beat!  A well-adjusted Christian moral approach, true to a balanced appreciation of the whole of the Christian worldview, opposes scrupulosity in sexual matters as much as it does in any other matter.  As in all things, so in sex:  We must guard against the extreme of over-indulgence and moral laziness on the one hand, and the extreme of obsessive fear and "puritanism" (in the worst sense, unfair to historic Puritans by the way!) on the other.

For example, I mentioned above that Catholic moral teaching cautions against a promiscuous public nudity that does not adequately guard the precious gift of the human body.  OK, there is a value here that needs to be protected, from the Catholic view.  We do well to challenge forms of "naturism" that would make public nudity a near-universal and unguarded norm.  However, we do not need to go to the other extreme of being obsessive or fearful about nudity.  Obsessive fear of something is not only an imbalanced attitude in itself, but it actually tends to strengthen the very thing it is fearful of!  There's hardly a better way to ensure that something will have a strong presence in one's mind than to continually be worrying about how strong a presence it has.  We need to avoid a kind of over-mystification of the nude human body that is a result of an obsessive attitude towards nudity and sex.  There is a kind of "taboo" mentality we can fall into.  We need to remember that, in a sense, nudity is really not a big deal!  What I mean is that we all know what the human body looks like.  Why, then, put so much mystique into seeing it like it's some astonishing or fearful thing?  Why do we need to be so obsessively fearful of being naked?  Why do we need to feel like we've been polluted or damaged somehow if we should see nudity?  Making such a big deal out of nudity actually tends to inflame immoderate desire  We all know that there is hardly anything more appealing to our human nature than something that has been forbidden to us and that has been placed in the special category of "taboo" and "off limits."  Pandora just had to open her box.  If we are going to follow Christian moral teaching more holistically, we need a more balanced attitude.  The human body is not some mysterious and forbidden object.  Experiencing nudity is not, in itself, a big deal.  Modesty in clothing is not the upholding of a "taboo" but merely a practice that is born of an attempt to protect something that is of great dignity and value that we don't want to be treated less respectfully than it deserves to be treated.  The naturist movement and the body-positivity movement have done a great service in challenging the "taboo" approach to nudity and encouraging a more healthy and less neurotic acceptance of our physical nature.

We can say the same thing about sex.  It should not be approached as if we are in the realm of some mysterious and forbidden taboo subject.  It should be approached with openness and realism and accepted as a normal part of human life.  It does have to be protected, because it exists for a particular purpose and belongs in a particular context and should not be taken out of that context.  In the Catholic view, sex is for spousal enjoyment and bonding and for procreation.  If it's used outside of that context, it's misused (though see here for some further nuances).  So we need to preserve the ethical use of sex, but there is no need for this to lead us to an obsessive attitude towards it.  Again, the more "sexually liberal" components of our modern society deserve our gratitude for challenging the unhealthy neuroticism about sex that, unfortunately, has been common in a lot of "conservative" and Christian circles in recent times.

Another concern/objection some people will have which I should deal with while we're on the subject is that there is an inherent problem with the actual Catholic teaching with regard to sex, even interpreted in the best and most balanced way possible, because it still forbids sex outside of the marriage of a man and a woman.  The concern is that this is contrary to basic human nature which is "designed" to allow sex to happen in a broader context.  Since the Christian position is out of accord with human nature, it naturally leads to frustration, guilt, despair, and mental health issues.  This is a big topic, and I can't do it justice in this brief context.  I will say two things, though, for now:

1. The first question we have to ask when we come across any idea, whether we like it or not, is Is this idea really true or not?  Just because something is very hard for us, contrary to our deep desires, and leads to all sorts of practical problems, that doesn't in itself necessarily prove that it is not real.  Reality has no obligation to make things easy for us, and, as we all know, it all too often cashes in on that lack of obligation.  In the Christian view, we live in a fallen world and are in a fallen state.  Instead of being the harmonious and peaceful world God made in the beginning, the world is now chaotic and divided.  Everything is at odds with everything else.  Unfortunately, it is often the case that ethics is in conflict with the tendencies of human nature.  That's why ethics is notoriously hard.  We are all often called to do very difficult and painful things.  Some of us are called to extreme forms of this - like being ethically bound to stand up for justice even to the point of enduring the physical or psychological torture of persecutors.  Some are called to be martyrs.  In this fallen state of the world, our desires are often at odds (and deeply and seriously so) with the values we should seek and how we should live.  This is a very unfortunate state of affairs, but does that prove it is not the actual state of affairs?  Personally, I find the evidence for the truth of Catholic Christianity compelling, and that gives me a reason to embrace Catholic moral teaching.  As much as I empathize with those who feel the weight of difficulty Catholic moral teaching can bring sometimes - and as much as I myself often feel that burden personally in various ways - I do not find in this a convincing argument against the truth of the Catholic worldview.  So I must follow where I think the evidence leads, as we all must.

2. Sometimes, we simply can't do it.  There are those who break down - physically, mentally, emotionally - under the weight of what happens to them in life, whether that comes to them unavoidably or through their own choice to do the right thing.  This is not a failure; it is simply a reality.  We are only expected to do the best we can.  But, oftentimes, we find that we are more resilient than we previously thought.  People can find ways to survive and even thrive under seriously adverse circumstances and while pursuing extremely difficult and painful courses of action.  Perhaps sometimes we paint certain conditions as impossible when they are not always so.  Once we accept reality and decide to learn how to live within it, sometimes - sometimes - we find that things are brighter than we thought they could be.  Sometimes there are compensations for our pain that we didn't anticipate.  This also is something important to bear in mind.

As I mentioned earlier, Christianity can sometimes be like the sabra fruit.  It can be very, very prickly on the outside, but it is full of great sweetness on the inside.  Following Christian morality can be very hard.  But it also brings with it much reward in this life.  And, at the end of our lives, when we finish the race, Christianity tells us that we shall reap a fruit that is beautiful, glorious, and satisfying beyond our wildest ability to imagine.  If we follow the Good, we will reap it in full in the end.  We will find God, the fullness and source of all Being and all Good, and in him all creaturely goods fulfilled and summed up and embraced.  Once again, I find myself wanting to quote C.S. Lewis:

Give up your self, and you will find your real self. Lose your life and you will save it. Submit to death, death of your ambitions and favourite wishes every day and death of your whole body in the end: submit with every fibre of your being, and you will find eternal life. Keep back nothing. Nothing that you have not given away will ever be really yours. Nothing in you that has not died will ever be raised from the dead. Look for yourself, and you will find in the long run only hatred, loneliness, despair, rage, ruin, and decay. But look for Christ and you will find Him, and with Him everything else thrown in (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity [New York: Touchstone, 1996], 190-191).

There is that fundamental paradox again.  Because of who we are and who God is, the only way to truly find and affirm ourselves is to give up our lives conceived of as our own apart from God, to give ourselves wholly to God, and to find ourselves restored and grounded in him.  But at any rate, this topic moves us into fundamental questions about the nature of reality and therefore goes beyond the scope of what can be done in this article.  However, whether we agree with Christian sexual morality or not - understood in its best form - we can at least distinguish it from the obsessive, scrupulous, fearful attitude that has often been associated with it but which is actually contrary to its best practice.

For more on the topics of sex and the human body, I will refer you to Pope St. John Paul II's famous Theology of the Body, which sums up modern Catholic moral teaching in these areas to a great degree.  You can read a (very) long summary of John Paul's teaching here (it's summarizing a very long collection of lectures given over a series of five years by the Pope).  Despairing of finding a reasonably short summary of the teaching, I once again took up exploring the potentialities of AI (ChatGPT) and asked it to summarize the Pope's teaching overall and in a few specific areas.  I think it did a pretty good job, though it didn't capture every aspect or every nuance.  You can read those (much shorter) summaries here.  And here is an article I wrote up on this subject a couple of years ago.  You can also read more from the Catechism of the Catholic Church on this topic here.

Conclusion

In conclusion, then, Christian morality, rightly understood and in its best form, promotes a nuanced view of the self and of human nature.  It critiques both those who would idolize the self and those who would denigrate it.  It challenges those who believe we are good enough by ourselves without God's grace and also those who would say we are not good enough even with God's grace.  It warns us against licentiousness and moral laziness, but also cautions us against excessive scrupulosity.  It promotes a positive and celebratory view of the human body and sex but also reminds us to be wary of how both of these can be abused without proper protections and safeguards.

Some Thoughts on the Idea of "Magic" and Other Pagan Practices

My recent interactions with the community down at Oak Spirit Sanctuary have prompted in me some reflections on some pagan ideas and practices that have historically been seen as problematic in Christian circles.  Two areas I particularly have in mind are 1. the practice of magic, magical rituals, spells, incantations, calling on spirits, etc., and 2. the worship of pagan deities.  As I reflect on these ideas and gain further experience regarding how they are understood and practiced in Neo-Pagan communities, I have come to have a clearer awareness of the need for nuance in reflecting on these things.  There are aspects and interpretations of these ideas and practices that are antithetical to a Catholic Christian worldview, but there are others that are not only compatible with Catholicism but could also aid as a source of positive inspiration for spirituality that may be overlooked because of fear of the more negative.

This article is not intended to be a complete overview of the Neo-Pagan culture and worldview.  It is a brief analysis of a few specific areas of pagan thought and life (at least as I have come to understand them) in reference to historic Christian concerns, looking at them from a Catholic point of view and trying to understand them better in the context of Catholic categories of thought.  If you want a more holistic introduction to pagan thought and life from a pagan point of view, you might take a look at this article and these two videos here and here.

As with my previous article dealing with paganism, I am very conscious that I may have both pagan and Christian readers, and I recognize the trickiness of trying to articulate these kinds of ideas in view of these two very different audiences.

I want to acknowledge the help of my friend Fae Leach, who has read various drafts of this article and has provided very helpful feedback (though I alone am responsible for the views expressed here).  Thank you!

I think it is important to be careful, accurate, and nuanced in our understanding of pagan ideas and practices for three main reasons:  1. Truth is important.  We must not bear false witness about reality, and oversimplifying aspects of reality to the point that our understanding or articulation of them is misleading is a form of this.  2. If we oversimplify, and in particular if we let fear of negatives blind us to positives, we miss opportunities to connect with things that can benefit our spiritual lives.  3. Charity (love of neighbor) requires us to be accurate in our understandings and descriptions of what other people believe and do.  I think this is particularly important to emphasize when we are talking about Christians understanding paganism.  My impression is that the Neo-Pagan world is a world that is very poorly understood in Christian communities (and even in large parts of the broader culture).  I think the idea most Christians have of what "paganism" is is very superficial, shallow, and fear-based.  It is understandable that a lot of Christians don't know much about Neo-Paganism, as many have had very little interaction with that world; but, if we are ignorant, we must recognize our ignorance and avoid oversimplifying and over-negativizing Neo-Pagan beliefs and practices.  We must be diligent to treat all our fellow human beings with the respect and empathy that they deserve, and, in part, that means making a real effort to empathetically understand the complexities of what they believe and practice - just as we would hope they would do for us in return.

The Idea of "Magick"

Let's start with the idea of "magic" and related ideas and practices.  And let me begin by quoting from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which has a short section devoted to warning Catholics away from what it considers to be false and dangerous ideas and practices.  This is paragraph #2115-2117:

2115 God can reveal the future to his prophets or to other saints. Still, a sound Christian attitude consists in putting oneself confidently into the hands of Providence for whatever concerns the future, and giving up all unhealthy curiosity about it. Improvidence, however, can constitute a lack of responsibility.

2116 All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to "unveil" the future.⁴⁸ Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone.

2117 All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one's service and have a supernatural power over others - even if this were for the sake of restoring their health - are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion. These practices are even more to be condemned when accompanied by the intention of harming someone, or when they have recourse to the intervention of demons. Wearing charms is also reprehensible. Spiritism often implies divination or magical practices; the Church for her part warns the faithful against it. Recourse to so-called traditional cures does not justify either the invocation of evil powers or the exploitation of another's credulity.

Now this is obviously very negative.  I'm sure it sounds a bit irksome to pagans reading it!  These paragraphs are obviously not (and are not intended to be) a thorough, reflective analysis of Neo-Pagan culture, nor even of the particular issues they address.  The Church is here attempting to warn Catholics away from practices and beliefs she believes to be wrong and harmful.  So the Catechism's focus here is catechesis within the Catholic world regarding practices contrary to the First Commandment, not interreligious dialogue with Neo-Paganism.  Unfortunately, I think the Catechism's extremely brief and negative overview of these topics can have the side effect of reinforcing oversimplified and overly negative attitudes towards the complex, human phenomenon that is the Neo-Pagan world.  And it certainly comes across as very unempathetic from a pagan point of view.  However, despite these legitimate concerns, we should remember that the Church does teach her children to engage in a more robust and empathetic dialogue with people of other religions, and to recognize positive elements in other religions and even to promote, preserve, and learn from them, as can be seen by reading the Vatican II document Nostra Aetate.  I provided this quotation from it in my earlier article:

Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing "ways," comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. . . .  The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.

So the Church encourages us to delve into these matters with deeper nuance.  Even if there are things we must be critical of from the perspective of the Catholic worldview, we must also highlight and promote those things we can recognize as positive and beneficial to spiritual life.

So what is the Church critical of in "magical" practices?  I see two main things that are related:

1. The first thing is an inappropriate attempt to gain supernatural power or knowledge.  The Church sees in some "magical" sorts of practices an attempt to gain control of supernatural power, either through a kind of "supernaturally mechanical" means or through controlling or influencing spirits.

2. The Church sees #1 as partly reflecting a lack of proper trust in God, whose role it is to govern the universe.  To attempt to gain illicit supernatural power or knowledge through magical means is to attempt to "play God."  Instead of trusting God to run the universe, we try to take control ourselves as if we were gods over our own lives or the world around us.  This kind of supernatural power is not a power we were meant to have or that we can actually attain, but we ignore reality and try to grasp it for ourselves.

Of course, there are other more obvious dangers the Church mentions, such as attempting to use magical powers to harm people or attempting to work with evil spirits.  But I think #1 and #2 reflect the more fundamental and perennial problems the Church sees in things like "magic" and "divination."

So Catholics ought to avoid these practices which are (looking at things from a Catholic point of view) rooted in lack of proper trust in God or an attempt to gain godlike control over one's life and world.  But now we need to ask the question, do these paragraphs of warning in the Catechism really reflect what is actually going on in Neo-Pagan "magickal" practices and rituals?  (I deliberately used an archaic spelling of "magick" there because I've observed that pagans sometimes prefer this spelling to distinguish their idea of "magick" from "stage magic" or other thing that are different from what they are practicing.)  I think there is much more nuance here that can be brought out.

One thing that is crucial to note is that, within the Neo-Pagan community, there is a wide variety of views regarding the meaning of pagan ideas and practices.  Although, if you attend a pagan ritual, you will see a group of people all doing the same things, if you dig deeper you will find that there is great diversity in terms of how the participants understand what they are actually doing and what is actually going on.

Let's consider a concrete example of a pagan ritual - particularly, an example of the practice of "casting a spell."  In order to be able to print a spell in full that I could remember while avoiding copyright issues, etc., I asked ChatGPT to create a good example.  What it came up with matches what my experience tells me is fairly typical of the genre:

Example: Protection Spell

Materials:

• A black candle
• A piece of obsidian or black tourmaline
• Sea salt
• A small bowl of water
• A sage smudge stick or incense
• A piece of paper and a pen

Instructions:

Preparation:

1. • Choose a quiet space where you won’t be disturbed. Cleanse the space by burning sage or incense and allow the smoke to purify the area.
   • Arrange your materials on an altar or a small table. Place the black candle in the center, with the obsidian or black tourmaline next to it. Position the bowl of water and the sea salt nearby.

2. Casting the Circle:

   • Stand in the center of your space and visualize a protective circle of light surrounding you. Move clockwise and use the smoke from the sage or incense to trace the perimeter of your circle, saying:

     “I cast this circle of protection, 
     A sacred space for my intention. 
     No harm shall come, no evil here, 
     Only love and light, pure and clear.”
     

3. Grounding:

   • Sit or stand comfortably within your circle. Close your eyes and take several deep breaths. Visualize roots extending from your body into the earth, grounding and connecting you to the earth’s energy.

4. Stating the Intention:

   • On the piece of paper, write down your intention for protection. Be specific about what you are seeking protection from.

5. Charging the Spell:

   • Hold the piece of obsidian or black tourmaline in your hand. Focus on your intention and visualize a bright light surrounding you, emanating from the stone. Say:

     “Stone of protection, dark as night,
     Guard me with your shielding light.
     Keep me safe from harm and fear,
     Protect me now, both far and near.”
     

6. Empowering the Spell:

   • Sprinkle a pinch of sea salt into the bowl of water. Dip your fingers into the water and flick it around the candle, saying:

     “Water and salt, cleanse and protect,
     By earth and sea, negativity deflect.”
     

   • Light the black candle and focus on the flame. Visualize the flame burning away any negative energy surrounding you.

7. Releasing the Energy:

   • Hold your written intention over the candle flame and let it catch fire (be careful and use a fireproof dish to catch the ashes). As it burns, visualize your intention being released into the universe. Say:

     “By fire’s light and smoke’s ascent,
     My will is cast, my energy sent.
     Protection surrounds me, strong and true,
     As I will it, so mote it be.”
     

8. Closing the Circle:

   • Thank any deities, spirits, or elements you called upon. Move counterclockwise and visualize the circle of light fading away. Say:

     “I close this circle, the work is done,
     With gratitude, I thank everyone.
     The circle fades but the protection stays,
     Guarding me now and all my days.”
     

9. Final Steps:

   • Allow the candle to burn down completely or snuff it out if you need to leave. Keep the stone with you or place it in your home for ongoing protection.

This example combines several elements common in pagan spell work, including the use of natural materials, visualization, and spoken incantations. The exact process can vary depending on individual beliefs and practices.  (ChatGPT, personal communication, June 16, 2024, copy codes removed)

So this is a good example of a typical spell that one might find in pagan practice.  But what is understood by the practitioner to be actually happening here?  My experience suggests that the answer to that is going to differ from pagan to pagan.  Some will probably understand the spell in the most literal and straightforward terms:  Actual supernatural power is being attained and utilized for protection by means of magickal actions involving incantations, stones, salt water, spirits, etc.  This interpretation of the spell is going to be seen as problematic from a Catholic point of view, for reasons we articulated earlier when we looked at the warnings in the Catechism.  If there is an attempt to control or attain supernatural or godlike powers or knowledge, or to manipulate spirits, that will be an issue.  But another pagan practitioner might understand the spell as a set of symbolic actions intended to facilitate communication with "the divine" in order to request protection (see this short TikTok video for a really clear and helpful example of this).  In this interpretation, the spell is not fundamentally different from what Christians would call a "prayer."  Instead of using mostly just words, the prayer is communicated more by means of symbolic actions, but the basic intention and activity are fundamentally the same.  This understanding of the "spell" is not inherently at odds with a Catholic worldview, even if some of the language and symbolism might seem alien to what Catholics are used to and some Catholics might (understandably - there is a real danger here to be guarded against) be wary of a way of talking and acting that they fear might tend to lead people back to the sorts of things the Catechism warns against.  Yet another pagan practitioner might understand the spell in a more naturalistic way - as a set of ritual actions intended to affect a person's psychological mindset, helping them to relate to the world in a way that is more conducive to personal safety and success.  This, too, is not inherently problematic from a Catholic point of view.  (And we could add, of course, that the various interpretations are not necessarily mutually exclusive.  An individual practitioner might combine several of them.)

While I was conversing with ChatGPT, I also asked this question:  "Do pagans believe that spells really work?"  This was its answer:

Yes, many pagans believe that spells really work, but their understanding of how spells work can vary widely. Here are some common perspectives within pagan communities:

1. Psychological Influence: Some pagans believe that spells work primarily through psychological means. The process of casting a spell can help focus intention and reinforce belief in a desired outcome, which in turn can influence a person's behavior and decisions in ways that help bring about that outcome.

2. Energy Manipulation: Many pagans believe in the existence of a subtle, unseen energy that can be manipulated through spells and rituals. By directing this energy, they believe they can influence events, people, or the environment in accordance with their will.

3. Symbolic Action: For some pagans, spells are symbolic actions that represent a desired change. These symbolic actions can serve as a form of communication with the divine or with the universe, petitioning for assistance in achieving a goal.

4. Interconnectedness: Some pagans believe that everything in the universe is interconnected. By casting a spell, they are tapping into these connections to create a ripple effect that can bring about the desired change.

5. Faith and Tradition: For others, the effectiveness of spells is rooted in tradition and faith. The belief in the power of spells can be part of a larger religious or spiritual worldview that gives meaning and efficacy to these practices.

Different pagan traditions may emphasize one or more of these perspectives, and individual beliefs can vary widely even within a single tradition. Ultimately, the belief in the effectiveness of spells is a deeply personal aspect of many pagans' spiritual practice.  (ChatGPT, personal communication, June 16, 2024)

I found it interesting how closely ChatGPT's answer parallels my own personal observations of the variety of understandings that exist in the pagan community.

This great diversity of views within the Neo-Pagan community regarding how one understands the meaning and intention of rituals makes it very tricky to evaluate pagan practices from a Catholic point of view.  In short, there are ways of understanding them in which they are certainly incompatible with Catholic values and beliefs.  But there are often other ways of understanding them in which they are not.

I mentioned above how some pagans see ritual work as a way of communicating with the divine, as a form of prayer that makes use of the language of symbolism and symbolic actions.  This should not seem all that foreign to Catholic sensibilities.  This is an integral and historic part of Catholic practice as well.  Think about all the things Catholics do in public worship and in private devotions.  The Mass is full of intentions stated and prayers made through symbols and symbolic actions.  We use incense to symbolize the presence of God and sending prayers up to heaven (without believing that the incense is literally, physically, carrying our prayers or making it possible for God to hear them).  We use candles to symbolize the presence of Christ and his light, and Catholics privately often light a candle as a symbolic way to indicate "I'm sending prayers up to God."  Priests wear robes to symbolize their role as representatives of Christ.  We make the sign of the cross as a prayer to God.  We genuflect to show devotion and reverence.  We crown Mary in May as an expression of honoring her (and therefore the God who makes her honorable by his grace).  And we could go on and on.  We should also add that this works both ways.  That is, God communicates with us as well by means of symbolism and symbolic actions.   In the Catholic worldview, God gives us sacraments because we are physical, temporal-spatial beings who find it very helpful to have an invisible relationship with an invisible God and invisible grace communicated to us through tangible objects, events, and activities.  And beyond the sacraments, there are a host of "sacramentals."  Anything can be a means by which God communicates with us and gives himself and his grace to us.  We can experience God in nature, in other people, in the events of our lives, in stories, in myths and symbols, in music, in other forms of art, etc.  God reaches us through the created world.

Before I leave this subject, let me refer you to the famous "St. Patrick's Breastplate" - a well-known prayer coming from the tradition of Celtic Christianity.  Read through this prayer (which you can find at the link).  If you are familiar with the forms and language of pagan rituals, what you read in this prayer is going to sound very familiar.  The language of this prayer is reminiscent of a pagan "spellcasting."  The author "binds" to himself the power of God and all sorts of natural powers as well.  He calls on these powers to protect him, to encircle him (very reminiscent of the idea of "casting a circle"), etc.  This prayer sounds like it could be interpreted as a kind of magical incantation, and yet it has been widely recognized as an honored Christian prayer for nearly two millennia.  But, of course, it is not an attempt to practice "magic" in the sense condemned by the Catechism.  I bring it up as an example, on the Christian side, of how a variety of forms of language can be used to express Christian spirituality.  Similarly, the language and practices of Neo-Paganism can often be interpreted in different ways and are in fact interpreted in various ways within the Neo-Pagan community. 

Brief disclaimer here, just to be clear:  I am not saying that pagan language or rituals, even understood with the best - from a Catholic point of view - intentions, or interpreted in ways consistent with a Catholic worldview, should necessarily be adopted by Catholics.  There is serious danger of confusion, scandal, etc., as a lot of these elements carry a lot of cultural baggage.  I do think that it is possible to safely draw on some elements of pagan culture in some contexts (see the USCCB's comments on popular piety and its relation to culture for an example of Church teaching that encourages a prudent and careful assimilation of some cultural ideas into devotional practice), but this must be done with great care and prudence, with spiritual guidance, following Church teaching, rules, and authority, properly avoiding occasions of scandal or any inclination towards confusion or syncretism, etc.

But while we must be aware of the dangers and the need to be prudent, I want to end this section on a positive note:  One danger of failing to bring nuance to our evaluation of "magick," "witchcraft," etc., in the Neo-Pagan world is that we can end up rejecting things that are positive and good that are a part of these ideas and practices.  The pagan world has wisdom that we can learn from.  The "witchy vibe," so to speak, is associated with an appreciation for nature and a desire to interact with it.  It is associated with respect for natural cycles, for the environment, and for the human body.  The practice of herbcraft, in addition to its symbolic and ritual value, is useful for medicinal purposes.  The witchy aesthetic is one that is appealing to many people (because of its association with the sorts of things we've just mentioned, and because of its own unique cultural beauty).  We've already mentioned the value of symbolic and ritual practices in human psychology and in the spiritual life.  People are drawn to paganism and witchcraft because of these kinds of things, and they are good things.  They are things that a Catholic worldview, full-orbed and properly balanced, should lead us to as well.  We should be grateful to the pagan world for reminding us of these things and calling us to practice them more fully and consistently.

Polytheism and Idolatry

The other thing I wanted to talk about in this post is the pagan practice of worshipping other deities.  Paragraphs #2112-2114 in the Catechism provide a set of warnings on this subject similar to the warnings we looked at earlier about "magic" and "divination":

2112 The first commandment condemns polytheism. It requires man neither to believe in, nor to venerate, other divinities than the one true God. Scripture constantly recalls this rejection of "idols, [of] silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see." These empty idols make their worshippers empty: "Those who make them are like them; so are all who trust in them."⁴² God, however, is the "living God"⁴³ who gives life and intervenes in history.

2113 Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, "You cannot serve God and mammon."⁴⁴ Many martyrs died for not adoring "the Beast"⁴⁵ refusing even to simulate such worship. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God.⁴⁶

2114 Human life finds its unity in the adoration of the one God. The commandment to worship the Lord alone integrates man and saves him from an endless disintegration. Idolatry is a perversion of man's innate religious sense. An idolater is someone who "transfers his indestructible notion of God to anything other than God."⁴⁷

As you can see here, what the Catechism is concerned about with reference to "idolatry" and "false pagan worship" is the making of something that is not God out to be God and treating it as God, or leaving behind the concept of "One Supreme Being" for a plurality of independent absolute deities.  This is a deadly sin from a Catholic point of view, because God is the sole ultimate source of life and goodness.  To treat something that is not God as if it is God, then, is like turning away from a pure spring of water and instead trying to drink from an empty hole of sand.  It is gravely dishonoring to God, who deserves our supreme love, and fatal to our spiritual life and happiness.  (Although it should also be noted that the Church teaches that a person can potentially be in a right relationship with God without necessarily being able to explicitly recognize and articulate this reality.  See, for example, Lumen Gentium #16.)

The Catechism clearly has "paganism" and "pagan worship" of some kind in mind as examples of idolatry.  But does everything that goes on under the label of "Neo-Pagan" belief and practice fall under this condemnation?  Again, it is not the intention of the Catechism here to be providing a holistic evaluation of every aspect of the actual culture of Neo-Paganism.  This is not an attempt at interreligious dialogue with a concrete, particular group of people.  When we move beyond simply providing some warnings about dangerous "pagan" practices out there and begin to evaluate an actually-existing body of people and their culture on a more holistic level, honesty and charity require us to recognize all the existing nuances and complexity.

In the previous section, I talked about how different pagans differently understand pagan rituals and magickal practices.  The same thing applies to pagan ideas about gods and other supernatural entities.  Some pagans take a more "literal" view of pagan beliefs and believe in various gods and other entities who are actually-existing beings and exist as supreme and absolute principles in their own right, independent of one Supreme Being.  Other pagans might believe in a single Supreme Reality of some sort and see various gods as manifestations or as personifications of different aspects or attributes of that One Being.  Yet other pagans might be more naturalistic and view the gods and other supernatural entities not as actually-existing entities (or even as manifestations of aspects of some real Entity) but as personifications of certain natural phenomena or values or ideals.  (Listen to this pagan podcast for an interesting conversation about the different ways pagans can relate to pagan "mythology.")  Once again, this diversity of viewpoints within paganism makes it difficult to evaluate pagan beliefs from a Catholic point of view.  If I believe that Artemis is an actually-existing person who exists independently from the Supreme Being and who is to be worshiped as a supreme principle in her own right, my beliefs fall into the category warned against in the Catechism.  This way of thinking and worshiping is going to be incompatible with Catholic faith.  However, what if I view Artemis as a kind of mythic symbol, a personification of nature and the wildness of nature, and I interact with her as a symbol in a non-literal way in order to more concretely think about and interact with the natural world (and perhaps also with the Supreme Ultimate Reality behind nature that is the source of nature)?  Or what if I see Artemis as a portrayal of some particular aspect of the overall nature of the Supreme Being and, as such, a "ray of light" as if were by which that Being in part communicates itself to me and connects with me?  Or what if I view Artemis as an actually-existing entity, but regard her not as a supreme independent entity (and so not to be "worshiped" in the sense of "given the honor belonging only to the Supreme Being") but as a created being derived from God who reflects in a limited way certain aspects of God's divine life - like an angel - and I interpret her existence and role in other ways consistent with a Catholic view of the universe (C.S. Lewis provides an example of how one might do this in his novel That Hideous Strength where he makes gods like Mercury and Jupiter to be rulers over planetary systems - a kind of super-angel created by God and under God)?  In itself, I don't see anything in these interpretations that is contrary to the fundamental concerns of Catholic faith.  (Though, again, I am not saying that Catholics should necessarily adopt these ideas or practices.)  So if we've got a group of pagans having some kind of devotion to Artemis, I think we'll find, from a Catholic point of view, that some interpretations of what is going on might be inconsistent with a Catholic worldview while other interpretations might not be - again, making it difficult to evaluate overall what is happening from a Catholic point of view.

Pagan rituals often involve an acknowledgment of the elements of earth, air, fire, and water, as well as other creatures and forces of nature, sometimes personifying them.  Is this idolatry?  It can be.  And yet it need not be understood in this way.  Consider St. Francis of Assisi's famous "Canticle of the Creatures" (sometimes also called the "Canticle of the Sun").  This poem personifies and honors elements of the natural world, calling them "Brother Sun," "Sister Moon," "Sister Water," "Brother Wind," "Brother Fire," and "Sister Mother Earth."  There is nothing wrong, from a Catholic point of view, with personifying natural realities, recognizing God's beauty reflected in them, and giving them due honor (not worship), or even calling on created beings for help (as Catholics do when they pray to saints for their intercession).

As I mentioned in my earlier article as well, two great Christian authors in modern times who have recognized and promoted the value of myths, symbols, and stories, including ones drawn from paganism, were C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien.  I referred in that article to Tolkien's wonderful essay "On Fairy-Stories," and we can see the positive value of myths reflected, of course, in his famous Silmarillion and Lord of the Rings.  We see the same thing in C.S. Lewis.  For example, Lewis uses the word "magic" in a neutral way and refers to "good magic" and "bad magic" (I gave an example of this from The Silver Chair in my previous article).  In The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, Lewis refers to the principles and laws that allow Aslan to be sacrificed in the place of the traitor Eustace as "Deep Magic from the Dawn of Time."  He refers to the law that allowed Aslan to come back to life since he made himself, who had committed no treachery, a willing victim on behalf of a traitor a "deeper magic" from before the dawn of time.

There is a fascinating passage from Lewis's Prince Caspian (the second book in The Chronicles of Narnia) in which a bacchanal occurs and the god Bacchus and his companion the satyr Silenus show up.  This is about as pagan as you can get!  (Remember that, in the Chronicles, the lion Aslan is God himself.)

    The crowd and the dance round Aslan (for it had become a dance once more) grew so thick and rapid that Lucy was confused. She never saw where certain other people came from who were soon capering about among the trees. One was a youth, dressed only in a fawn-skin, with vine-leaves wreathed in his curly hair. His face would have been almost too pretty for a boy's, if it had not looked so extremely wild. You felt, as Edmund said when he saw him a few days later, "There's a chap who might do anything—absolutely anything." He seemed to have a great many names—Bromios, Bassareus, and the Ram were three of them. There were a lot of girls with him, as wild as he. There was even, unexpectedly, someone on a donkey. And everybody was laughing: and every body was shouting out, "Euan, euan, eu-oi-oi-oi."

    "Is it a Romp, Aslan?" cried the youth. And apparently it was. But nearly everyone seemed to have a different idea as to what they were playing. It may have been Tig, but Lucy never discovered who was It. It was rather like Blind Man's Buff, only everyone behaved as if they were blindfolded. It was not unlike Hunt the Slipper, but the slipper was never found. What made it more complicated was that the man on the donkey, who was old and enormously fat, began calling out at once, "Refreshments! Time for refreshments," and falling off his donkey and being bundled on to it again by the others, while the donkey was under the impression that the whole thing was a circus, and tried to give a display of walking on its hind legs. And all the time there were more and more vine leaves everywhere. And soon not only leaves but vines. They were climbing up everything. They were running up the legs of the tree people and circling round their necks. Lucy put up her hands to push back her hair and found she was pushing back vine branches. The donkey was a mass of them. His tail was completely entangled and something dark was nodding between his ears. Lucy looked again and saw it was a bunch of grapes. After that it was mostly grapes—overhead and underfoot and all around.

After the bacchanal dies down, Lucy and Susan have a fascinating brief conversation:    

    "I say, Su, I know who they are."

    "Who?"

    "The boy with the wild face is Bacchus and the old one on the donkey is Silenus. Don't you remember Mr Tumnus telling us about them long ago?"

    "Yes, of course. But I say, Lu——"

    "What?"

    "I wouldn't have felt very safe with Bacchus and all his wild girls if we'd met them without Aslan."

    "I should think not," said Lucy.¹

Lewis is making a fascinating theological point here.  He is presenting pagan-derived myths and symbols in a positive light, but adding that they are only safe when they are anchored to the ultimate reality of God and subservient to him.  I think this presents a powerful image of how a Christian can be enriched by the spiritual and cultural fruits of paganism if he/she takes them not in opposition to, but subservient to and as an expression of, the reality of the one Supreme Being who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  These are positive values of paganism understood and appreciated within the context of a Christian worldview.  (Though, again, much caution must be had here because of the danger of confusion and scandal.)

(For more on how Lewis and Tolkien were inspired by paganism in their works, see here.)

Conclusion

In conclusion, then, I hope I have shown some of the nuances that one must bring to the table when trying to understand and evaluate pagan beliefs and practices from within a Catholic Christian point of view.  And we've only touched on a few points.  We could certainly dive even deeper into an examination of various rituals and practices as well as other moral and cultural characteristics of the Neo-Pagan world.  I've been reflecting on these things recently not only in the interest of understanding and dialoguing with Neo-Pagans, but also as a way of enhancing my own spiritual life as a Catholic Christian, recognizing the challenges but also learning from, appreciating, and being enriched by what is good.

Merry meet, merry part, and merry meet again!  Blessed Be!

1  C.S. Lewis, Prince Caspian (New York: Collier Books, 1970), 152-154.

Published on the feast of St. Alban.