Did famous Catholic author G.K. Chesterton teach a heresy?

[Bartolome_Casas]

Bartolome

**But is the Cause of Christ more advance by down and dirty combative types with nothing more than knowledge of the bare basics like any lay Catholic, or by saintly types like Pope Benedict XVI who are also master geniuses of theology?

I guess you know where I come down on that question. **

The Catholic tent is very big. It wants all kinds of Christians with all kinds of gifts.

I like Benedict too. When Benedict is gone, will you start up a Club for him? Let me know. I’ll join.

But I would be very careful of attributing to Chesterton the fall of Christianity in England. With the sword and shield of apologetics, he fought the good fight as well as any Catholic Englishman.

Is German Catholicism getting any the better because Benedict is a German?

You make many good points.

You remind me that I am not entirely against Catholic lay apologists who are combative sluggers who pummel their enemies. While I don’t think apologetics should ever become a sport, or a spectator sport, or a game, or some thing exciting like making roosters fight with razor blades attacked to their legs, I do think firm and forceful expositions of the Faith can reach some people. Perhaps I am influenced in a negative way by remembering the histrionics of Fr. Corapi. But let’s forget him.

For me, all this thread is really about is whether, when G.K. Chesterton wrote “Faith believes the incredible, or it is no virtue at all,” and “Pagan virtues like justice and temperance are the reasonable virtues… Christian virtues are the unreasonable virtues,” was he mis-teaching the Catholic Faith?

Chesterton was no heretic. A heretic must have a firm and persistent intention of contradicting infallible or authentic doctrines of the Catholic Church, and to defy attempts by the Church’s pastors to correct him. That’s what made Luther a heretic. Chesterton never had any such intention.

Still, he could have taught theological error without intending to. I don’t think he had any formal theological education. My understanding is that he was a journalist.

If he did teach theological error, it would be good to know that. Why? So we can know not to always trust every thing he wrote.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**If he did teach theological error, it would be good to know that. Why? So we can know not to always trust every thing he wrote. **

This could be true of anyone, including Benedict XVI.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

**If he did teach theological error, it would be good to know that. Why? So we can know not to always trust every thing he wrote. **

This could be true of anyone, including Benedict XVI.

Whoa! :tsktsk:

 

[Ghosty]

The problem here is that Chesterton is being misread. He would be the first to agree that the Faith and reason go together. He’s using “unreasonable” here in the same sense that we might say that a toddler that expects the whole candy store is being unreasonable. It is in this sense that Faith, Hope, and Charity are unreasonable, because they go beyond the limits of human expectation and motivation.

I can have hope that God will grant me Divine Life, an expectation that is far more unreasonable than the toddlers’, but this hope is true.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

The problem here is that Chesterton is being misread. He would be the first to agree that the Faith and reason go together. He’s using “unreasonable” here in the same sense that we might say that a toddler that expects the whole candy store is being unreasonable. It is in this sense that Faith, Hope, and Charity are unreasonable, because they go beyond the limits of human expectation and motivation.

If G.K. Chesterton had himself written the above fine apologia, then we could be assured that Mr. Chesterton did not endorse the erroneous doctrine of Fideism.

As it is, the writing from Mr. Chesterton that was quoted in the first post in this thread, as it stands, appears to contradict the Catholic Faith by endorsing the erroneous doctrine of Fideism.

To really get to the bottom of this, someone would have to study all or more of Mr. Chesterton’s writings. I don’t have time for that. Perhaps someone will do that.

As things stand, however, I would say that we have prima facie evidence that Mr. Chesterton did not always stay within the bounds of orthodoxy and should not be necessarily regarded an an entirely reliable teacher of the Faith.

This should not surprise or shock us. Mr. Chesterton had no theological education. He was not a priest, bishop or monk. He did not have the graces that come with holy orders or the evangelical counsels. Has has never been beautified or canonized, or, as far as I know, even proposed for either of those.

 

[Ghosty]

How much of Chesterton’s work have you read? I suspect not too much because his work is almost entirely about the reasonableness of the Faith. In fact, that’s pretty much all he writes about. His whole position is that the Faith is the most reasonable belief to hold, and that “rationalism” is inherently irrational.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Did famous Catholic author G.K. Chesterton teach a heresy?

On Sunday, I found a bookmark in a book of mine with these following quote from G.K. Chesterton:

“Pagan virtues like justice and temperance are the reasonable virtues… Christian virtues are the unreasonable virtues - virtues like faith, hope, and charity. Faith believes the incredible, or it is no virtue at all; hope hopes against hope, or it is no virtue at all; charity pardons the unpardonable, or it is no virtue at all.”

What’s wrong with the above quote? Consider this quote from Pope Benedict XVI, from November of last year:

“Today, in this catechesis, I would like to reflect on the reasonableness of faith in God. The Catholic Tradition, from the outset, rejected the so-called “fideism”, which is the desire to believe against reason. Credo quia absurdum (I believe because it is absurd) is not a formula that interprets the Catholic faith.”

Blessed John Paul II also wrote a whole encyclical on the reasonableness of Faith. It was titled Fides et Ratio.

The idea contained in the phrase Credo quia absurdum (I believe because it is absurd) comes from Tertullian, a Church Father who was never canonized because he taught a number of heresies. Among the recognized heresies that Tertullian taught is Credo quia absurdum (I believe because it is absurd).
See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credo_quia_absurdum
See: newadvent.org/cathen/06068b.htm

Thus, it seems to me that G.K.Chesteron taught a heresy, or, at least, taught error.

To make sure that the quote above is an authentic quote from G.K. Chesterton, I did some Googling.

I found the quote quoted exactly on this university web page: bearspace.baylor.edu/Ralph_Wood/www/chesterton/chesterton_aphorisms.pdf

I found the quote discussed in a positive manner on a web page of Dale Alhquist’s American Chesterton Society. See: chesterton.org/2012/02/the-unreasonable-virtues/

Bartolomé [de las] Casas:

Chesterton is a man of letters, not a systematic philosopher; and he makes no pretense to advance a comprehensive system with a univocal technical vocabulary. As a good litterateur Chesterton sheds light in crevices too narrow and convoluted for conceptual systems to reach. Also many of his interlocutors were rationalists.

Perhaps Newman expressed the point best:
“This is the true office of a writer, to excite and direct trains of thought; and this, on the other hand, is the too common practice of readers, to expect everything to be done for them,–to refuse to think,–to criticize the letter, instead of reaching forward toward the sense,–to account every argument as unsound which is illogically worded.”
[John Henry Newman, *Fifteen Sermons Preached Before the University of Oxford, 3rd ed., (London: Rivingtons, 1872), Sermon 13:35, p. 275.]

Chesterton has to be read with this point in mind.

Also it is Gilson’s considered opinion that Chesterton’s St. Thomas Aquinas: “The Dumb Ox” absolutely nails the Angelic Doctor’s thought. [comment of Gilson to Maisie Ward cited in Joseph Pieper, *Guide to Thomas Aquinas, Ignatius Press, 1991, pp. 7-8.] That alone should give one pause in questioning his orthodoxy.

Could the fact that Chesterton is English-speaking from England have anything to do with your jaundiced view of him?

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Bartolomé [de las] Casas:

Chesterton is a man of letters, not a systematic philosopher; and he makes no pretense to advance a comprehensive system with a univocal technical vocabulary. As a good litterateur Chesterton sheds light in crevices too narrow and convoluted for conceptual systems to reach. Also many of his interlocutors were rationalists.

Perhaps Newman expressed the point best:
“This is the true office of a writer, to excite and direct trains of thought; and this, on the other hand, is the too common practice of readers, to expect everything to be done for them,–to refuse to think,–to criticize the letter, instead of reaching forward toward the sense,–to account every argument as unsound which is illogically worded.”
[John Henry Newman, *Fifteen Sermons Preached Before the University of Oxford

, 3rd ed., (London: Rivingtons, 1872), Sermon 13:35, p. 275.]

Chesterton has to be read with this point in mind.

Also it is Gilson’s considered opinion that Chesterton’s St. Thomas Aquinas: “The Dumb Ox” absolutely nails the Angelic Doctor’s thought. [comment of Gilson to Maisie Ward cited in Joseph Pieper, *Guide to Thomas Aquinas, Ignatius Press, 1991, pp. 7-8.] That alone should give one pause in questioning his orthodoxy.

Could the fact that Chesterton is English-speaking from England have anything to do with your jaundiced view of him?
A quote just occured to me that I believe is getting at the same (entirely orthodox) point as Chesterton. Perhaps this will help.

"On this point see the reflections of Gerard Soulages in “Le Christianisme et l’Europe”, a lecture given at Brussels on Octobcr 27, 1979, for the eleventh Congress of the Asso¬ciation of St. Benedict, Patron of Europe: “The four cardinal virtues: prudence, courage, temperance and justice, elevate all man’s powers, those of his intellect, his will and his affective life, balancing them with each other and thus adapting man to himself and to others. They are above all the result of education; and they reveal to us an admirable type of humanity, something like a Greek temple, where everything is measured, ordered, balanced and in harmony. **But the paradox is that in the midst of this measured order, this harmonious equilibrium, Christianity introduces a sort of exaggeration, and in a sense an element of disorder, an unexpected lack of balance, a higher folly which dislocates and renews everything. This superior folly, these amazing calls to exaggeration, are called faith, hope and charity. We cannot doubt it: the theological virtues are fed by a terrible fire, the fire of the living God himself, and this fire burns our souls with a mortal burn, the burn of the infinite. ** ‘Be perfect as your heacvenly Father is perfect. . . . Sell what you have and come follow me!’

Between the man molded by the Greek virtues and the man renewed by the fire of faith, there must be an abyss. The folly of the Cross can with difficulty join hands with the wisdom of the ancients. But if for an individual a certain dislocation of his humanity by the jealous love of the living God is in the long run a priceless grace, from the point of view of society and of civilization one might fear that such dislocations would lead to catastrophes. But this has not occurred. The Christian absolute never bewitched the human conscience; it enriched it in depth and consolidated it most remarkably. Medieval man is a being capable of tenderness and pity, renewed by charity. He is a metaphysical spirit, far stronger than the man of antiquity who was tempted by scepticism or by the illuminism of gnosis . . . . He bears within himself an infinite longing for truth and the taste for rationality. Henceforth such a man is armed; he can go forth to the conquest of the universe.”
[quoted in Henri de Lubac, *A Brief Catechesis on Nature and Grace, Ignatius Press, 1984, pp. 91-2 note 69.]

 

[dskysmine]

Actually you should quote what Chesterton said in the whole context.
In “Heretics” pp157-158 he wrote:

The real difference between Paganism and Christianity is perfectly summed up in the difference between the pagan, or natural, virtues, and those three virtues of Christianity which the Church of Rome calls virtues of grace. The pagan, or rational, virtues are such things as justice and temperance, and Christianity has adopted them. The three mystical virtues which Christianity has not adopted, but invented, are faith, hope, and charity. Now much foolish Christian rhetoric could easily be poured out upon those three words, but I desire to confine myself to the two facts which are evident about them. The first evident fact (in marked contrast to the delusion of the dancing pagan)—the first evident fact, I say, is that the pagan virtues, such as justice and temperance, are the sad virtues, and that the mystical virtues of faith, hope, and charity are the gay and exuberant virtues. And the second evident fact, which is even more evident, is the fact that the pagan virtues are the reasonable virtues, and that the Christian virtues of faith, hope, and charity are in their essence as unreasonable as they can be.

As the word “unreasonable” is open to misunderstanding, the matter may be more accurately put by saying that each one of these Christian or mystical virtues involves a paradox in its own nature, and that this is not true of any of the typically pagan or rationalist virtues. Justice consists in finding out a certain thing due to a certain man and giving it to him. Temperance consists in finding out the proper limit of a particular indulgence and adhering to that. But charity means pardoning what is unpardonable, or it is no virtue at all. Hope means hoping when things are hopeless, or it is no virtue at all. And faith means believing the incredible, or it is no virtue at all.

He did not mean unreasonable as disconnected from Reason altogether, but that for our human understanding they seem so paradoxical to what we see and feel.

Kind regards,
D.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Actually you should quote what Chesterton said in the whole context.
In “Heretics” pp157-158 he wrote:

He did not mean unreasonable as disconnected from Reason altogether, but that for our human understanding they seem so paradoxical to what we see and feel.

Kind regards,
D.

Good quote, I agree. But Bartolomé actually put a link to it at the end of his original post saying it was a discussion. Then he completely ignored the whole quote in drawing his verdict.

Some agenda other than a fair effort at interpretation appears to be at work. How else can one explain what would otherwise be rank obtuseness? Chesterton himself articulates and stands behind the traditional doctrine of the relation of faith and reason in discussing Aquinas in Saint Thomas Aquinas: “The Dumb Ox.”

 

[Ghosty]

Chesterton himself articulates and stands behind the traditional doctrine of the relation of faith and reason in discussing Aquinas in Saint Thomas Aquinas: “The Dumb Ox.”

Indeed. In fact, he articulates this in plain English perhaps better than anyone else in recent history, and as you pointed out he was noted for this by Thomist scholars. There’s the old joke, and I can’t recall who originally said it at the moment, that G.K. Chesterton never read the Summa Theologica, but simply ran his finger along the spine of the book and absorbed it instantly.

He converted to Christianity, and eventually Catholicism, convinced of its reasonableness, and was about as far from Fideism as one can possibly get and still believe in the Mysteries of Faith. It doesn’t require a broad reading of his works to see this; heck, one only needs to read the introductions to most of his books to glean this.

Peace and God bless!

 

[R_C]

How can the above be reconciled with what Pope Benedict XVI said in General Audience on November 21, 2012

Today, in this catechesis, I would like to reflect on the reasonableness of faith in God. The Catholic Tradition, from the outset, rejected the so-called “fideism”, which is the desire to believe against reason. Credo quia absurdum (I believe because it is absurd) is not a formula that interprets the Catholic faith.[/INDENT]

Recall again what Chesterton wrote:

Christian virtues are the unreasonable virtues - virtues like faith, hope, and charity. Faith believes the incredible, or it is no virtue at all.

In that quote, “incredible” doesn’t mean “super great!” but is a synonym for “unreasonable” or “not credible based on evidence and reasoning.”

Ok, my logical reasoning skills aren’t as sharp as they should be, but I do sense a fallacy here, and an issue with going from Italian to English.

Consider the expression “the desire to believe against reason”: the Italian original is “la volontà di credere contro la ragione”, and volonta’ is actually will, not *desire * (which would be desiderio), so perhaps the English translation, while sufficiently accurate, does not convey the fullness of what the Holy Father meant.

This does not just speak of unreasonable: this sentence describes the will to believe in contraposition to reason, that is, to place faith above reason, and even more, to flatly reject reason as a basis for belief.

Now let’s focus on the logic, beginning with what appears to be the key phrase that the Pope rejects:

I believe in X **if and only if **X has the property of being absurd.

Then, let’s consider what Chesterton wrote:

The virtue of faith can believe X **if **X has the property of being absurd.

Notice: the first one affirms that the absurdity of X is necessary and sufficient for belief, while the second one affirms that the absurdity of X is sufficient for belief, but not necessary.

Furthermore, the second one affirms that there is no virtue if the belief cannot be extended to an X that has the property of absurdity.

In short, Chesterton affirms: faith is a virtue only inasmuch as it is also able to believe in something that is not credible.

However, Fideism affirms (from Catholic Encyclopedia): denying the power of unaided human reason to reach certitude, the fundamental act of human knowledge consists in an act of faith.

There is a huge difference between saying: “the fundamental act of knowledge is faith, and human reason is utterly unable to reach certitude” and saying “faith is able to believe in that which reason cannot reach”. The former denies intellectual knowledge, the latter does not. It simply affirms that faith must be able to believe what is not open to reason. And it is confirmed by the Catechism, which states that “the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things”.

When something transcends the visible order of things, it is beyond reason, but it is not against or contrary to reason. Faith can and must believe in those things.

Chesterton’s statement may count as heresy if it were equivalent to the following statement:

The unreasonableness of X is necessary for faith. That is, Faith is not Faith unless X is unreasonable.

However, it isn’t, because Chesterton is making - no offense intended - a much, much narrower argument, referring to a property of faith, namely virtuosity, and the conditions that must be fulfilled for faith to have that property.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

It’s Chesterton’s style, to say something that on the face of it is bombastic and contradicts what you think you know, and then he comes around and explains what he means and you say “huh! never thought about it that way!” but it really makes sense.

Remember too who Chesterton is addressing - early 20th century educated upper class Brits who consider themselves rational and intellectual, and sit around at high tea and talk about how Christianity is just paganism dressed up, and that Jesus was a great moral teacher but the miracle stories and resurrection are nonsense, and if we strip out all of the superstition and take religion back to only that which is natural and rational it would be so much better. Chesterton’s trying to stir up the pot a little bit, say that Christianity is distinct and different and not just new window dressing on top of the old paganism, and if you try to strip that away you’re not going to end up with anything worth following.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

As Chesterton put it in his book, St. Thomas Aquinas:

“It was the very life of the Thomist teaching that Reason can be trusted. It was the very life of the Lutheran teaching that Reason is utterly untrustworthy.”

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Could the fact that Chesterton is English-speaking from England have anything to do with your jaundiced view of him?

Perhaps. I can’t think of one great theologian from England.

People always bring of St. Thomas More. But his cruel, ferocious, pitiless, violent persecution of non-Catholics is sickening to read about. So, I just blank him out of mind. After the Second Vatican Council decree on Religious Liberty, no one like him can ever be canonized.

How about John Henry Newman? I have never found his life or thought to be appealing or helpful. There’s something in his demeanor that bothers me, like some sort of British upper class pretentiousness. I might be wrong about that.

I do like the current writer Joseph Pearce, who converted to Catholicism from radical White Supremacy activism. But he’s lived in the USA for some time now.

All in all, I’ve nothing against England or the British Isles. I bet St. Patrick was a fine fellow.

But, to come back to G.K. Chesterton, what bothers me most about him is that he was an amateur theologian, yet enthusiasm is showing no limits. Also, I hear of no movement to have him canonized. Thus, I assume that his life was not particularly marked by holiness. Meanwhile, a truly great theologian, and a truly holy person (as far as I can tell) like Pope Benedict XVI is, relatively speaking, hardly read at all, even thought his writing are voluminous.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Actually you should quote what Chesterton said in the whole context.
In “Heretics” pp157-158 he wrote:

He did not mean unreasonable as disconnected from Reason altogether, but that for our human understanding they seem so paradoxical to what we see and feel.

Kind regards,
D.

Thanks for giving that fuller context. To me, it doesn’t clear him of the charge of mis-teaching the Faith, however.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Ok, my logical reasoning skills aren’t as sharp as they should be, but I do sense a fallacy here, and an issue with going from Italian to English.

Consider the expression “the desire to believe against reason”: the Italian original is “la volontà di credere contro la ragione”, and volonta’ is actually will, not *desire * (which would be desiderio), so perhaps the English translation, while sufficiently accurate, does not convey the fullness of what the Holy Father meant.

This does not just speak of unreasonable: this sentence describes the will to believe in contraposition to reason, that is, to place faith above reason, and even more, to flatly reject reason as a basis for belief.

Now let’s focus on the logic, beginning with what appears to be the key phrase that the Pope rejects:

Then, let’s consider what Chesterton wrote:

Notice: the first one affirms that the absurdity of X is necessary and sufficient for belief, while the second one affirms that the absurdity of X is sufficient for belief, but not necessary.

Furthermore, the second one affirms that there is no virtue if the belief cannot be extended to an X that has the property of absurdity.

In short, Chesterton affirms: faith is a virtue only inasmuch as it is also able to believe in something that is not credible.

However, Fideism affirms (from Catholic Encyclopedia): denying the power of unaided human reason to reach certitude, the fundamental act of human knowledge consists in an act of faith.

There is a huge difference between saying: “the fundamental act of knowledge is faith, and human reason is utterly unable to reach certitude” and saying “faith is able to believe in that which reason cannot reach”. The former denies intellectual knowledge, the latter does not. It simply affirms that faith must be able to believe what is not open to reason. And it is confirmed by the Catechism, which states that “the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things”.

When something transcends the visible order of things, it is beyond reason, but it is not against or contrary to reason. Faith can and must believe in those things.

Chesterton’s statement may count as heresy if it were equivalent to the following statement:

However, it isn’t, because Chesterton is making - no offense intended - a much, much narrower argument, referring to a property of faith, namely virtuosity, and the conditions that must be fulfilled for faith to have that property.

The above is a good apologia of Mr. Chesterton. But I’m not sure that Mr. Chesterton had all those distinctions in mind when he wrote the quote found on the first post in this thread, and I don’t think his quote expresses those distinctions. Why not just conclude that, from time to time, Mr. Chesterton mis-taught the Faith, and that this was one of those times? He as a journalist, not a theologian, after all. Per Occam’s Razor, why not just go with the simplest explanation that is reasonable and fits the data available?

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Good quote, I agree. But Bartolomé actually put a link to it at the end of his original post saying it was a discussion. Then he completely ignored the whole quote in drawing his verdict.

Some agenda other than a fair effort at interpretation appears to be at work. How else can one explain what would otherwise be rank obtuseness? Chesterton himself articulates and stands behind the traditional doctrine of the relation of faith and reason in discussing Aquinas in Saint Thomas Aquinas: “The Dumb Ox.”

According to Catholic procedures, even if a writer teaches the Faith correctly in some writings, if he teachers the Faith incorrectly in other writings he is not exonerated from the charge of heterodoxy because most of his writings are orthodox. Each writing is examined separately. If seems most logical just to assume that Mr. Chesterton, being a journalist and not a theologian, sometimes messed things up, and is his great enthusiasm, sometimes mis-taught the Faith.

I like the word “obtuse,” since the Andy Dufresnse character uses it with the evil warden in “Shawshank Redemption.” But, most of the time, isn’t it just name calling, like “You’re stupid!”

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

It’s Chesterton’s style, to say something that on the face of it is bombastic and contradicts what you think you know, and then he comes around and explains what he means and you say “huh! never thought about it that way!” but it really makes sense.

You make a good point. It is Mr. Chesterton’s bombastic style that is part of what make him repulsive to me.

I keep thinking of Fr. John Corapi’s preaching style. Fr. Corapi was sort of yelling most of the time when he was preaching. He seemed angry, but also, at times, full of almost manic enthusiasm. He used a lot of sarcasm. He was constantly finding fault with liberal bishops, liberal Catholics, and others who failed to uphold the faith. So, when I hear or see the bombastic style, a little red flag goes up, for me. Long before his fall, I was telling people that something didn’t seem right about Fr. Corapi to me.

I also think of the bombastic style of Mussolini, the arrogant dictator of Italy in the 1920s to the 1940s.

Furthermore, in general, the bombastic style is often a substitute for solid, deep, and broad theological learning. That’s why I prefer and like to recommend the writings of the current pope, Benedict XVI. There is no bombast there. But there is profound wisdom, great insights, deep learning, broad vistas, and, I think, great personal holiness.

I don’t think people are won over to a love of Jesus by the combative pro-wrestling style employed by conservative talk show shows. It can be fun. But it is just entertainment. If feels good to land blows against one’s enemies. But it doesn’t win them over to repentance and conversion.

I think of the gentle, joyful, and strong manner of St. Francis of Assisi, and of the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal (EWTN).

That’s where I’m coming from.

 

[Ghosty]

Honest question: what books of Chesterton’s have you read? I can’t think of a single bombastic work of his, and I’ve read most of them.