The Catholic Book Club discussion

2. How do we reconcile Sebastian’s holiness with his sin?

Why do you consider Sebastian holy? That's not the idea I have of him. He may be holy in the sense that we all may be some day, i.e. capable of being saved, but I would not call his life holy in any other sense.

Manuel wrote: "Why do you consider Sebastian holy? That's not the idea I have of him. He may be holy in the sense that we all may be some day, i.e. capable of being saved, but I would not call his life holy in an..."

I haven't read the book. This was one of the questions I found in my scouring of the web for discussion questions. Sometimes they are duds, but that can still lead to a good conversation about why the question is wrongheaded.

Sebastian is very "honest" about his desires, his fallenness, and his pleasures. He's "childlike" and maybe that's what the question is referring to as holiness.

Sebastian also has this issue with dependency. He says of Kurt that he needed someone to depend on him, but at the same time he's depending on his family for money and the alcohol for life. When it comes to grace, we're all fully dependent, and maybe that's another undercurrent for him: he wants to get there on his own rather than having to be carried there by God.

Thinking about it more, I'm wondering if the person who wrote the question isn't mistaking "holiness" for "devoutness" or "religious sensibilties." Sebastian definitely has religious sensibilities, but he's not holy in the way Catholics would think of holiness. This could be a case where the question-writer is so far outside that he can't see his own blind spots.

Sebastian is painfully conscious both of his devotion AND his shortcomings, and I think in part that's what drives him to escape. All four of the Flyte children are trying to escape. Cordelia escapes by going deeper; Julia escapes by marrying Rex; Bridey escapes his frustrated vocation by pretending to be interested in being the heir. Sebastian escapes by drinking. His attempted escape is simply the most obvious, but I think it does have its roots in being able to see the difference between the world as it could be and the world as it is.

Jane wrote: " Sebastian definitely has religious sensibilities, but he's not holy in the way Catholics would think of holiness..."

Exactly. That was the reason I objected at first to the question.

The question-writer must have meant "spirituality" or somesuch.

Jane wrote: "The question-writer must have meant "spirituality" or somesuch."

Probably.

Waugh identifies Sebastian as holy in Chapter 4 of Book 2. Cordelia in talking about the senior monk at a monastery says "he was a very holy old man and recognized it in others," referring to Sebastian. Charles is shocked at the idea of Sebastian as holy and Cordelia says "Oh yes, Charles, that's what you've got to understand about Sebastian."

Waugh doesn't identify Sebastian as holy: Cordeila does. Cordelia is Sebastian's sister and she's spent a good portion of the book looking for the best in others. I'm not sure she's a reliable observer.

I agree with Jane. On the other hand, it would be interesting to consider whether we should all be a little like Cordelia, in looking for the best in others.

In fact, it would be interesting to consider whether it is Cordelia (with all her defects) who is most saintly in the book.

I think Cordelia is the representative of the Catholic who earnestly lives their faith.

Surely, in having Cordelia identify Sebastian as holy, Waugh is expressing his own view: "that's what you've got to understand about Sebastian."

Is Cordelia represented of an earnest Catholic, or a kitschy Catholic? Her faith doesn't weather very well. She seems to lose its earnestness as she gets older, but she never loses its core. She does lose what seem to be the outer trappings, though, like adding people to a never-ending list of people to get "just one decade" of the rosary etc.

Keep in mind also how Antony Blanche slams charm when he talks to Charles after the exhibition (and he's probably expressing one of Waugh's views there too) even though I'm sure he's not the character Waugh most strongly identified with in the story. Cordelia starts out as entirely charming, but the charm weathers off her as the world beats down on her. I think it's entirely possible she doesn't have a complete view of Sebastian's soul.

I'm always cautious about considering any character a mouthpiece for the author. Most of them are saying things that in some respects the author believes, but they're all telling them slant, in their own ways.

Jane wrote: "I'm always cautious about considering any character a mouthpiece for the author. Most of them are saying things that in some respects the author believes, but they're all telling them slant, in their own ways."

I agree. I was once told off because one of my characters said this or that, and had to answer: but that is what that character thinks, not me!

The problem is, Evelyn Waugh is not alive to solve the issue.

Jane wrote: "Is Cordelia represented of an earnest Catholic, or a kitschy Catholic? Her faith doesn't weather very well. She seems to lose its earnestness as she gets older, but she never loses its core. She do..."

I guess I don't see that. She goes to Spain, but on the royalist side apparently, which is the side most Catholics would have supported, and stays working in hospitals. Work that Waugh suggests she will take up again soon. When she makes the comment about the rosary, she is just a girl, one who delights in pranking her soon to be brother-in-law with stories of sacred monkeys, etc.

I'm always cautious about considering any character a mouthpiece for the author. Most of them are saying things that in some respects the author believes, but they're all telling them slant, in their own ways.

That's fair. And I certainly am not going to be dogmatic about the point, but in the context, and in the manner in which it was added to the story, it seemed to me that Waugh was saying something. If it is merely Cordelia's view, I am not sure what relevance it has to the story. To be honest, I am struggling to figure out what Waugh could have meant by describing Sebastian as holy.

John wrote: "She goes to Spain, but on the royalist side apparently, which is the side most Catholics would have supported..."

Which is the royalist side? If you mean the Republicans, the government, as against the rebels (Franco), I wouldn't agree with you. As soon as the war started, on the Republican side, the communist took the control in many places and Catholics were persecuted: many were tortured and/or killed, bishops, priests, nuns and lay people. Therefore Catholics had no option but taking Franco's side, otherwise their life was in danger.

Not everybody outside Spain knew this, but key people did. Look what Winston Churchill wrote in his History of the Second World War (Part 1, chapter 12): In this quarrel I was neutral. Naturally, I was not in favour of the Communists. How could I be, when if I had been a Spaniard they would have murdered me and my family and friends?

Manuel wrote: "John wrote: "She goes to Spain, but on the royalist side apparently, which is the side most Catholics would have supported..."

Which is the royalist side? If you mean the Republicans, the governme..."

My apologies if I referred to them incorrectly. Certainly not the Republicans - as we read in Literary Converts: Spiritual Inspiration in an Age of Unbelief (and as I was already aware), the Republicans murdered thousands of priests, nuns, religious and lay Catholics. Whatever one thought of Franco, if you were Catholic and you went to Spain to help one side or the other, you pretty much had to support Franco.

I looked around to see if I could figure out why I thought of them as the Royalists, when it would be more correct to refer to them as the Nationalists or Fascists. There was a small royalist faction allied with Franco, and maybe that was the source of my confusion. Or maybe I just assumed communists/socialists would be anti-royal, therefore . . ..

John wrote: "I looked around to see if I could figure out why I thought of them as the Royalists, when it would be more correct to refer to them as the Nationalists or Fascists..."

Yes, it's difficult to know how to call Franco's side. Not Fascists, for that's initially an Italian political group (Mussolini's) although it has been extended to many others. Nationalists has today a very different meaning, at least in Spain, applying mainly to Basques and Catalans. They called themselves "the National Movement," and yes, there were a lot of small groups supporting Franco, such as the Phalanx (the nearest to Fascism, although also different), the Carlists (those who favored pretending king Carlos from the beginning of the XIX century) and a part of the army, who was there because of anti-communism.

That's why I just called them "the rebels," as they rebelled against a government which had been legally elected, but then lost the control of circumstances and let the communists grasp power and murder the chief of the opposition, the immediate cause of the uprising.

Sebastian's suffering becomes a conduit of sanctifying grace. Despite his illness, he cares for Kurt, as Francis for the leper. He sacrifices for those whom others might, reject and offers himself and his redemptive suffering at the monastery.