Sainthood on the Horizon for G.K. Chesterton?

[Annie39]

Well, what I think CHESTERTON is saying in the verbatim quote I gave was that the “spirit” of the Revolution (French) was a self-undermining scepticism. I think also that, in the case of what you quoted, he was saying that the “spirit” of the French Revolution was one that has been around forever, but it had never been made so thoroughly manifest as in that revolution.

That’s my take. I’m sure it is debatable. It is anytime you try to reconcile apparently contradictory writings from the same writer.

As I see it, your “take” on his “take” on the FR is a case of verbal gymnastics. Although yours is different from others who like GKC, it is similar in that verbal gymnastics is being used to make it more palatable. I have no real problem with that. I for one was very much a fan of GKC for years but have lost the respect I had for him. I don’t say this in pleasure but in sadness.

 

[Gliggle]

:hug3: didn’t take that way at all

Thanks!

 

[Della]

I hadn’t read GKC before I was received into the Church, so I’m not one of his converts. But, I read his Father Brown Mysteries shortly afterwards and found in his writing the practical holiness of living out my baptism. Two of his stories particularly helped me: The Three Deaths and the Mourner of Marne.

Each person who reads Chesterton can find something that speaks to his own situation and needs. GKC thoroughly understood the human heart and soul. What a great privilege it would have been to have heard him speak, and better, to have known him. I truly believe he helped me in my early days as a Catholic, in weaning me away from my old limited mind set to see the world and myself as it and I actually am. I will forever be grateful to him for this priceless gift.

 

[april32010]

Bill Gates donated millions to charity and was loved by all that knew him.

his charities are death crisismagazine.com/2013/the-ambitions-of-bill-and-melinda-gates-controlling-population-and-public-education

Continuing their commitment to controlling global population growth through artificial contraception, sterilization, and abortion initiatives, Microsoft founder and philanthropist, Bill Gates and his wife, Melinda, a self-described “practicing” Catholic, are now attempting to control the curriculum of the nation’s public schools. Subsidizing the Common Core State Standards in English language arts and mathematics, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has committed more than $76 million to support teachers in implementing the Common Core—a standardized national curriculum. This, on top of the tens of millions they have already awarded to the National Governor’s Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers to develop the Common Core in the first place.

It is likely that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation will continue its commitment to global population control, and now, curriculum creation in the nation’s schools because they truly believe that they know better than anyone else how we all should live.

 

[chipeto]

My feeling towards those who can’t appreciate Chesterton is like my feeling towards those who can’t appreciate Shakespeare: I simply cannot relate to such people at all.

His mind is one the most perceptive and startling in all of history, in the league of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas. And I don’t say this lightly.

 

[prodigalson2011]

My feeling towards those who can’t appreciate Chesterton is like my feeling towards those who can’t appreciate Shakespeare: I simply cannot relate to such people at all.

His mind is one the most perceptive and startling in all of history, in the league of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas. And I don’t say this lightly.

 

[tafan]

Bill Gates donated millions to charity and was loved by all that knew him. I am not saying Chesterton was not a good man in his own right but I do not agree that he has earned Sainthood.

No one “earns” sainthood. Furthermore, we should not agree or disagree with the final state of anyone’s soul. That is up to God’s judgment.

 

[tafan]

As I see it, your “take” on his “take” on the FR is a case of verbal gymnastics. Although yours is different from others who like GKC, it is similar in that verbal gymnastics is being used to make it more palatable. I have no real problem with that. I for one was very much a fan of GKC for years but have lost the respect I had for him. I don’t say this in pleasure but in sadness.

As one who has also been very baffled by Chesterton’s support of the French revolution, I would make the following comments

Overall, I agree with Warren Caroll, who said that Chesterton’s case for support of the FR, based on how it turned out, cannot really be justified.

But France was a supremely broken country prior to the French Revolution. It was in shambles, and this started with its horribly highly centralized, highly autocratic, highly dysfunctional system of government. There has perhaps never been a place and time in all of human history, more ripe for a violent and bloody revolution than France in the 1780s. There was no freedom, there was widespread poverty (on a scale hard for us to imagine in a European country), there was no recognition of a King’s responsibility to his subjects. So that context must be kept in mind.

France, it seems to me, has stumbled from one bad system of government to another, almost continually for hundreds of years. But Chesterton thought, and on this point he might be right, it was so bad in 1780, the FR actually saved France. As bad as it turned out, it likely would have been worse. But none of that justifies The Terror.

Furthermore, Chesterton was (in words he would have used) supremely democratic. In our day and age of hugely centralized democracies, the terminology should probably be changed. He was radically in favor of subsidiarity, ie control and decisions at the very possible lowest level. Although I think that modern term was not often used by him, it seems to fit (to my ear) today better than the terms he used, as they have become horribly corrupted since his day.

France was, in the 1780s, horribly, undemocratic. There was absolutely no subsidiarity. It was a completely broken society, in almost all aspects (legal system, legislative, judicial, clerical, economic, etc).

I also have always liked most of Burke’s writings, and do not really lie Chesterton’s critique’s of him. But I can understand where they are coming from.

Finally, we should note that Chesterton was a social and political commentator, not really a theological writer. I can think of no political or social commentator that I would agree with 100%. And in the case of one such as Chesterton, who wrote so much, it is an unrealistic standard you have for him that he must be right 100% of the time. And certainly much of what he said about France was accurate, his conclusion was just wrong. So I think you are both being a little unjust and (more importantly) doing yourself a disfavor by rejecting the man completely for this one flaw.

Chesterton was someone who got almost everything right, but he didn’t bat 1000. But considering his number of at bats, he did pretty darn well.

 

[KindredSoul]

Pope Francis once said the following: “We need saints without cassocks, without veils - we need saints with jeans and tennis shoes. We need saints that go to the movies that listen to music, that hang out with their friends. We need saints that place God in first place ahead of succeeding in any career. We need saints that look for time to pray every day and who know how to be in love with purity, chastity and all good things. We need saints - saints for the 21st century with a spirituality appropriate to our new time. We need saints that have a commitment to helping the poor and to make the needed social change. We need saints to live in the world, to sanctify the world and to not be afraid of living in the world by their presence in it. We need saints that drink Coca-Cola, that eat hot dogs, that surf the internet and that listen to their iPods. We need saints that love the Eucharist, that are not afraid or embarrassed to eat a pizza or drink a beer with their friends. We need saints who love the movies, dance, sports, theater. We need saints that are open sociable normal happy companions. we need saints who are in this world and who know how to enjoy the best in this world without being callous or mundane. We need saints.”

From what I do know of him, which is admittedly not exhaustive, I think a saint like G.K. Chesterton, even with all his eccentricities and passionate work, exemplifies this quote perhaps more than any actually canonized saint I’ve ever known. He did great works with his writing, charity, and in other ways–and we should all aspire to work for the Kingdom so passionately–but he also enjoyed the fruits of his labors, took of those luxuries he enjoyed, and, aside from his eccentricities and great accomplishments, lived personally the life of an ordinary Catholic as far as I can tell, not some unreachable ascetic from on high.

I have read that there are “Ordinary Saints” and “Extraordinary Saints,” but one almost never sees the “Ordinary Saints” canonized. Every time I see a lay saint who was canonized, it turns out “Oh, well, he/she was a lay saint, but was single,” or “Well, yes, he/she was a lay saint, and married, but was martyred,” or “the reason for the canonization was that he lived like a pauper and therefore was virtually a monk/hermit in all but celibacy and living in an order” etc., etc., etc. Even the Little Flower, whom I love and who is famous for her “Little Way” and for being so ordinary, was still a Religious, with all the poverty and strictures that entails. The “ordinary saints” so eloquently sought by Pope Francis, those saints who live ordinary lives in every way except that they remain faithful to the teachings of the Church, love God and work for God’s Kingdom on Earth within the context of their very much ordinary lives, are rarely anywhere to be found in the canon, unless they were martyred. I understand that not every saint like this could be canonized, but it’d be nice to have at least a handful for every hundred “Extraordinary Saints” out there, if only to remind us that the extraordinary saints aren’t the only kind.

And a saint like G.K. Chesterton, I think, would give me hope that words like the Pope’s are not just empty encouragement. I’m not saying anyone on this thread is saying the following, but I have heard his canonization opposed on the iimplied grounds that he was “too ordinary” in terms of Holiness, implying that his not living a harsh life of self-inflicted suffering, that his living a life where he partook of the permitted goods and comforts with which God blessed him, should exclude him from the canon. I think that discourages millions upon millions of Catholics from believing in the kind of saints spoken of by the Pope in the above quote. As if sainthood is for the “special” people, the people who go into the desert, or the monastery, or the poor house. Having Chesterton canonized, at least given what I know of him, would show that sainthood is for the rest of us too.

Now if only they ever considered canonizing someone like J.R.R. Tolkien.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

P.S. If there are a plethora of these “ordinary saints” in the canon and I just haven’t heard of them, sorry about that. And again, I am NOT accusing anyone who has posted on this thread of any of the sentiments I sort of eschew above; even if I’d been the first to post on this topic, I’d have had all of the above to say.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Pope Francis once said the following: “We need saints without cassocks, without veils - we need saints with jeans and tennis shoes. We need saints that go to the movies that listen to music, that hang out with their friends. We need saints that place God in first place ahead of succeeding in any career. We need saints that look for time to pray every day and who know how to be in love with purity, chastity and all good things. We need saints - saints for the 21st century with a spirituality appropriate to our new time. We need saints that have a commitment to helping the poor and to make the needed social change. We need saints to live in the world, to sanctify the world and to not be afraid of living in the world by their presence in it. We need saints that drink Coca-Cola, that eat hot dogs, that surf the internet and that listen to their iPods. We need saints that love the Eucharist, that are not afraid or embarrassed to eat a pizza or drink a beer with their friends. We need saints who love the movies, dance, sports, theater. We need saints that are open sociable normal happy companions. we need saints who are in this world and who know how to enjoy the best in this world without being callous or mundane. We need saints.”

From what I do know of him, which is admittedly not exhaustive, I think a saint like G.K. Chesterton, even with all his eccentricities and passionate work, exemplifies this quote perhaps more than any actually canonized saint I’ve ever known. He did great works with his writing, charity, and in other ways–and we should all aspire to work for the Kingdom so passionately–but he also enjoyed the fruits of his labors, took of those luxuries he enjoyed, and, aside from his eccentricities and great accomplishments, lived personally the life of an ordinary Catholic as far as I can tell, not some unreachable ascetic from on high.

I have read that there are “Ordinary Saints” and “Extraordinary Saints,” but one almost never sees the “Ordinary Saints” canonized. Every time I see a lay saint who was canonized, it turns out “Oh, well, he/she was a lay saint, but was single,” or “Well, yes, he/she was a lay saint, and married, but was martyred,” or “the reason for the canonization was that he lived like a pauper and therefore was virtually a monk/hermit in all but celibacy and living in an order” etc., etc., etc. Even the Little Flower, whom I love and who is famous for her “Little Way” and for being so ordinary, was still a Religious, with all the poverty and strictures that entails. The “ordinary saints” so eloquently sought by Pope Francis, those saints who live ordinary lives in every way except that they remain faithful to the teachings of the Church, love God and work for God’s Kingdom on Earth within the context of their very much ordinary lives, are rarely anywhere to be found in the canon, unless they were martyred. I understand that not every saint like this could be canonized, but it’d be nice to have at least a handful for every hundred “Extraordinary Saints” out there, if only to remind us that the extraordinary saints aren’t the only kind.

And a saint like G.K. Chesterton, I think, would give me hope that words like the Pope’s are not just empty encouragement. I’m not saying anyone on this thread is saying the following, but I have heard his canonization opposed on the iimplied grounds that he was “too ordinary” in terms of Holiness, implying that his not living a harsh life of self-inflicted suffering, that his living a life where he partook of the permitted goods and comforts with which God blessed him, should exclude him from the canon. I think that discourages millions upon millions of Catholics from believing in the kind of saints spoken of by the Pope in the above quote. As if sainthood is for the “special” people, the people who go into the desert, or the monastery, or the poor house. Having Chesterton canonized, at least given what I know of him, would show that sainthood is for the rest of us too.

Now if only they ever considered canonizing someone like J.R.R. Tolkien.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

P.S. If there are a plethora of these “ordinary saints” in the canon and I just haven’t heard of them, sorry about that. And again, I am NOT accusing anyone who has posted on this thread of any of the sentiments I sort of eschew above; even if I’d been the first to post on this topic, I’d have had all of the above to say.

Wow! What a beautiful contribution to the thread! I don’t think anyone could have summed it up any better. Thank you.

By the way, do you have a source for that quote from Pope Francis? I love it!

 

[Rumil]

I am rooting for Gilbert. I too am a fat guy with a strange sense of humor and a inclination towards paradox. One thing I have been wondering about Chesterton. He often is presented as being perfectly orthodox in supporting Catholic doctrines and dogmas, but one Catholic doctrine he does not seem to buy into is what you might call the appearance of evil. I don’t know the formal name of this sin but, for example, I understand that it is wrong to share an apartment with a woman even if the relationship is non-sexual because the situation might appear sinful to an observer. Chesterton attitude seems to be that as long as you know that you are not sinning, it doesn’t matter what it looks like to other people. For example, In Chesterton’s novel Manalive, the hero Innocence Smith uses burglar tools to break into his own house. Observers think he is a thief, but Innocence is presented as a very moral person. He marries a series of women, so he appears to be a bigamist but every time the woman he marries is his wife. Man alive states explicitly that the behaviors associated with crime like stealth, trickiness and disorderly conduct are admirable if done in the service of virtue. I know Manalive is a work of fiction but Chesterton dealt with this issue repeatedly in his stories and it seems that he thought that what was important was doing good, not looking like you are doing good. Is this a serious breach of Catholic doctrine? Could Chesterton be denied sainthood based on this issue?–Rumil

 

[Della]

I am rooting for Gilbert. I too am a fat guy with a strange sense of humor and a inclination towards paradox. One thing I have been wondering about Chesterton. He often is presented as being perfectly orthodox in supporting Catholic doctrines and dogmas, but one Catholic doctrine he does not seem to buy into is what you might call the appearance of evil. I don’t know the formal name of this sin but, for example, I understand that it is wrong to share an apartment with a woman even if the relationship is non-sexual because the situation might appear sinful to an observer. Chesterton attitude seems to be that as long as you know that you are not sinning, it doesn’t matter what it looks like to other people. For example, In Chesterton’s novel Manalive, the hero Innocence Smith uses burglar tools to break into his own house. Observers think he is a thief, but Innocence is presented as a very moral person. He marries a series of women, so he appears to be a bigamist but every time the woman he marries is his wife. Man alive states explicitly that the behaviors associated with crime like stealth, trickiness and disorderly conduct are admirable if done in the service of virtue. I know Manalive is a work of fiction but Chesterton dealt with this issue repeatedly in his stories and it seems that he thought that what was important was doing good, not looking like you are doing good. Is this a serious breach of Catholic doctrine? Could Chesterton be denied sainthood based on this issue?–Rumil

I think he was simply trying to shake people out of their normal way of seeing things so they could appreciate what those things that are truly important. Appearances can be deceiving, so we cannot go by that alone. I think there’s a big difference between trying to get people to understand that principle and deliberately causing scandal. Chesterton liked to turn things inside out and backwards in order to get people to see things as they really are instead of relying on their biases and preconceptions.

 

[KindredSoul]

Wow! What a beautiful contribution to the thread! I don’t think anyone could have summed it up any better. Thank you.

By the way, do you have a source for that quote from Pope Francis? I love it!

Well, upon researching the quote, I have found that it is evidently misattributed. I’ve been had!

The quote was evidently written, as a poem, by someone in Brazil, inspired by something Pope JPII said, but not based directly on it. See here: catholicnewsagency.com/blog/the-poem-pope-francis-never-wrote/

The sentiment behind the quote is still remarkably beautiful and applicable to my original post, and it would seem to me, vaguely, that several Popes have encouraged the spirit of the quote in different words and in more subtle ways–that we need sanctity among the “everyday people.” But yeah, it seems that no Pope ever actually said this quote outright. Shame on me for not fact checking before quoting it as such!

Oh, and thanks for your warm response to my contribution to the thread!

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[Misplaced_Book]

I enjoyed his writing very much when I was in college. Is his life worthy of veneration? Would I feel comfortable with his Icon on the wall? should hymns be composed in his honor?

I think the first question is the most vital, and one that has to be answered honestly and without sentiment.

 

[Della]

I enjoyed his writing very much when I was in college. Is his life worthy of veneration? Would I feel comfortable with his Icon on the wall? should hymns be composed in his honor?

I think the first question is the most vital, and one that has to be answered honestly and without sentiment.

And this is what will be determined. Nearly every saint elevated to the altar has had people who objected for one reason or another. Just look at the hullabaloo over Mother Teresa’s elevation and Bl. John Paul II. The more we know about a candidate the more s/he will come into question.

No saint except Mary led a perfect life free of sin or didn’t do less than honorable deeds. Some of our greatest saints were terrible sinners before their conversions. We’ll just have to see what is researched and decided.

 

[gus]

As a Chestertonian. I would love to hear. his comments on the prospect of his sainthood.
That could be a separate thread.

 

[Holly3278]

That is really cool! I wasn’t aware that he was a convert though until now. I thought he had remained an Anglican his entire life. I hope that eventually he is canonized!

 

[chipeto]

This is a poem that Chesterton wrote after he was confirmed in the Catholic Church.

The Convert

After one moment when I bowed my head
And the whole world turned over and came upright,
And I came out where the old road shone white.
I walked the ways and heard what all men said,
Forests of tongues, like autumn leaves unshed,
Being not unlovable but strange and light;
Old riddles and new creeds, not in despite
But softly, as men smile about the dead

The sages have a hundred maps to give
That trace their crawling cosmos like a tree,
They rattle reason out through many a sieve
That stores the sand and lets the gold go free:
And all these things are less than dust to me
Because my name is Lazarus and I live.

• G.K. Chesterton

 

[Della]

Just wanted to share this article with everyone: Why Chesterton Will be a Saint.

 

[manualman]

As I see it, your “take” on his “take” on the FR is a case of verbal gymnastics. Although yours is different from others who like GKC, it is similar in that verbal gymnastics is being used to make it more palatable.

This whole thing reminds me very much of the kerfuffle about Christopher West’s comments on Hugh Hefner!

In both cases (The French revolutionaries and Hef), people prefer to simply denounce everything about these people since so much evil came from their decisions and actions. But a more charitable approach should seek to ask questions about how and what caused these people to make the disastrous decisions they did? Chesterton put it another way another time (paraphrased from memory): “Reformers are usually right about what is wrong, but are always wrong about what is right.” Perhaps you need to simply evaluate what he says about the French rev in that light.

It’s too easy to denounce Robespierre as a nutjob and Hef as a pervert and refuse to examine how a human can become like that. Sometimes, people make a real diagnosis of something legitimately wrong in the world and then proceed to over-react with a counter-error that worse than the first. It’s very nearly the devil’s favorite trick, I’d say!

The same can be said of Betty Freidan or Gloria Steinem. They didn’t achieve world fame and leadership status by inventing phony grievances and clever PR. They articulated VALID complaints about how women were structurally mistreated by men in American society and then proceeded to advocate for changes that made things far worse. But their later mistakes don’t negate the validity of their initial criticisms any more than the validity of those initial critiques guarantee the truth of their proposed “reforms.” There is a huge chasm between diagnosis of a problem and the formulation of the cure.