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

[Bartolome_Casas]

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/

 

[Charlemagne_II]

You are doing Chesterton a disservice. The three virtues he refers to as unreasonable are faith, hope, and charity. They are unreasonable in the sense that they do not require reason to justify them in the same way that reason justifies justice and temperance, virtues that both Christians and pagans can justify by reasoning. You will find any number of atheists who will use their reasoning powers to defend justice and temperance, whereas they will be reluctant to reason that faith, hope, and charity are virtues that require our assent based on pure reason.

Think of Ayn Rand, the famous atheist who rationally defended justice as an egotist, but never as an altruist in the Christian tradition.

 

[dshix]

You are doing Chesterton a disservice. The three virtues he refers to as unreasonable are faith, hope, and charity. They are unreasonable in the sense that they do not require reason to justify them in the same way that reason justifies justice and temperance, virtues that both Christians and pagans can justify by reasoning. You will find any number of atheists who will use their reasoning powers to defend justice and temperance, whereas they will be reluctant to reason that faith, hope, and charity are virtues that require our assent based on pure reason.

Think of Ayn Rand, the famous atheist who rationally defended justice as an egotist, but never as an altruist in the Christian tradition.

This is correct.

The quotes by Chesterton and Benedict seem to contradict each other, but really they are looking at the same thing from different angles.

 

[jkiernan56]

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/

Can you quote me from the CCC# where it states the “reasonableness of Faith” or the “unreasonableness of Faith”? If its not in the CCC, it can’t be true right? See what I’m getting at?

 

[dshix]

Can you quote me from the CCC# where it states the “reasonableness of Faith” or the “unreasonableness of Faith”? If its not in the CCC, it can’t be true right? See what I’m getting at?

You probably shouldn’t post in one thread with the context of another thread; it confuses people. Perhaps in the other thread we’ll have a discussion concerning when and why it is necessary to reference proven Church teaching.

 

[Brendan]

No, Chesterton is correct. What Faith requires us to believe is Incredible, but that does not mean that it is against Reason.

For example, the very fact that God created us to be loved by Him and to share Eternity with Him is incredible.

. Reason does not demand that we be created with an immortal soul. Humans could have reasonably be created with a perishable soul, like the other animals.

Likewise with the Incarnation. It is incredible that God so humbled Himself as to live among us as a man.

It is not opposed by Reason, but Reason does not demand that God become incarnate.

So both +Benedict and Chesterton are correct.

We do not believe BECAUSE is it absurd, but in spite of it.

 

[jkiernan56]

You probably shouldn’t post in one thread with the context of another thread; it confuses people. Perhaps in the other thread we’ll have a discussion concerning when and why it is necessary to reference proven Church teaching.

sorry - i meant no disrespect or attempt to derail your topic. Sometime I’d like to have a discussion with you on the appropriate context and time for Church teaching (when and where it applies to reasoned discussion).

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Does it not bother anyone that, in the quotes in the first post of this thread, that Pope Benedict XVI and G.K. Chesterton say EXACTLY the OPPOSITE?

Does it not bother anyone that what G.K. Chesterton teaches seems to be identical to the heresy of Fideism?

The 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia defines Fideism this way:

A philosophical term meaning a system of philosophy or an attitude of mind, which, denying the power of unaided human reason to reach certitude, affirms that the fundamental act of human knowledge consists in an act of faith, and the supreme criterion of certitude is authority.

See: newadvent.org/cathen/06068b.htm

I know that G.K. Chesterton is really popular in the USA right now among some Catholics. But is he a higher authority than Pope Benedict XVI and the Catholic Encyclopedia?

I mean, what’s up?

 

[dshix]

Does it not bother anyone that, in the quotes in the first post of this thread, that Pope Benedict XVI and G.K. Chesterton say EXACTLY the OPPOSITE?

Does it not bother anyone that what G.K. Chesterton teaches seems to be identical to the heresy of Fideism?

The 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia defines Fideism this way:

A philosophical term meaning a system of philosophy or an attitude of mind, which, denying the power of unaided human reason to reach certitude, affirms that the fundamental act of human knowledge consists in an act of faith, and the supreme criterion of certitude is authority.

See: newadvent.org/cathen/06068b.htm

I know that G.K. Chesterton is really popular in the USA right now among some Catholics. But is he a higher authority than Pope Benedict XVI and the Catholic Encyclopedia?

I mean, what’s up?

It appears that you did not read post #2 or post #6.

 

[R_C]

Fideism is an epistemological theory which maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths.

Chesterton - who, of course, could have potentially made errors without that turning him into a formal heretic - writes that “Christian virtues like faith hope and charity are unreasonable”, which is not fideism. In fact, we call faith, hope, and charity the supernatural theological virtues, which cannot be obtained by human effort but only infused through grace. His writing is in a sense not more different than St. Paul saying that “God’s folly is wiser than man’s wisdom”.

To an even deeper level, beyond virtues and stepping into revelation, the Catechism goes even further into Chesterton’s argument:

the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things

And by the way, not everything that Tertullian wrote is heretic - in fact, he is a Church Father. And while *Credo quia absurdum * is rejected, it is not the work of Tertullian, who in fact wrote:

"The Son of God was crucified: there is no shame, because it is shameful.
And the Son of God died: it is wholly credible, because it is unsuitable.
And, buried, He rose again: it is certain, because impossible."

He was in fact referring to the argument brought forth by Christ, who said that “God chose the foolish things of the world to confuse the wise”, which was retaken by St. Paul in the quote I mentioned above. He did not intend to say what fideism affirms, namely that faith is independent of reason.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

No, Chesterton is correct. What Faith requires us to believe is Incredible, but that does not mean that it is against Reason.

In today’s America, “incredible” has come to mean “wonderful” or “super great,” as in “That was an incredible hot dog!” or “That computer game is incredible!”

But in G.K. Chesterton’s time, and in his usage, and in most of the history if the word “incredible,” it means “not credible,” i.e., not worthy of belief because it is not reasonable. Any dictionary tells all this.

Thus, when G.K. Chesterton writes “Faith believes the incredible, or it is no virtue at all,” he is saying “Faith believes the unreasonable, or it is no virtue at all.” Right before that, G.K. Chesterton explains this himself, with total clarity, when he write (see Post #1): “Pagan virtues like justice and temperance are the reasonable virtues… Christian virtues are the unreasonable virtues.”

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, while we all admire and respect and appreciate the honorable gentleman’s many years of good service to the Church and Society, I believe, in this matter, Mr. Chesterton’s own written and published words demand a verdict of guilt to the charge of heresy. We owe that duty to the truth.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Fideism is an epistemological theory which maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths.

Chesterton - who, of course, could have potentially made errors without that turning him into a formal heretic - writes that “Christian virtues like faith hope and charity are unreasonable”, which is not fideism. In fact, we call faith, hope, and charity the supernatural theological virtues, which cannot be obtained by human effort but only infused through grace.

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

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2012/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20121121_en.html

Let us proceed in this Year of Faith bearing in our hearts the hope of finding all the joy there is in believing and of rediscovering the enthusiasm of communicating the truths of the faith to all. These truths are not a simple message about God, a particular piece of information on him. On the contrary they express the event of God’s encounter with human beings, a salvific and liberating encounter which fulfils the deepest aspirations of the human heart, the yearning for peace, brotherhood and love. Faith leads to the discovery that the meeting with God enhances, perfects and exalts all that is true, good and beautiful that exists in man. So it happens that while God reveals himself and lets himself be known, man comes to realize who God is and in knowing him, discovers himself, his true origin, his destiny, the greatness and dignity of human life.

Faith makes possible authentic knowledge about God which involves the whole human person: it is a “sapere”, that is, a knowledge which gives life a savour, a new taste, a joyful way of being in the world. Faith is expressed in the gift of self for others, in brotherhood which creates solidarity, the ability to love, overcoming the loneliness that brings sadness. Thus this knowledge of God through faith is not only intellectual but also vital. It is the knowledge of God-Love, thanks to his own love. The love of God, moreover, makes us see, opens our eyes, enables us to know the whole of reality, in addition to the narrow views of individualism and subjectivism that confuse consciences. Knowledge of God is therefore an experience of faith and at the same time entails an intellectual and moral development; moved in our depths by the Spirit of Jesus within us, we go beyond the horizons of our own selfishness and open ourselves to the true values of existence.

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.

I am sure that the Holy Father above was simply teaching the traditional Catholic Faith, not any innovative personal opinion.

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.”

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Chesterton - who, of course, could have potentially made errors without that turning him into a formal heretic…

Yes, I agree. That’s why I asked “Did famous Catholic author G.K. Chesterton teach a heresy?” rather than whether he was a heretic.

As I know you know, there is a pretty high set of criteria to meet to be deemed a heretic. There is also that distinction between a “material heretic” and a “formal heretic.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bartolome

I know that G.K. Chesterton is really popular in the USA right now among some Catholics. But is he a higher authority than Pope Benedict XVI and the Catholic Encyclopedia?

Pope Pius XI called him “a devoted son of the Holy Church and a gifted defender of the faith.”

Had he been guilty of heresy, would he have gotten such high praise from the throne of Peter?

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Bartolome

I know that G.K. Chesterton is really popular in the USA right now among some Catholics. But is he a higher authority than Pope Benedict XVI and the Catholic Encyclopedia?

Pope Pius XI called him “a devoted son of the Holy Church and a gifted defender of the faith.”

Had he been guilty of heresy, would he have gotten such high praise from the throne of Peter?

Pope John Paul II repeatedly lavished praise on Fr. Marcial Maciel. See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcial_Maciel

Now, clearly Mr. Chesterton was no Marcial Maciel. Yet, informal papal approbations are no guarantee of sanctity or orthodoxy.

I have found other apparently heterodox statements in the writing of Chesterton. I think the “craze” about him now is unfounded.

Why are there Chesterton clubs and societies springing up all over the place, but no Pope Benedict XVI clubs and societies?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bartolome
**
I have found other apparently heterodox statements in the writing of Chesterton. I think the “craze” about him now is unfounded.**

Where are those statements? It’s possible that since Chesterton did not become a Catholic until late in life, he may not have been absolutely Catholic in all his writings. But your finding the craze about him to be unfounded is itself unfounded if all you have to complain about is the remark he made about faith, hope, and charity.

**Why are there Chesterton clubs and societies springing up all over the place, but no Pope Benedict XVI clubs and societies? **

Because such honors tend to come posthumously.

Because in spite of not being a Catholic until later in life, even in youth he seemed imbued with Catholic truth and was one of the greatest defenders of the faith who ever lived. People like to honor their heroes, especially the ones who tell the truth and tell it so well as Chesterton did.

If you think not, then read The Everlasting Man from cover to cover (as C.S. Lewis did, whereupon he gave up his atheism) and tell us he is vastly overrated.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

…then read The Everlasting Man from cover to cover (as C.S. Lewis did, whereupon he gave up his atheism) and tell us he is vastly overrated.

When I hear Catholic heap praise upon C.S. Lewis, I always wonder: If C.S. Lewis was so smart and so holy, why then did he resolutely remain outside the Church for his entire life?

I don’t begrudge the Protestants for their C.S. Lewis craze. But Catholics? What’s up with that?

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Because in spite of not being a Catholic until later in life, even in youth he [Chesterton] seemed imbued with Catholic truth and was one of the greatest defenders of the faith who ever lived. People like to honor their heroes, especially the ones who tell the truth and tell it so well as Chesterton did.

If Chesterton was such a great promoter of the Faith, why then is Great Britain today a virtually totally secular nation with virtually no church attendance? Is that the legacy of the great work of G.K. Chesterton?

Here’s my theory. People in the American of today love Chesterton because he was a down and dirty slugger, a rock 'em and sock 'em type, like the combative talk radio and talk TV conservatives of the USA today. To me, G.K. Chesterton’s broad girth and booming voice even reminds me of the number one conservative talk radio host of today in the USA.

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.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

When I hear Catholic heap praise upon C.S. Lewis, I always wonder: If C.S. Lewis was so smart and so holy, why then did he resolutely remain outside the Church for his entire life?

Good question. Had he lived into modern times, I think he would have seen more completely that he could not remain Anglican. But that’s just a speculation. His smartness and his holiness were impressive, nonetheless, compared to his atheist days.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

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?