As a child I so enjoyed the Sherlock Holmes movies I saw predominantly with Sir Basil Rathbone. I fell in love with the Sherlock Holmes stories as a teenager and pledged myself to live as Mr. Holmes. The reason and apparent stoicism of Sherlock Holmes appealed to me as a young atheist in so many ways. Really Sherlock Holmes and Spock were my very ideals as to how to live. I guess I didn’t realize how ironic it was that my atheistic ideals for how a human was to live was based on fictional characters. Regardless there is much to love in these stories and through the years I have re-read them and read some of the novels by others who took on this great character. I recently saw the latest Sherlock Holmes movie and while I enjoyed it, I had to keep many neurons from firing in complaining in disbelief how far it strayed from the original Sherlock Holmes stories.
I started this out to proclaim my Sherlock Holmes bonafides and that I am a true fanboy of the character. So when I was asked to review a new book called “Murder in the Vatican: The Church Mysteries of Sherlock Holmes ” by Ann Margaret Lewis you can imagine my delight. The intersection of Sherlock Holmes and the Catholic Church are a combination I could hardly refuse. That the stories involved Pope Leo XIII is another bonus.
From page one I was instantly immersed in the stories and even better I was never thrown out of the story because of some inconsistency. I felt these were truly Sherlock Holmes stories and I got the same enjoyable feeling from these as I did originally from the stories. Having the Pope prominently involved was enjoyable, but it was not the Catholic Church grafted on to a Sherlock Holmes story, but something integral and natural to the story. This is really quite an accomplishment in my opinion. Even better is the fact that each of the stories is somewhat based on a snippet about some other Sherlock Holmes case alluded to in the original stories. This makes it even better and quite amazing to me that a story could be crafted out of such a little snippet from the original stories.
There are three stories in this book and while I enjoyed all of them, “The Vatican Cameos” was my favorite one and the one closest to an original Sherlock Holmes Story. In a way that is surprising because the storytelling departs from the traditional in that Dr. Watson does not tell most of the story. The snippet this story is dependent on is one where Dr. Watson was not involved. Instead most of the story telling is told from the view of Pope Leo XIII who writes it out for the benefit of a request from Dr. Watson. I so loved this story and the conversations between Pope Leo XIII and Sherlock Holmes.
The only caveat I have about this novel is that in one part the Pope says “Thievery is always mortally sinful and one such sin always builds upon another.” In Catholic moral teaching this is certainly not true. A father who steals bread for his children to live has not necessarily committed a mortal sin. What is stolen has an effect on whether a theft is mortally or venially sinful. A pen stolen from work certainly does not have the same moral weight of someone robbing a bank of a substantial sum. I just can’t see a pope making such a basic error in conversation.
The only real bad news about this novel is that it will not be published until August. I really wish others could read it now it is so enjoyable.
* Footnote: On my discussion on my early love of Spock. Science Fiction author and Catholic convert John C. Wright “If Vulcans had a church, they’d be Catholics.” Well maybe if Sherlock Holmes had a Church it would be the Catholic Church.
23 comments
I gather that Conan Doyle himself was something of a spiritualist, but a Holmes trivia book I read as a teenager pointed out that in one of the stories Holmes expresses his fascination with “the polyphonic motets of Lassus”–how Catholic is that!
Pope Leo XIII certainly loved St. Thomas Aquinas enough to use that very same example. I concur.
“Thievery is always mortally sinful and one such sin always builds upon another.”
While the majority of moral theologians today do not hold this, it was a position held by some prominent theologians in the past, including St. Thomas Aquinas. The following article is found in the Summa Theologiae:
“Whether theft is a mortal sin?” . . .
I answer that, As stated above, (Question 59, Article 4 and Prima Secundae Partis, Question 72, Article 5), a mortal sin is one that is contrary to charity as the spiritual life of the soul. Now charity consists principally in the love of God, and secondarily in the love of our neighbor, which is shown in our wishing and doing him well. But theft is a means of doing harm to our neighbor in his belongings; and if men were to rob one another habitually, human society would be undone. Therefore theft, as being opposed to charity, is a mortal sin.” (II-II Q. 66)
In the third objection, he even brings up the same example that you give:
“Objection 3. Further, theft can be committed in small even as in great things. But it seems unreasonable for a man to be punished with eternal death for the theft of a small thing such as a needle or a quill. Therefore theft is not a mortal sin.
Reply to Objection 3. Reason accounts as nothing that which is little: so that a man does not consider himself injured in very little matters: and the person who takes such things can presume that this is not against the will of the owner. And if a person take such like very little things, he may be proportionately excused from mortal sin. Yet if his intention is to rob and injure his neighbor, there may be a mortal sin even in these very little things, even as there may be through consent in a mere thought.”
Aquinas’s position seems to be that in most cases, the theft of very little things such as a pen would not normally be considered as theft, e.g., if one takes home a pen from the office. However, if one were to break into someones home and steal 10 dollars, Aquinas would say this is a mortal sin, inasmuch as it is contrary to love of neighbor.
I am not quoting Aquinas to say that this is the correct position that one should hold; in fact, I think one would have to make distinctions in the way in which theft of small things is contrary to love of neighbor. For example, is it contrary to the neighbor inasmuch as he is a sharer with you in eternal life, which is the ratio under which the neighbor is loved? Further, one can talk about something being contrary to charity inasmuch as charity cannot coexist with it, or inasmuch as it disposes to the corruption of charity.
In any case, the principal point I wished to make is that our attitude towards theft is somewhat conditioned by our current social conditions, and the age in which we have grown up, and the basic moral schema in which we were raised. In past times, this would not have been a clear cut question. The Scholastics, including Aquinas, generally go the other direction.
Ann did not put error into the Pope’s mouth (or pen). “Theft is the secret taking of a thing against the reasonable will of its owner” (Jone, 326). The man who takes bread for his children (given that he has no better choice, and that he is not taking the bread from someone who needs it at least as badly as he does) is not committing theft at all.
In other words, it’s not a matter of some forms of theft being acceptable. It’s a matter of some forms of taking against the owner’s will not being theft—to wit, when the will is unreasonable, as it would be in refusing to share excess goods with someone who needs them.
Thank you for a useful and entertaining review. As a fan of Holmes from my youth I usually resist re-tellings, and for good reason, but this coming novel sounds good.
I would add as clarification article 7 of the same Question, where he says in the body:
Since, however, there are many who are in need, while it is impossible for all to be succored by means of the same thing, each one is entrusted with the stewardship of his own things, so that out of them he may come to the aid of those who are in need. Nevertheless, if the need be so manifest and urgent, that it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means be at hand (for instance when a person is in some imminent danger, and there is no other possible remedy), then it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another’s property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly speaking theft or robbery.
In other words, if you have great and immediate need for it, and there is no other way, then you have a right to appropriate it, albeit then he says “nor is this properly speaking theft of robbery.”
And even in small things, it *may* be a mortal sin, if you’re acting more against charity than mere stealing. See a6 r3: “Reason accounts as nothing that which is little: so that a man does not consider himself injured in very little matters: and the person who takes such things can presume that this is not against the will of the owner. And if a person take such like very little things, *he may be proportionately excused from mortal sin. * Yet if his intention is to rob and injure his neighbor, there may be a mortal sin even in these very little things, even as there may be through consent in a mere thought.”
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was a fallen-away Catholic who turned to Spiritualism after his son died in WWI. He was very heavily involved in everything from seances to the Cottingley Fairies debacle, and, despite the man’s protests, insisted that Harry Houdini performed his escapes by ‘dematerializing’. When GKC said rejecting faith meant not believing in nothing, but believing in anything, I think he probably had ACD in mind.
ACD even wrote a late work in which Professor Challenger of “The Lost World” has a Spiritualist ‘conversion’. ( I just thank God he didn’t do this to Holmes…shudder…)
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was Baptised in the Metropolitan Cathedral Church of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Edinburgh. It was very close to where he was born and brought up. He also attended Stoneyhurst College, a Jesuit Boarding School – enough to make anyone give up on the faith!
Conan Doyle was educated at Stonyhurst – by the Jesuits.
Well, actually, the recent movie was faithful to the Holmes novels. In the novels, Holmes was a frequent drug user; he sometimes disappeared for days into opium dens; he also mainlined cocaine. He also was depicted as a skilled stick-fighter, though there were few and abstemious fight scenes in the books; that was left off-stage, so to speak. I think that pretty much covers most peoples’ objections to the recent movie — drugs and all that fighting. Basil Rathbone’s artistic interpretation of Holmes left out those elements from the novels; you may prefer that interpretation, but please don’t misunderstand it as canon Holmes.
So Doyle went to Stonyhurst? School of secret rooms, secret caches, and secret passages left over from the recusants? Well, that explains a lot! (One can only picture Kipling and Wodehouse’s secret envy….)
Re: the review — This sounds good. I’ve pondered these story references myself, but didn’t have anywhere near the research to write them. Looking forward to it.
Thanks for the lovely review, Jeff! Hey….since you read this in manuscript form, I might actually be able to fix the Holy Father’s gaffe by changing a word or two! By the way, there is a book trailer on the way, and more information on publication to come on my web site. Thank you so much, and God bless. I’ll try to actually get you a physical copy when it comes out. You should go to the web site, though, and check out some of the illustrations. 🙂
–Ann
Oh yeah, the website is http://www.holmeschurchmysteries.com
I know some people who head an international Holmes fan club, and they say that, despite what lethargic claims, the movie is not at all faithful to Holmes. It went way overboard in all those things. However, they liked the movie and recommended it, “As long as you don’t expect it to really be Sherlock Holmes.” It’s on my very long list of things to see when I get around to it. I will add the book to my very long list of things to read when I get around to it!
Oops…forgot…the site is http://www.holmeschurchmysteries.com.
I have not seen the recent movie, and probably won’t bother. From my memories of the stories, Holmes was a skilled fencer and a decent boxer, but I do not recall any stick-fighting. Holmes does go into an opium den in one story – not to use opium, but ‘undercover’, to try to solve a case. As for the cocaine injections, while they are canon, it is also canon that Holmes eventually kicked the habit, (after a LOT of prodding from Watson !)
Thanks for the clarifications Fr.H and Fr. Dismas. I also find the CCC passage goes right to the point: 2408 “…There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods.”
I’d add the caveat that if there was a dire circumstance that permitted taking things for survival, that the one doing it would incur a debt to be paid when the danger had passed. I mention that only because recently some priest on some liberation-theology bender all but stated that the mere fact of being poor equalled a license to “appropriate” at will.
I was also a big fan of Sherlock Holmes as a teen. Loved Spock too. There’s just something about logical guys…….
Not only was Conan Doyle raised and educated Catholic but Sherlock Holmes’ grandmother was originally from a French family and was the sister to the (real) French artist Horace Vernet. So Holmes could well have been raised and educated Catholic as well.
Jeff, have you ever read any of G.K. Chesterton’s “Father Brown” mystery short stories? great stuff.
Burnt Marshwiggle,
Yes, love the Father Brown stories and I have read a lot of G.K. Chesterton. You will be interested to know that Father Brown even plays a role in one of these Sherlock Holmes stories.
Re: stickfighting — It’s “singlestick”. Oh, and cane-fighting is part of bartitsu (aka baritsu).
Oh, the movie was definitely over the top and drunk with power, and enjoying the Downey abilities way too much. But it also wasn’t all that far off from a totally canonical portrayal, and it really did help me appreciate certain parts of the Canon more. That was part of the fun of it.
However… as long as you can justify it from the text, you’re still playing the Game. (For example, I know a Sherlockian who wrote a marvelous paper about how Holmes actually controlled half of the London underworld, and was duelling with Moriarty in order to take over. The textual support was very good.) Thing is, Sherlockians prefer this sort of joke in short essay form, not onscreen. (Because visual adaptations tend to override the actual content of books.)
PS — I would buy the Holmes Church Mysteries for the delightful illustrations alone. That’s a good-looking website.
Holmes the Theologian, in The Adventure of the Naval Treaty:
“What a lovely thing a rose is!”
[Holmes] walked past the couch to the open window and held up the drooping stalk of a moss-rose, looking down at the dainty blend of crimson and green. It was a new phase of his character to me, for I had never before seen him show any keen interest in natural objects.
“There is nothing in which deduction is so necessary as in religion,” said he, leaning with his back against the shutters. “It can be built up as an exact science by the reasoner. Our highest assurance of the goodness of Providence seems to me to rest in the flowers. All other things, our powers, our desires, our food, are all really necessary for our existence in the first instance. But this rose is an extra. Its smell and its colour are an embellishment of life, not a condition of it. It is only goodness which gives extras, and so I say again that we have much to hope from the flowers.”
(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)