The believer will fight another believer over a shade of difference; the doubter fights only with himself. ― Graham Greene
Greene was a writer a few levels above the majority average ones. Nostalgic meditations on faith and doubts and the varieties of human folly are often the recurring themes in his works. Graham Greene was a writer who could conjure up a life, a setting, a dilemma, and a worldview in a few lines.
He said: Write is a form of therapy; sometimes, I wonder how all those who do not write, compose or paint, can manage to escape the madness, the melancholia, the panic fear which is inherent in the human condition. Indeed this is probably the reason why I put my feeble thoughts in form of reviews that probably no one will read, on this social network.
The trolley dilemma, conceived by Philippa Foot in 1967, is a "tool" used to push us to think about the consequences of an action and consider whether its moral value is determined exclusively by its outcome; it is usually applied over scenarios, such as war, torture, abortion and euthanasia. But Greene uses its own form of a dilemma here to exploit the meaning and purpose of faith in something "Higher" than the banality of human existence.
Our actions, derived from intentions and their consequences, are often impenetrable and indecipherable. If we can assume that dilemmas have always the same consequences, our moral discernment, however, is seldom reliable, logical or consistent. Foot argued that there’s a distinction between killing and letting die. The former is active while the latter is passive so the first is admissible and the second prohibited. This is described as the principle of "Double Effect", which states that it’s permissible to indirectly cause harm, as a side effect, if the action promotes a greater good. However, it’s not acceptable to intentionally cause damage, even in the pursuit of the greater good.
If we acknowledge that everyone has equal rights, sacrificing one even if the intention is to save five, is wrong.
One of the many problems around "dilemmas" is that not everyone answers in the same way to stressful, emotional and moral options, and even when different people agree, they may differ, sometimes deeply, in the justification of the action they defend. These thought experiments have been mostly used to stimulate discussion about the difference between "Take Action" and "Stand By".
In this novel, Greene uses almost the same technic in the dialogues between a roman catholic priest, father Quixote and a communist Mayor, obviously Sancho. And I can't forget their car: Rocinante....
It is another theological novel from the converted to catholicism author who already had approached the theme with "The Power and the Glory", all set in a parallel "modern universe of the Cervantes classic.
The "Dilemma" here is between the power of reasoning to command our actions and be solely responsible for them or just staying "aside" and having "Faith". The theological/political dialogue between Catholic and Communist is delightful in its semi-conclusion (or consent agreement between the two characters) that the priest is a Catholic in spite of the Curia while the Mayor is a Communist. . . in spite of the Politburo, while comparing Torquemada and Stalin. At some points, Graham Greene seems to have gotten inspiration from the universe of Giovanni Guarechi's "Don Camilo".
I would have preferred a cross, Father Quixote said, to eat under. What does it matter? The taste of the cheese will not be affected by cross or hammer. Besides is there much difference between the two? They are both protests against injustice...
As usual in Graham Greene, the speculations about doom, pity and the inscrutability of God's will are present here. The explanation of the holly trinity with two and a half bottles of wine is delightful.
The characters are in their late years but they are not old men yet. However, they have become "obsolete", without purpose and lost in the changes imposed in their lives, like many other characters of Greene.
I believe that G. Greene used another pair of delusional heroes in "Monseigneur Quixote" to achieve a similar effect as in "Travels with my aunt". The use of flawed characters as heroes is recurrent in G.G.'s work.
From what I remember, from both books, I think that the effect Greene wanted to obtain with the use of two opposites, giving the replica to each other to achieve a consensus (or not...), is more efficient in "Monseigneur Quixote".
In both books, we have these dichotomous pairs where the cynic and impulsive character employs gentle, logical psychological pressure to lead the emotionally tortured one to a "revelation" and to see the "light".
The rejection of dogmatic authority is the main theme of the book. Greene's attitude toward authority has always been "problematic": A convert to Catholicism who has been strongly attracted by Marxism, Greene has struggled with himself to conciliate two systems that have traditionally demanded a high degree of obedience and submission from their adepts and are both in confrontation with each other's respective principles.
This is a poignant and eerie book which at some points is very amusing. In the end, if Father Quixote touches your most sensible emotional "strings" is the mayor Sancho that I recall with more fondness with his sympathies lying more in the human weaknesses than rectitudes.
This is not a masterpiece but a very nice and pleasant reading.