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

[Charlemagne_II]

**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. **

I agree. Chesterton is far from bombastic, and he is much loved by people who love great prose. The only fault I ever found with Chesterton is that he sometimes rambles too much before getting to the point. But when he gets to the point, you pretty much need to forgive and forget the rambling.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bartolome

**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 agree with you to a certain extent, but I certainly wouldn’t lump Chesterton together with the likes of Bill O’Reilly, who is something of a “pinhead” by comparison.

 

[Ignatius]

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/

All right, but where’s the heresy?

 

[GKC]

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

It might help to know a little more. Such as that the excerpt is from HERETICS, published in 1905, the 9th book Chesterton had published, consisting of writings done a little earlier. This was roughly 4 years before he had decided on entering the RCC, and roughly 17 years before he did so. In other words, this was Chesterton the Anglican writing.

Here’s a link to the entire relevant chapter of HERETICS:

online-literature.com/chesterton/heretics/12/

I do suggest reading the whole thing.

I think I saw some comment as to the idea of a case being made for Chesterton’s beatification, at least, canonization, perhaps; what this might or might not mean for Chesterton. One might pursue THE HOLINESS OF CHESTERTON (ed. William Oddie), for a presentation of just such a cause. If one desired.

I conclude you know little of Chesterton, from your comments.

GKC

collector/reader of books on and by Chesterton for 49 years. Belloc, too. Lewis, for that matter.

 

[GKC]

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!

It’s paradox, Ghosty. Paradox.

GKC

 

[JimG]

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!

Exactly so. And I agree that Chesterton is being misread. He uses rhetorical language, not the language of a fine German theologian, such as we have in the writings of Benedict XVI.

Perhaps one might ask the Pope if he considers Chesterton a heretic. I think he would get a laugh out of it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Here is some of Pope Benedict on Chesterton:

“G.K. Chesterton was often blessed with the gift of a striking turn of phrase. He certainly hit upon a decisve aspect of St. Thomas Aquinas when he observed that, if the great doctor were to be given a name in the style of the Carmelite Order (’…of the Child Jesus,’ ‘Of the Mother of God,’ etc.), he would have to be called Thomas a Creatore, ‘Thomas of the Creator.’”

-Pope Benedict XVI, *In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall.
*
“What stayed with her, however, was that now she continually found Christ in everyday life, in people and things. Thus, she came to understand Chesterton when he described men and women who, signed with Christ’s Cross, cheerfully walk through darkness.”

-Pope Benedict XVI, Coworkers of the Truth: Meditations for Every Day of the Year

“…I think it’s very important to be able to see the funny side of life and its joyful dimension and not to take everything too tragically. I’d also say it’s necessary for my ministry. A writer once said that angels can fly because they don’t take themselves too seriously. Maybe we could also fly a bit if we didn’t think we were so important.”

-From an interview given by Pope Benedict to the German media in 2006

"Without conversion, however, we cannot come to Jesus, nor arrive at the gospel. There is a paradoxical saying of Chesterton’s that expresses this circumstance exactly: “A saint can be recognised by the fact that he knows himself to be a sinner.”

The Essential Pope Benedict XVI: His Central Writings and Speeches, “Meditation on the Priesthood” (p. 272)

 

[Ghosty]

It’s paradox, Ghosty. Paradox.

GKC

Indeed. Given the way “unreasonable” has been abused, however, I figured I should avoid big money words.

Peace and God bless!

 

[GKC]

Indeed. Given the way “unreasonable” has been abused, however, I figured I should avoid big money words.

Peace and God bless!

Point.

I’d assume the OP wasn’t familiar enough with Chesterton to recognize the “paradox” reference, at that.

GKC

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

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.

Agreed Benedict is a great theologian and needs to be read more. I actually heard him deliver an address at the University of Toronto. Outstanding!

I did a thesis on Newman and he is utterly amazing. I think you should give him a second look. His sermons are very moving and enlightening.

I have nothing against the upper classes as such–I’m not a marxist. But they do have to be true cultural and moral leaders as Newman was. I don’t think sophisticated and elegant English is pretentious. I’m all for elevating the level of discourse, including English usage, in every way.

Your asessment of Chersterton’s theological and apologitical ability is not shared by scholarly consensus on the subject. That ought to give one pause.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

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!”

The point is: a fair interpretation of what he said in context yields the result that he is perfectly orthodox.

Further, you haven’t ruled out the orthodox interpretation of the passage in question. It is perfectly possible to see it, as I believe a fair-minded interpretation would, in an orthodox light. I provided a lengthy quote that asserts essentially the same thing, however with somewhat less florishes.

No name calling: I used “obtuse” advisedly, but not uncharitably.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

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.

De gustibus non est disputandum. I have no problems with stylistic preferences.

It would seem, however, that your views of what does and doesn’t win people to repentence and conversion was not shared by the Prophets . . . and John the Baptist . . . and at times Christ . . . well, and St. Paul. That might give one pause if one wants to rule out all strong prophetic statements. Kindness is good too though.

Also Chesterton wrote in England where at a time RCs were an embattled religious minority having recently been freed from the Penal Laws under the state Church, and also were attacted by atheists and rationalists. I find him scrappy. And I don’t know about you but someone who stands up for the truth and the Faith in those circumstances with some passion and wit appeals to me.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

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.

Catholic procedures also include examining what an author says elsewhere on the same topic.

So since Chesterton articulates and stands behind the traditional doctrine of the relation between faith and reason in his discussion of Aquinas in Saint Thomas Aquinas: “The Dumb Ox.”, that does in fact place the burden of proof regarding the heterodoxy of the passage in question on the accuser. And given that a fair-minded interpretation of what he said in context yields a perfectly orthodox result; and further since you have not shown the impossibility of an orthodox interpretation of the passage, your charge does not have a leg to stand on.

However, to express your tastes regarding Chesterton’s style (which you find unappealing) is perfectly valid.

 

[GKC]

As I pointed out above, Chesterton has been one of my major collecting and study areas for roughly 50 years. During which time I’ve bumped into some strange opinions about him, of which the OP is certainly one. The words in question were written while Chesterton was still an Anglican, and roughly 18 years before he formally became a RC. Does this fact affect anything in this discussion? Might Newman be so accused, based on his pre-conversion writings?

Not that it matters a great deal, but just curious.

GKC

 

[Ghosty]

As I pointed out above, Chesterton has been one of my major collecting and study areas for roughly 50 years. During which time I’ve bumped into some strange opinions about him, of which the OP is certainly one. The words in question were written while Chesterton was still an Anglican, and roughly 18 years before he formally became a RC. Does this fact affect anything in this discussion? Might Newman be so accused, based on his pre-conversion writings?

Not that it matters a great deal, but just curious.

GKC

It would certainly make a big difference if what he had written was indeed questionable. A non-Catholic can’t be expected to hold to Catholic doctrine, after all.

The thing is that what he wrote here is completely orthodox, and in fact is often quoted by Catholics, so it’s being defended on those grounds rather than being written off as pre-Catholic.

Peace and God bless!

 

[GKC]

It would certainly make a big difference if what he had written was indeed questionable. A non-Catholic can’t be expected to hold to Catholic doctrine, after all.

The thing is that what he wrote here is completely orthodox, and in fact is often quoted by Catholics, so it’s being defended on those grounds rather than being written off as pre-Catholic.

Peace and God bless!

I agree with both your comments. And the assessment of the quote itself. But I was still puzzled that the fact it was written by an Anglican didn’t appear in the discussion, even in passing.

GKC

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Here is some of Pope Benedict on Chesterton:

“G.K. Chesterton was often blessed with the gift of a striking turn of phrase. He certainly hit upon a decisve aspect of St. Thomas Aquinas when he observed that, if the great doctor were to be given a name in the style of the Carmelite Order (’…of the Child Jesus,’ ‘Of the Mother of God,’ etc.), he would have to be called Thomas a Creatore, ‘Thomas of the Creator.’”

-Pope Benedict XVI, *In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall.
*
“What stayed with her, however, was that now she continually found Christ in everyday life, in people and things. Thus, she came to understand Chesterton when he described men and women who, signed with Christ’s Cross, cheerfully walk through darkness.”

-Pope Benedict XVI, Coworkers of the Truth: Meditations for Every Day of the Year

“…I think it’s very important to be able to see the funny side of life and its joyful dimension and not to take everything too tragically. I’d also say it’s necessary for my ministry. A writer once said that angels can fly because they don’t take themselves too seriously. Maybe we could also fly a bit if we didn’t think we were so important.”

-From an interview given by Pope Benedict to the German media in 2006

"Without conversion, however, we cannot come to Jesus, nor arrive at the gospel. There is a paradoxical saying of Chesterton’s that expresses this circumstance exactly: “A saint can be recognised by the fact that he knows himself to be a sinner.”

The Essential Pope Benedict XVI: His Central Writings and Speeches, “Meditation on the Priesthood” (p. 272)

It certainly speaks well of G.K. Chesterton that Pope Benedict XVI/Cardinal Ratzinger speaks approvingly of Chesterton. Many thanks.

 

[Kevin12]

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.

Have you ever read Chesterton? He does not believe what you are saying from a quote taken out of context. He is not a fideist at all. Look at the definition of “unreasonable”:

not reasonable or rational; acting at variance with or contrary to reason; not guided by reason or sound judgment; irrational: an unreasonable person.
2.
not in accordance with practical realities, as attitude or behavior; inappropriate: His Bohemianism was an unreasonable way of life for one so rich.
3.
excessive, immoderate, or exorbitant; unconscionable: an unreasonable price; unreasonable demands.
4.
not having the faculty of reason.

He is talking about the 2nd and 3rd definitions. Look at Matthew 5:

[41] And whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two, [42] Give to him that asketh of thee and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away. [43] You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thy enemy. [44] But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you: [45] That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust.

[46] For if you love them that love you, what reward shall you have? do not even the publicans this? [47] And if you salute your brethren only, what do you more? do not also the heathens this? [48] Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.

This is what he means when he’s taking about pagan virtues.

If you do not believe me that Chesterton is not against reason, read The Blue Cross.

 

[Kevin12]

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.

You say you have nothing against the British, but weren’t Anselm and Duns, two of the greatest Christian theologians, from the British Isles?

 

[Love4All]

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.”

I read what you quoted from Chesterson above, and the word that came to my mind was, “hyperbole.” Chesterson was making a point via exaggeration. Then I read on Wikipedia,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton

Gilbert Keith Chesterton, KC*SG (29 May 1874 – 14 June 1936) better known as G.K. Chesterton, was an English writer.[1] He wrote on philosophy, ontology, poetry, plays, journalism, public lectures and debates, literary and art criticism, biography, Christian apologetics, and fiction, including fantasy and detective fiction. Chesterton is often referred to as the “prince of paradox.”[2] Time magazine, in a review of a biography of Chesterton, observed of his writing style: “Whenever possible Chesterton made his points with popular sayings, proverbs, allegories—first carefully turning them inside out.”[3]

---

So, it seems, I was correct in my initial perception of things. Chesterson’s style is intentionally provocative and hyperbolic. Benedict XVI’s style, on the other hand, is intellectual and literal. Two opposite styles express the selfsame truths, in opposite expressions. That is my opinion.