The Catholic Book Club discussion

1. How did you experience the book? Were you engaged immediately, or did it take you a while to "get into it"? How did you feel reading it—amused, sad, disturbed, confused, bored...?

Of course the book is sad, disturbing, confusing... never boring. Amusing? It depends on how you define this word.

What I did not like in the book is something actually secondary. In some way this is a science-fiction novel. But the future science part is very unsatisfying. Let me quote a few examples:

1. When an accident happens and Mabel is on a trip, people do not think of using the phone (which does exist, but is apparently reserved for the government). They send a telegram. The state of communications is exactly as it was in 1908, when the novel was written. No science fiction there.

2. When the novel was written (1907) both Zeppelins and air planes had been invented (respectively 1900 and 1903). None of them, however, had been used commercially, although zeppelins were quite near (the first commercial flight took place in 1910). In his novel, Benson just assumes that zeppelins (volors) will still be in use one century later. Air planes are not mentioned in the novel.

3. Although this is not science fiction, but historical fiction, I must mention a third question. Benson's point is that at the end of the world (i.e. in a century) Catholicism will be the only religion maintaining faith in God. Even Islam would have become atheistic (through a supposed victory of Sufism). Of course, this is very unlikely.

On the other hand, there are a few successful predictions: high-speed-trains, nuclear weapons (represented by Benninschein explosives, where Benson fails to foresee that mass destruction weapons would be created by teams rather than individuals, and advanced methods for euthanasia. And finally he has predicted quite well the spread of atheism.

Manuel wrote: "Of course the book is sad, disturbing, confusing... never boring. Amusing? It depends on how you define this word.

What I did not like in the book is something actually secondary. In some way this..."

I totally agree with the scientific question with my friend Alfonseca, however i disagree in one thing. I do not believe that the intention of Felsenburgh was to spread the atheism. As the faith in the devil the atheism is faced. Felseburgh try something more ambicious to replace God, for this reason is the antichrist. For me is a big success the description of the destroying of Rome was inspired the Zeppelin the Volors, or in the airplanes. It is a good point as Benson predict the psycology of the society and the spreading of Euthanasia that it is usual. The Lord of World must be compared with his utopia Dawn of All.

Manuel wrote: "Of course the book is sad, disturbing, confusing... never boring. Amusing? It depends on how you define this word.

What I did not like in the book is something actually secondary. In some way this..."

I was also never bored and was fascinated at what a page-turner it was, even though I completely agree with your criticisms of Benson's science-fiction chops. Good science fiction doesn't have to be right, or even feasible, but it needs to project out to create new forms or developments of technology and the impact on society of those technological changes. The only area in which Benson comes close is the Euthanasia boxes.

Telephones were in commercial use well before Benson wrote, yet when Pope Silvester communicates wirelessly, he does it by wireless telegraph, a technology that was first put into commercial use by Marconi in 1894. It really doesn't seem like a big conceptual leap to the idea of wireless telephones, yet Benson was stuck in the 19th century.

Another area I thought was interesting was Benson's view of the antichrist as arising out of collectivism in opposition to Catholic individualism. In our hyper-individualized society today, it seems an unlikely conflict, but I think Benson is on firmer ground here than with technology.

If I wanted an actual scientific prediction/guess, I'd choose a different book; this is a spiritual projection, much more important. Perhaps he could have anticipated the European wars but not the Jewish state in Israel.
That said, there were predictions I found fascinatingly accurate, e.g. the spread of Communism (remember this is published ten years before 1917). I don't have any problem with his use of volors, but I was surprised they couldn't control the internal temperature in them better, that there was no "air traffic control" to prevent near-collisions with all the dirigibles flying to destroy Rome, and that their wings "beat". Also, the oppressive heat seems like an effect of what we'd call climate change--or maybe just a manifestation in the physical world of the immoral disorder of the humanistic world order.
Despite popular belief, there is no intrinsic opposition between faith and science. In fact, men wouldn't have been able to explore the laws of nature without faith that the Creator had ordered it and given them the mandate to understand it.
Also fascinated by the end of all religions except Catholicism. As a former Baptist, I know evangelicals are very tenacious about their beliefs, but I have also known many who began reading the Church Fathers (pre-Reformation, of course) and wound up embracing the Catholic Church. And I've heard many express longing for an authoritative voice when there are so many confusing voices both in and outside a particular church. Why would Orthodoxy disappear? I wish he'd spelled out the threat from the East--Eastern religions? Agree it is unlikely Islam would just disappear, though it's interesting that at the very end there is one "Mohammedan" catechumen. But I don't think Muslims expect a "Messiah" (p. 76).

Contrasting views of death are interesting. For the humanist, it just happens, nothing to be finished up or set in order. Christians by contrast have a healthy fear/hatred of death. Interesting that the nurses who administer euthanasia are called "Sister." A pseudo-religious function.

My edition has a picture on the cover that makes no sense to me. It's Jesus with an older man (Peter? the Devil?) standing on clouds looking at two embracing cherubs.

I also found the contrast between collectivism/world unity and Catholicism fascinating, with Catholicism championing Individualism. Not my usual view, but individual conscience and free choice do sustain the whole edifice.

It's also interesting that "world peace" comes at the price of vigilant violence against opposing views "just this once". Hah!

Sarah wrote: "As Jill noted, the fact the euthanasia nurse was called "Sister" disturbed me. Actually, all of Mabel's suicide scene upset me. It was very unsettling to read.

Sometimes I was bored when Benson w..."

In my opinion with the Euthanasia Benson guess totally, in a lot of countries the Euthanasia is legal, in some countries is promoved for example in Belgium, and Netherlands. The old man with 80 escapes of this country. In Belgium not only is the abort, they practice the euthanasia with ill children :-(. In my opinion these one of the best distopia with A Brave New World, 1984, or Perhaps Anthony Burgess distopian, with the difference that distopia was written before that i mentioned previously, even We of Evgueni Zamiatin. In the Hugo Wast novel "666" the birth tax in the western country is really low.

Sarah wrote: "Oh yes. Euthanasia is horrible. Belgium does euthanize children and people with mental illness. There is the Emily/Laura case, and the Verbassem twins case.

America is starting to slide as well. ..."
Yes we are in a global problem. It is a universal evil.

We must fight evil even though it looks like we will be overwhelmed. Never say die! Or, as John Carter said on Mars, I still live!

And remember Who is in charge! Aptly illustrated by Mabel's last-minute experience of God's loving embrace.

Manuel wrote: "We must fight evil even though it looks like we will be overwhelmed.

This reminds me of Tolkien's comment to a reader about Frodo's failure. It applies to Pope Sylvester's situation at the end of the book, too.

"I think rather of the mysterious last petitions of the Lord’s Prayer: Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. A petition against something that cannot happen is unmeaning. There exists the possibility of being placed in positions beyond one’s power. In which case (as I believe) salvation from ruin will depend on something apparently unconnected: the general sanctity (and humility and mercy) of the sacrificial person. I did not “arrange” the deliverance in this case: it again follows the logic of the story. [...]
No, Frodo “failed”. It is possible that once the ring was destroyed he had little recollection of the last scene. But one must face the fact: the power of Evil in the world is not finally resistible by incarnate creatures, however “good”; and the Writer of the Story is not one of us." (26 July 1956 Draft of letter to Miss J. Burn)

Mariangel wrote: "Manuel wrote: "We must fight evil even though it looks like we will be overwhelmed.

This reminds me of Tolkien's comment to a reader about Frodo's failure. It applies to Pope Sylvester's situatio..."

The thing that Maria Angel say: it is very important. The thing that Tolkien and Robert Hugh Benson has something in common proves the greatness of the english catholic writer. A net of intelligences feedback between them Evelyn Waugh say.

Sarah wrote: "Aw, thanks for the advice, guys! It's so sweet!

How should we fight the evil?"

I suppose that praying, and trying to do it the right, although the people criticize for defending our conscience.

Fonch wrote: "Sarah wrote: "How should we fight the evil?"
I suppose that praying, and trying to do the right thing, although we may be criticized for obeying our conscience."

I couldn't say it better.

I found the book a real page-turner, I finished it in two or three days, and I was quite overwhelmed by how powerful the evil felt and how fast the ideology spread. As I was closing the book, praying the Divine Mercy chaplet was the first impulse I had.

Mariangel wrote: "I found the book a real page-turner, I finished it in two or three days, and I was quite overwhelmed by how powerful the evil felt and how fast the ideology spread. As I was closing the book, prayi..."

I had a similar thought about how fast the evil spread. It made me think how fast we went from the marriage war in the US to transgender bathrooms.

John wrote: "Mariangel wrote: "I found the book a real page-turner, I finished it in two or three days, and I was quite overwhelmed by how powerful the evil felt and how fast the ideology spread. As I was closi..."

In my opinion Benson is a prophet, therefore a character like Felsenburgh, unfortunatelly could be posible in our age :-(.

Sarah wrote: "Many Felsenburghs live in this era."

Really they are precursors, but Felsenburgh is the antichrist, and it only there is one. It is the man who are close to destroy the Catholic Church, although he could not do it, because the strenght of the inferno will not be able to defeat it. Thanks to the Lord, and the mankind only can be one Felsenburgh :-).

Fonch wrote: "Really they are precursors, but Felsenburgh is the antichrist, and it only there is one. "

I have discussed this with Fonch in another debating field. In his opinion, the Antichrist must be a person. I rather think it will be (or is) an ideology.

Manuel wrote: "Fonch wrote: "Really they are precursors, but Felsenburgh is the antichrist, and it only there is one. "

I have discussed this with Fonch in another debating field. In his opinion, the Antichrist ..."
It is true we discuss in our letters. However it will bevery evil. Yesterday my father was in a lecture of the father Fortea, and he heard something hideous. It was about the lagues of the Apocalypse. I wish he comitted a mistake.