The Best and Funniest Article in the Latest Gilbert

Over the past two days, I've savored every moment I spent reading this month's Gilbert. Sometimes I skip around, but there were so many interesting things to read, this time I just did the front-to-back book style reading of it. And boy was I pleasantly surprised when I reached the last page, the last word, a new essay of Gilbert's from the Daily News, March 14, 1908.

This column, titled "A Case of Comrades" shows Gilbert's tremendous ability to *show* the reader what he means. It illustrates his artistic nature and that he is a visual writer.

As I pictured this group of men, debating over whether the train had a central passageway or a left-sided passageway (and having seen enough old movies to visualize both myself), and imagining the way Chesterton drops one conversation on the left and another on the right to engage in this debate, using the sugar cubes, the knives and forks, and the tables for visual aids, well, by the end of that article, I was laughing so hard, I had tears.

Chesterton makes out that men's conversations are rather foolish (although they take them quite seriously) and the debate might not be over a serious subject, but still, I can't help but wish I'd been just somewhere in the room so I could have had a good laugh over it all, don't you?

Gilbert: Feminism

I finally got my March issue of Gilbert magazine, hopefully you've had time to read yours. There were some great articles in there, some good news, writing of Gilbert's that are new and fun to read, announcement of the conference speakers, and more.

I had a moment of sadness, when I read Frank's joke in the letters, knowing he sent that in before he died. I'll miss those jokes in the letters in the months ahead. Frank was a good soul.

I'll be discussing this issue more, but for right now, there is science, math and some Easter dresses that are a pretty high priority. ;-)

Dr. Thursday's Post

The Defender of Truth, the Patron of Humility

The vast quantity of GKC's writing - over 45 megabytes of text, as AMBER counts such things - means that we might claim him under a variety of titles - which, as usual, is a trademark of All Christian Things.

You may have heard it said that there are 1000 names of God (or various other numbers). There are 33 famous titles of Jesus appearing in the Litany of the Sacred Heart, many of which are drawn from Sacred Scripture. There are whole Towers of titles for Mary; there are a number for St. Joseph; there even are various nicknames and honorifics for at least the big-name saints. Peter, who really is Simon-Bar-Jonah, is called the Rock (Cephas in Aramaic, Petrus in Greek/Latin, and so on) - you know the list. Sometimes these are not so much titles but names-given-in-place-of-function, like "Keeper of the Keys" for Peter. The hidden Latin pun calls him "Janitor of Heaven" as if we'd expect to see him with a mop or dustpan and brush, a cigar butt hanging from his mouth! But the ancient Janitor is a "doorkeeper" - from janua, the Latin word for "outer door" or "gate".

GKC, though not yet formally canonised, might have a variety of titles as well. Our esteemed president, Dale Ahlquist, calls him "the Apostle of Common Sense" - which conveniently happens to have the same initials as the American Chesterton Society. But Fr. Jaki, one of the great students of Chesterton on Science, calls him such dignified titles as "Interpreter of Science", "Antagonist of Scientism", "Critic of Evolutionism", and my favourite, "Champion of the Universe". Those of us who read GKC's mysteries might call him "First President of the Detection Club" - which he was. But if we consider his philosophical teachings - in the overall, comprehensive, catholic method he followed, we should have to focus on certain aspects: his novel sense of vision, his exaltation of gratitude - or his stern defence of humility, which could also be phrased as his utter antipathy to pride.

If there is one essay of GKC's you really OUGHT to read during Lent - and indeed at least once a year - it is his "If I Only Had One Sermon to Preach" which can be found in his The Common Man. I do not have a date for that particular essay (though it is clearly after 1922) and that book dates from after his death (its essays were collected by his secretary, Dorothy Collins); however, his thought on this matter can be found in many places. For example, here is something he wrote in 1905:

Humility is so practical a virtue that men think it must be a vice. Humility is so successful that it is mistaken for pride. ... Now, one of these very practical and working mysteries in the Christian tradition, and one which the Roman Catholic Church, as I say, has done her best work in singling out, is the conception of the sinfulness of pride. Pride is a weakness in the character; it dries up laughter, it dries up wonder, it dries up chivalry and energy. The Christian tradition understands this... the truth is much stranger even than it appears in the formal doctrine of the sin of pride. It is not only true that humility is a much wiser and more vigorous thing than pride. It is also true that vanity is a much wiser and more vigorous thing than pride. Vanity is social - it is almost a kind of comradeship; pride is solitary and uncivilized. Vanity is active; it desires the applause of infinite multitudes; pride is passive, desiring only the applause of one person, which it already has. Vanity is humorous, and can enjoy the joke even of itself; pride is dull, and cannot even smile.
[GKC Heretics, CW1:72, 107]

Or, from the essay you really must read, written after his conversion in 1922:

Pride is a poison so very poisonous that it not only poisons the virtues; it even poisons the other vices. ... Pride consists in a man making his personality the only test, instead of making the truth the test. It is not pride to wish to do well, or even to look well, according to a real test. It is pride to think that a thing looks ill, because it does not look like something characteristic of oneself.
[GKC The Common Man 248,254 (emphasis added)]

Read that excerpt again; it will serve you well. Lest I give you the impression that GKC has only given the warning, and said nothing of the remedy, behold, from a different essay in the same book:

Laughter has something in it in common with the ancient winds of faith and inspiration; it unfreezes pride and unwinds secrecy; it makes men forget themselves in the presence of something greater than themselves; something (as the common phrase goes about a joke) that they cannot resist.
[GKC, The Common Man 158]

Hm: "Laughter unfreezes pride, unwinds secrecy." We shall see more of that particular remedy when we near the completion of our journey. The password for that moment shall be "toucan"; if I forget, please remind me.

Oy. Have I thoroughly lost it? Why am I quoting large chunks of other books? Aren't we talking about Orthodoxy any more?

Why, yes, we are. You have already advanced into the next chapter of our journey.
Click here to go further.
This leg of our journey, the chapter we have just entered, is called "The Suicide of Thought". If you are reading along, please consider just the first five paragraphs - all the further we shall travel today.

GKC begins with some verbal fireworks, examining the phrase "having one's heart in the right place" - and its negation. Again, he is aiming to introduce us to a complex matter by presenting us with a well-known matter, and drawing analogies to it. You may, of course, think of the dear once-wicked Grinch, who heard a song one Christmas morning, inspiring his heart to grow three sizes - and so was able to pull a Scrooge - a veritable "Damascus Moment" - and come sit down at the feast. [Cf. Rev 19:9] The hearts of Scrooge and of the Grinch were clearly in the right place.

GKC talks about the vices running rampant. We all know that in our time - it may be funny to think of such words coming from 100 years ago. But immediately he adds that the virtues are also rampant - and cause far more damage. Look at these next words - you may feel a chill from his precognition of our modern world:

Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful.
[CW1:233]

There is a famous quote I read in a book by Fr. Jaki, I cannot quite recall who said it, or the context, about how the work on the atom bomb was "technically sweet". There are other charming little phrases, quite current in this day-and-age, about cloning, embryo-experiments, harvesting organs from living people, which sound much more like things right out of ancient Carthage...

Oh - pardon. You are bothered by this, are you not?

Again - and I have told you previously - do not lose sight of the point GKC is getting at. He is NOT trying to produce a solid argument ABOUT these matters here... he is showing us that there has been carved a deep chasm between things that ought to have remained firmly linked.

One does not have to be an epistemologist (a student of the knowledge about knowing) to know that science is about knowing (Latin scientia = knowledge) - knowing the truth of natural things. But science cannot answer whether a given action, experiment, or device should be performed or built. It is just as true to say that moral theology does speak to the question of whether actions are permitted, but by no means can it tell you how to plant corn, how to purify water, or how to make a smoke detector - which happens to rely on nuclear physics. For much more on this right order of the fields of knowledge, see Newman's Idea of a University - which talks about the order, the right arrangement of the various disciplines.

Ah! Now, maybe you see? It's a matter of - let us say - "the heart being (or not being) in the right place".

Or - how about the people who wish to fix the drug problem by legalising all such things? (Excepting, I may guess, tobacco and alcohol.) GKC already has you beat there - or rather I ought to say Mr. Blatchford, who (as GKC reports),

is mad on one Christian virtue: the merely mystical and almost irrational virtue of charity. He has a strange idea that he will make it easier to forgive sins by saying that there are no sins to forgive.
[CW1:233-4]

If you desire the parallel fictional discussion, please read "The Chief Mourner of Marne" in The Secret Of Father Brown. In Mr. Blatchford's case, he points out, "the pagan accusation is really true: his mercy would mean mere anarchy. He really is the enemy of the human race - because he is so human." [CW1:234]

You ought to expect, in GKC's casual introduction, the corresponding opposite - and sure enough, we have it: "As the other extreme, we may take the acrid realist, who has deliberately killed in himself all human pleasure in happy tales or in the healing of the heart." [CW1:234] I think we may know some people like that.

Then we come to another firework, even more provocative than the mention of science, for it brings up the Inquisition - yet, "in Torquemada's time there was at least a system that could to some extent make righteousness and peace kiss each other. Now they do not even bow." [CW1:234; cf Ps 84(85):11] Since it was based on a Christian, and not a natural view of human nature, the Inquisition had far better protections than any of the then-existing state judicial systems, and far better than most of our own - but that is another topic, and we must not lose sight of what GKC is getting at. Just in case you are, he takes up another topic, which I have already displayed for you in my introduction: the idea of humility.

I shall give you the whole next paragraph, for I cannot imagine anything I can add to its jewel-like brilliance:

It is only with one aspect of humility that we are here concerned. Humility was largely meant as a restraint upon the arrogance and infinity of the appetite of man. He was always outstripping his mercies with his own newly invented needs. His very power of enjoyment destroyed half his joys. By asking for pleasure, he lost the chief pleasure; for the chief pleasure is surprise. Hence it became evident that if a man would make his world large, he must be always making himself small. Even the haughty visions, the tall cities, and the toppling pinnacles are the creations of humility. Giants that tread down forests like grass are the creations of humility. Towers that vanish upwards above the loneliest star are the creations of humility. For towers are not tall unless we look up at them; and giants are not giants unless they are larger than we. All this gigantesque imagination, which is, perhaps, the mightiest of the pleasures of man, is at bottom entirely humble. It is impossible without humility to enjoy anything - even pride.
[CW1:234]

We can find the fictional counterpart in a Father Brown story, written in nearly the same time frame:

Humility is the mother of giants. One sees great things from the valley; only small things from the peak.
["The Hammer of God" in The Innocence of Father Brown]

Wonderful, you say. Clear. Exciting. (It gives you a real "hiking" feel, doesn't it?) But then, what's the problem?

In a blunt statement, nearly as stunning as anything in the last chapter about lunacy, GKC tells us:

But what we suffer from to-day is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed.
[CW1:234-5, emphasis added]

Oh, it gets worse. Those of you who have bowed at the altar of "self-esteem" and "self-assertion" might now wish to turn to another book - but you must now take your medicine:

Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert - himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt - the Divine Reason. Huxley preached a humility content to learn from Nature. But the new sceptic is so humble that he doubts if he can even learn.
[CW1:235]

A quick aside: Who is Huxley? GKC: "I think Huxley was a great man and Herbert Spencer a very small man. Many of their contemporaries worshipped both of them; and I do not very greatly agree with either of them. But Huxley held the very ancient agnostic philosophy; and it is a large though a negative philosophy. And Huxley could write; that is, he could write that large philosophy on a small scale." [ILN Feb 26, 1927 CW34:263] He was "Darwin's bulldog" - a kind of preacher of the Darwinian philosophy, or rather anti-philosophy. But GKC, always seeking truth, points out how he was right, and honours his guide for GOOD science - "humility content to learn from nature". Would that more scientists, more intellectuals, were that way! But let us resume.

Oh - are you stuck? Confused about this "wrong" form of humility? GKC gives another example in a metaphor:

The old humility was a spur that prevented a man from stopping; not a nail in his boot that prevented him from going on. For the old humility made a man doubtful about his efforts, which might make him work harder. But the new humility makes a man doubtful about his aims, which will make him stop working altogether.
[CW1:235]

Oh, boy! Goal-driven, purpose-driven - ooh, teleology! Dic cur hic! Tell why you're here! But where is here? Quo vadimus? Where are we going? (We are going somewhere, aren't we?) Yes, but it's hard to go anywhere if you have no aim, no destination. Elsewhere GKC told us: "A man might measure heaven and earth with a reed, but not with a growing reed." [GKC Heretics CW1:117]

Wait, Doctor, you say - this is complex.

Uh, no - not really.

In order to explain, let us take a quick humour break. As you may know GKC often gave lectures - which people went to, because they were looking forward to the Question and Answer period at the end, when they'd ask GKC all kinds of things just to see how he'd respond. Remember how he argued with his brother? Or how he pointed out that the "Schoolman" (meaning the philosophers of the Middle Ages like Aquinas) "heckled himself for hundreds of pages"! [GKC Chaucer CW18:367] One of the best of the recorded give-and-takes, in my estimation, is this:

Q: I feel, Mr. Chesterton, that there is one important matter you have not quite covered: in the event of your having to change your original position, what tactics do you adopt?
GKC: On such occasions I invariably commit suicide.
[Ward, Return To Chesterton 152]

Or perhaps you've seen the famous bumper sticker, I don't know if it was a quote from Lucy Van Pelt: "Everyone has a right to MY opinion." You've surely seen or heard comments in bloggs, or anchormen giving weighty responses about such things.

What is the problem? The problem is that, for 100 years now, these grand statements of opinion are weakened by the postscript, "I may be wrong."

So?

So, here's what GKC says:

At any street corner we may meet a man who utters the frantic and blasphemous statement that he may be wrong. Every day one comes across somebody who says that of course his view may not be the right one. Of course his view must be the right one, or it is not his view. We are on the road to producing a race of men too mentally modest to believe in the multiplication table. We are in danger of seeing philosophers who doubt the law of gravity as being a mere fancy of their own. Scoffers of old time were too proud to be convinced; but these are too humble to be convinced. The meek do inherit the earth; [see Mt 5:4 KJV] but the modern sceptics are too meek even to claim their inheritance. It is exactly this intellectual helplessness which is our second problem.
[CW1:235]

You may now sigh with relief - for there you have it, the signpost for this chapter: the Suicide of Thought, or intellectual helplessness.

Do not despair, dear friend. You are about to face some very rough terrain - but you will find new tools, some awesomely GRAND views, some dramatic figures of speech - even hints of even papal writings. One wonders whether John Paul II had this chapter in mind when he wrote Fides et Ratio...

For now, however, think a bit about Euclid's starting point (puns intended), and bear this in mind:

...only a man who knows nothing of reason talks of reasoning without strong, undisputed first principles. ... reason is always reasonable, even in the last limbo, in the lost borderland of things. I know that people charge the Church with lowering reason, but it is just the other way. Alone on earth, the Church makes reason really supreme. Alone on earth, the Church affirms that God himself is bound by reason.
["The Blue Cross" in The Innocence of Father Brown]

--Dr. Thursday

Celebrating 100 Years of Orthodoxy: Free Digital copy of Book

Follow this story and link to get your free copy of Orthodoxy.

New Reprint to read before the elections

Cecil Chesterton was Gilbert's brother, Hilaire Belloc his best friend. Although Gilbert didn't help write the book, I can't help thinking he'd have discussed these ideas with his friend and his brother.

Pertinent to this year's election, The Party System looks like a good read for 2008.

The Party System (Paperback)
by Hilaire Belloc (Author), Cecil Chesterton (Author), Ron Paul (Foreword), Sforza Ruspoli (Preface) Find out more.


* Paperback: 160 pages
* Publisher: IHS Press (March 1, 2008)
* Language: English
* ISBN-10: 1932528113
* ISBN-13: 978-1932528114


Book Description
Pertinent to America, Britain, and other Western democracies, this book explains that what people believe happens in national assemblies and parliaments is radically different from the reality. Instead of being places where debate is intense, passionate, and aimed at the national interest, the fact is most members of these institutions act on behalf of powerful, unelected interests. They know, implicitly, who really runs the country—and their only real task is to decide if they want to try and rock the boat (thereby risking their salary, their reputation, their future), or stay silent for fear or favor. The book demonstrates beyond any doubt that the very nature of the system is hostile to democracy as laypeople understand it.

About the Author
Hilaire Belloc was twice elected to the British Parliament and is a prolific author on a wide range of political, economic, social and historical issues. Cecil Chesterton was and journalist and editor who was associated with the Fabian Society and later worked almost exclusively for The New Age, where he was an important contributor. In 1911, he became assistant editor on Hilaire Belloc's new weekly, The Eye-Witness, and when it folded in 1912, he bought the paper and renamed it The New Witness, which he edited until when he went off to war. His books include Gladstonian Ghosts, G. K. Chesterton: A Criticism, and A History of the United States. Congressman Ron Paul served in Congress during the late 1970s and early 1980s, where he served on the House Banking committee. He returned to Congress in 1997 where he serves on the Financial Services Committee as the vice-chairman of the Oversight and Investigations subcommittee. He is also the author of several books, including Challenge to Liberty; The Case for Gold and A Republic, If You Can Keep It. He lives in Lake Jackson, Texas. Prince Sforza Ruspoli is the prince of Cerveteri, Italy, the count of Vignanello, and the honorary vice president of the promotional committee of the Banca del Mezzogiorno at the Italian Ministry of Economy and Finance. He served as ambassador of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta to the State of Malta, of which order he is currently a Knight, and is a member of the Executive Committee of the Bank of Rome and the founder of the Centers of Agrarian Action.

Prayers

Please pray for the mother of Chestertonian and eloquent Distributist Roy Moore, who is in the hospital.

Thanks.

The All New Club of Queer Trades

h/t K. Abel

Chesterton and Home Education

After reading this story, we can see that the single case in California has nothing to do with education or school. It has to do with potential abuse going on in the family.

Abuse must be dealt with, but the answer isn't: A) All children must be taught by experts in the Educational Field.

Last time I checked, Educational Professionals are just as tempted by sin as parents, ministers and boy scout leaders who are also ministers.

And the answer is also not B) No one in California can homeschool, because one family might have abused their children. If that were the case, California should also shut down all churches, schools, scout programs, camps, and also outlaw babysitting. Oh, and they should outlaw families, too. But I think they're already working on that.

Now, let's talk about the part of the California situation where the Teacher's Union happily reports that experts with degrees must teach all children.

Seeing as how Chesterton was vastly self- and home-educated, I think he'd be the first to point out the fallacy of having "experts" to rely on for the education of our country.

Chesterton was convinced that even without a college degree, most parents could care for children in all the usual ways: feeding, diapering, teaching to walk, talk, teaching right from wrong, rules, manners, and yes, even, the stuff of life, or what some people categorize as "education". If the California situation is true and the children are being abused, this has nothing to do with education, and is a failure in parenting, in love. It is sin. We all sin, but when someone sins in this way against a child, it is horrible, and we want to fix it. Hurray for California for feeling this way. But the "fix" isn't to stop homeschooling in California so that abuse stops. That answer lacks common sense.

Does a parent need a literature degree to tell a child a bedtime story? Does a parent need a degree in foreign language to teach a child their native tongue (which is foreign to the child)? Does a parent need a PhD in Math to teach the child sums and balancing check books, and making change at the store? Does a parent need to be a philosopher to teach their child right and wrong and how to be good? Does a parent need to be a theologian to teach him about God and take him to Church? Does a parent need to be a Social Services expert to teach their child manners and the normal social interactions of daily life?

The whole principle of having children within a family is that the parents, the mom and the dad, have this forever bond of love, which, in the understanding of the Church is a sacrament, which means a means of God's grace, which helps them raise their children lovingly, to the best of their ability. This grace provides the strength to do what needs to be done everyday: from cleaning up spilled milk, to caring for a child with the stomach flu, to teaching the child the names of the state capitals.

Now, no one is perfect, and granted, we parents aren't perfect. But neither is a system perfect, containing lots of teachers, who each carry with them the possibility of imperfection. A teacher has no more ability to teach a child that is not his own, and in fact, has less. The natural way of the world has been, for thousands and thousands of years, that parents teach their children what needs to be taught. It's only been in the last few hundreds of years that the whole "institutional" school thing has developed. But naturally, our memory for history is so short, we forget this small fact.

The teacher is taught methods of "herding" and keeping 29 students occupied and happy in one room. The teacher teaches to the mid-level of the students. The teacher may try to individualize teaching for a few students, but they could never individualize teaching for all 29. Homeschooling provides that individual learning. Homeschooling is the equivalent of tutoring one-on-one. Teachers who have problems with students who either fall behind or get ahead often suggest tutoring because tutoring is good for students.

Parents have a better ability to teach their own children because of an important fact: they love their children and want what's best for them. Now many parents abdicate this responsibility to the state, and you get what you pay for there, if that's your choice. You should have the ability to have a say so in the matter, since, after all, your tax dollars are at work, but in general, you can attend all the home and school meetings you want to, and life at your child's school isn't really going to change.

Perhaps the education level in California is better than the rest of the nation. Perhaps their record of abusing children is better than the other 49 states. Perhaps California kids are passing standardized tests, getting into MIT and Harvard and Smith at higher rates than the rest of the nation. Perhaps California really has an educational system to be proud of. But I haven't heard those things, so I'm a little sceptical that that's the case in California.

I've noticed a curious trend in schools these days. Schools are demanding more and more education for their teachers. I know of kindergarten teachers who have their Master's Degrees. And I've also noticed, seemingly at the same time, a huge lack of education going on in the schools. Kids not passing test, misbehaving, becoming bullies, doing group math and watching a lot of movies, etc. Seems to me that kids learned a lot more in the old one room school house where discipline was demanded and the standards were high, and the teacher had just a bit more education than the students. If you look at a McGuffey reader or a spelling book or a math book from back then, and you will not believe kids were doing that work in 3rd or 5th grade. What some high school seniors cannot do today.

So, what do I think about California? There is a family that needs help. The system responds by saying the old "it takes a village of PhDs". Everyone has become so expert, no one has any common sense any more. Check the test scores. Who wins the geography and spelling bees in this country? How come colleges and universities all suddenly have recruiters for homeschoolers? Are homeschooling families the only place where abuse is found?

Our educational system is broken in this country. There are a few pockets of goodness. For the main part, though, we should take government out of the business of education. When governmental funds are removed from the situation, I think we'll find some real education can take place.

I think the court system must be broken, as well, to have let this situation happen.

Actual Video of Chesterton at Worchester College

First time I've *seen* this. I've heard the audio before, but didn't realize the audio was taken off a movie camera. Very, very cool.

Dr. Thursday's Post

Forward For Frank to the Circle and the Cross

Because of the passing of dear Frank Petta, it might be urged on me that I should forgo my usual Thursday speculations. (I note the Latin root of "speculation" means the same as the Greek root of the mystic Theoria... seeing and sight; recall the blind man in last Sunday's gospel!)

However, it would be a stronger wine than ever Frank brewed, and a better joke than ever Frank told, for me to do the One Thing which Frank delighted in - read GKC, ponder GKC, and urge GKC to others... so I shall, with a fond delight, and hoping for YOUR accompaniment, proceed to explore the next fragments of our centennial masterwork, Orthodoxy.

Note: today's post finishes Chapter II: "The Maniac", and so is a bit long, so I have kept my introduction short. Some of the richest bits are in these concluding paragraphs, so grab your knapsack, some water and a snack or two for the journey, and let's go! Click to proceed.

Recall that we have just considered the very complex matter of a type of lunatic - one who is crazy about determinism, or about materialism, to the utter abandonment of any other possibility. But he, like the simple madman of Hanwell or your own local asylum, has lost the universe in clinging to a singular truth. No horror grips the casual reader than these strange words from GKC's pen:

...you may say, if you like, that the bold determinist speculator is free to disbelieve in the reality of the will. But it is a much more massive and important fact that he is not free to praise, to curse, to thank, to justify, to urge, to punish, to resist temptations, to incite mobs, to make New Year resolutions, to pardon sinners, to rebuke tyrants, or even to say "thank you" for the mustard.
[CW1:228, emphasis added]

I am sorry, there are quite a number of things which are very clearly "determined" - that is, where simple physical causation explains the action. It may be as simple as a bowling ball hitting the pins for a strike, or as complex as the photons striking the chlorophyll in a green plant to produce wood or apples or wheat or grapes... BUT. I should be insane if my delight in these clearly explicable things (which incidentally permit me to write English, type it, and have it come to you elsewhere in the E-cosmos) would somehow lead me to lose the ability "to say 'thank you' for the mustard." That would be insane.

This error gives rise to a variety of related ones. GKC mentions just one - which is likewise horrifying since it is so prevalent in this time. I shall not examine it at length, but just mention that it is the strange view that somehow "crime" is a kind of "disease" to be remedied by change in the environment. But you ought to ponder that paragraph for yourself; it deserves far more than a paragraph of examination.

But we must proceed. The next case GKC takes up is the exact opposite of the materialist lunatic "who believes that everything began in matter" It is the man "who believes that everything began in himself":

He doubts not the existence of angels or devils, but the existence of men and cows. For him his own friends are a mythology made up by himself. He created his own father and his own mother.
[CW1:229]

This is even more horrifying. That poor fellow "is alone in his own nightmare", for him,

The stars will be only dots in the blackness of his own brain; his mother's face will be only a sketch from his own insane pencil on the walls of his cell. But over his cell shall be written, with dreadful truth, "He believes in himself."

Perhaps, since that is quite bothersome, you ought to hear GKC's response to the man who believes:

that he is always in a dream. Now, obviously there can be no positive proof given to him that he is not in a dream, for the simple reason that no proof can be offered that might not be offered in a dream. But if the man began to burn down London and say that his housekeeper would soon call him to breakfast, we should take him and put him with other logicians in a place which has often been alluded to in the course of this chapter.
[CW1:229]

Yes. Now, we have taken up two extremes, opposite forms of lunacy - Why?

...this panegoistic extreme of thought exhibits the same paradox as the other extreme of materialism. It is equally complete in theory and equally crippling in practice. ... The man who cannot believe his senses, and the man who cannot believe anything else, are both insane, but their insanity is proved not by any error in their argument, but by the manifest mistake of their whole lives. They have both locked themselves up in two boxes, painted inside with the sun and stars; they are both unable to get out, the one into the health and happiness of heaven, the other even into the health and happiness of the earth. Their position is quite reasonable; nay, in a sense it is infinitely reasonable...
[CW1:229-30]

Ah. Do you recall our little geometric conundrum about the circle, and another about infinity? We must now go deeper - far deeper - and up onto a much higher peak. We shall start to see something.

...there is such a thing as a mean infinity, a base and slavish eternity. It is amusing to notice that many of the moderns, whether sceptics or mystics, have taken as their sign a certain eastern symbol, which is the very symbol of this ultimate nullity. When they wish to represent eternity, they represent it by a serpent with his tail in his mouth. There is a startling sarcasm in the image of that very unsatisfactory meal. The eternity of the material fatalists, the eternity of the eastern pessimists, the eternity of the supercilious theosophists and higher scientists of to-day is, indeed, very well presented by a serpent eating his tail, a degraded animal who destroys even himself.
[CW1:230]

GKC has led us through a very complex and torturous (that word means "twisted", not "painful") journey through a very unpleasant place - but we have been able to see some marvels, and we are about to be given our next tool. This is a very startling one. It is rather like the one we are already carrying, which tells us to have extremes conjoined - and we saw what happens when one chooses the one or the other of the extremes! But we are going to have a powerful result, in a more precise form, and it is by use of reason.

This chapter is purely practical and is concerned with what actually is the chief mark and element of insanity; we may say in summary that it is reason used without root, reason in the void. The man who begins to think without the proper first principles goes mad; he begins to think at the wrong end.
[CW1:230]

In order to use reason we need proper first principles, just as in geometry there are things we take as given, and which we do not prove. Once we take the right starting points, we can do many useful things - even discover England. But we need that starting point!

Do you mean, Doctor, that this is just another attempt by GKC to start a discussion?

Not quite. Just as in The Phantom Tollbooth Milo stops thinking and lands in the Doldrums, and is rescued by the Watchdog who forces him to Think, we need to be startled by the dead ends of insanity.

(Remember, we are not making some sarcastic snippy quip about those who have pathological diseases of the mind; we are talking about the strange parallel between such failures and those who, though mentally capable, have chosen not to start thinking at all.)


Yes, GKC's next words do seem to hint that we are just beginning, perhaps because he wants us to consider just what it kind of a journey we are on:

And for the rest of these pages we have to try and discover what is the right end. But we may ask in conclusion, if this be what drives men mad, what is
it that keeps them sane? By the end of this book I hope to give a definite, some will think a far too definite, answer. [CW1:230]

I must here make an aside, but it is rather just a comment about our situation. GKC did write mysteries, but in one of the most profound essays ever written about detective stories, he said:

...we cannot really get at the psychology and philosophy, the morals and the religion, of the thing until we have read the last chapter. Therefore, I think it is best of all when the first chapter is also the last chapter. The length of a short story is about the legitimate length for this particular drama of the mere misunderstanding of fact.
[GKC ILN Aug 19 1922 CW32:432]

Indeed - and right here in Orthodoxy he demonstrates this principle. Rather than try to hide his solution, he immediately gives it away:

But for the moment it is possible in the same solely practical manner to give a general answer touching what in actual human history keeps men sane. Mysticism keeps men sane. As long as you have mystery you have health; when you destroy mystery you create morbidity. The ordinary man has always been sane because the ordinary man has always been a mystic. He has permitted the twilight. He has always had one foot in earth and the other in fairyland. He has always left himself free to doubt his gods; but (unlike the agnostic of to-day) free also to believe in them. He has always cared more for truth than for consistency. If he saw two truths that seemed to contradict each other, he would take the two truths and the contradiction along with them. His spiritual sight is stereoscopic, like his physical sight: he sees two different pictures at once and yet sees all the better for that. Thus he has always believed that there was such a thing as fate, but such a thing as free will also. Thus he believed that children were indeed the kingdom of heaven, but nevertheless ought to be obedient to the kingdom of earth. He admired youth because it was young and age because it was not. It is exactly this balance of apparent contradictions that has been the whole buoyancy of the healthy man. The whole secret of mysticism is this: that man can understand everything by the help of what he does not understand.
[CW1:230-1]

I have pointed out this business of sight several times; now we see, rather dramatically, the mystery of the Man With Two Eyes. (There's key phrase in GKC's Manalive: "Man found alive with two legs".) This is the dramatic restatement, like a musical theme now played by full orchestra, of the idea of keeping both extremes. This can only by done mystically - but it must be done in order to be sane.

What happens when one REFUSES this? Well, you've heard the answer enough in this chapter. Hanwell. But in practicality, what it means is the complete loss of reason.

Insanity: "The morbid logician seeks to make everything lucid, and succeeds in making everything mysterious."

Sanity: "The mystic allows one thing to be mysterious, and everything else becomes lucid."

Insanity: "The determinist makes the theory of causation quite clear, and then finds that he cannot say 'if you please' to the housemaid."

Sanity: "The Christian permits free will to remain a sacred mystery; but because of this his relations with the housemaid become of a sparkling and crystal clearness. He puts the seed of dogma in a central darkness; but it branches forth in all directions with abounding natural health." [all from CW1:231]


And now. The seal. The geometric matter which is described at length in GKC's The Ball and the Cross is here stated in - let us say - Euclidean precision:

As we have taken the circle as the symbol of reason and madness, we may very well take the cross as the symbol at once of mystery and of health. Buddhism is centripetal, but Christianity is centrifugal: it breaks out. For the circle is perfect and infinite in its nature; but it is fixed for ever in its size; it can never be larger or smaller. But the cross, though it has at its heart a collision and a contradiction, can extend its four arms for ever without altering its shape. Because it has a paradox in its centre it can grow without changing. The circle returns upon itself and is bound. The cross opens its arms to the four winds; it is a signpost for free travellers.
[CW1:231]

You may wonder at the reference to Buddhism; I must defer that for the present. But the geometric aptness of the symbols is not really a matter of debate... they may only go so far anyway, as GKC proceeds to note:

Symbols alone are of even a cloudy value in speaking of this deep matter; and another symbol from physical nature will express sufficiently well the real place of mysticism before mankind. The one created thing which we cannot look at is the one thing in the light of which we look at everything. Like the sun at noonday, mysticism explains everything else by the blaze of its own victorious invisibility.
[CW1:231]

There you see a repeat, even more powerfully, of the line above: "He puts the seed of dogma in a central darkness; but it branches forth in all directions with abounding natural health." But there are other echoes from other places. Perhaps I have quoted this before, but it is the perfect matching jewel to this word-nexus. As usual, it is the fictional variant of a non-fictional exposition:

"The greenness, that I walked like one in a dream, stretched away on all sides to the edges of the sky. Sleepily, I let my eyes fall and woke, with a stunning thrill, to clearness. I stood shrunken with the shock, clutching myself in the smallest compass.

"Every inch of the green place was a living thing, a spire or tongue, rooted in the ground, but alive. Away to the skyline I could not see the ground for those fantastic armies. The silence deafened me with a sense of busy eating, working, and breeding. I thought of that multitudinous life, and my brain reeled.

"Treading fearfully amid the growing fingers of the earth, I raised my eyes, and at the next moment shut them, as at a blow. High in the empty air blazed and streamed a great fire, which burnt and blinded me every time I raised my eyes to it. I have lived many years now under this meteor of a fixed Apocalypse, but I have never survived the feelings of that moment. Men eat and drink, buy and sell, marry, are given in marriage, and all the time there is something in the sky at which they cannot look. They must be very brave.
["A Crazy Tale" in CW14:70]

Now, for something Far More Amazing. This idea is not original to GKC! Consider this:

"If I fail to see this light (of God) it is simply because it is too bright for me. Still, it is by this light that I do see all that I can, even as weak eyes, unable to look straight at the sun, see all that they can by the sun's light."
[The Proslogion of St. Anselm, quoted in the Office of Readings for April 21]

Remember, we have been talking about sight... Sight, or its weakness, or its lack, is the conclusion of this chapter:

Detached intellectualism is (in the exact sense of a popular phrase) all moonshine; for it is light without heat, and it is secondary light, reflected from a dead world. But the Greeks were right when they made Apollo the god both of imagination and of sanity; for he was both the patron of poetry and the patron of healing. Of necessary dogmas and a special creed I shall speak later. But that transcendentalism by which all men live has primarily much the position of the sun in the sky. We are conscious of it as of a kind of splendid confusion; it is something both shining and shapeless, at once a blaze and a blur. But the circle of the moon is as clear and unmistakable, as recurrent and inevitable, as the circle of Euclid on a blackboard. For the moon is utterly reasonable; and the moon is the mother of lunatics and has given to them all her name.
[CW1:231-2]

For background you might wish to read "The Eye of Apollo" in The Innocence of Father Brown. And you may need to know a bit of Latin: luna means "moon".

But for now, we have completed a very important and difficult phase (no pun intended) of the journey. As we think on this, and on the risks and obligations we have considered, may we pause for a time in prayer to thank God for our vision - but also ask, as the blind man did: "Lord, that I may see." [Luke 18:41]

--Dr. Thursday.

Share your memories of Frank

If you liked to reminisce about Frank a bit, or share a memory, I think that would be a good thing. You can do it here in the comments, or here.

Frank Petta's Death Notice

Elgin Courier

Frank A. Petta

Frank A. Petta, 89, of Elgin passed away Monday, March 3, 2008 in his home. He was born March 12, 1918 in New York, NY, the son of Victorio and Rosa Maria Petta.

Frank was Baptized at St. Anthony of Padua and received first communion at the Church of Transfiguration in 1929. he graduated from St. John's University in Brooklyn and served two years in the US Army Air Corps. He then attained his Masters Degree from Columbia University. Frank was a teacher and taught in New York and Chicago for many years prior to retirement.

He had a life long interest in the ideas and writings of Gilbert Keith Chesterton, an English journalist and author of many books. With others, he founded the Midwest Chesterton Society, and helped start an annual conference. Frank had been a member of several Pro Life organizations, and was director of Elgin Birthright for several years.

He was a member of St. Thomas More Catholic Church in Elgin.

Survivors include his wife, Ann, whom he married on March 23, 2002; a sister-in-law, Ethel Petta of New York; along with niece, Theresa Catherwood; and nephews, Fredrick, Joseph and Robert Petta; and many cousins and family.

He was preceded in death by his parents; and his brother, Louis Petta.

Funeral Mass will be celebrated on Friday, March 7, 2008 at 10:00 A.M. in St. Thomas More Catholic Church, Elgin with Rev. Geoffrey Wirth officiating. Burial will follow in Mt. Hope Cemetery, Elgin. Visitation will be on Thursday from 4-8:00 P.M. at Laird Funeral Home, 310 S. State St. (Rt. 31), Elgin, IL 60123, 847-741-8800, and on Friday at the church from 9:30 A.M. until the Mass. Memorials directed to St. Thomas More Building Fund.

Funeral Arrangements for Frank Petta

Frank's funeral will be Friday 10:00 am at St. Thomas More in Elgin IL and the wake is Thursday evening from 4-8:00 pm at the Laird Funeral Home in Elgin.

Some memories of Frank Petta

Here are some remembrances of Frank. If you have any stories you'd like to share, let's do it here. I think this is a fitting place to remember a man devoted to Chesterton.

Frank Petta

Frank died yesterday afternoon, March 3rd, at 4:15 PM. May his soul rest in peace.

And now, something from Dr. Thursday.

In Memoriam Frank Petta.
by a recipient of his generosity.

Frank sent me photocopies of the GKC "Our Note-Book" essays from the
last five years of the Illustrated London News, and my mother
read them to me so I could type them into AMBER, as they are in such
poor shape they cannot be scanned.

Thanks, Frank. Please pray for us. Ask my mom about the fun we had doing
them.

--Dr. Thursday, sometimes called the AMBER Collector.

More Petta Wine, Please
by Dr. Thursday

The Midwest[1] gang of G. K. Chesterton,
Who G.K. read, drink beer, and bacon fry,
Who ponder paradox which some still stun,
Have met to thank God rightly[2], mugs to ply
Though we now miss our friend, a G.K. guy,
Who cheered them too, with jokes preserved in brine
And friendship rich; but they heave a sigh:
If only we could get more Petta wine.

This man, Frank Petta, totes no wedding gun[3]
He found (I don't know how or when or why)
An Illustrated London News full run
And reaped the columns written on the fly
So by the Grim Recycler they won't die.
Ignatius pressed the word lodes of Frank's mine,
Then the Midwest drank; still for more they spy:
If only we could get more Petta wine.

Now Frank for eighteen years shared that same sun
Which through old England's fogs did strive to pry
And light Top Meadow where was sown the fun
In essays kept by Frank's observant eye.
At Midwest meetings he is never shy:
Frank, who with a friend[4], still does reap the vine,
So that the G.K. meetings don't go dry:
If only we could get more Petta wine.

Frank, the earth spins on, the years go by,
God says "again"[5] the rising sun does shine;
Your fruitful vines have spread - they reach the sky...
If only we could get more Petta wine.

__________________
notes:

1. This poem was originally written for Frank's birthday in a time
before the ACS. In the interest of history I have not altered this term.
Then again the ACS meetings are still in the Midwest, so it really did
not need to be altered anyway.
2. See OrthodoxyCW1:268: "We should thank God for beer and
Burgundy by not drinking too much of them."
3. See Autobiography CW16:43 "I stopped on the way [to his
wedding] to drink a glass of milk in one shop and to buy a revolver
with cartridges in another."
4. Ann Stull, whom he married after a LONG courtship.
5. See Orthodoxy CW1:263-4: "It is possible that God says every
morning, 'Do it again' to the sun."
Here is Frank at the very first Chesterton Society meeting, 27 years ago. He's towards the front with an orange shirt. Ann is second from the left, sort of across from Frank. He attended every single one of them for 26 years. We'll miss him this year.

Pope B16: The Mozart of Theology

"Pope Benedict’s sensitivity for the beauty in music and art as much as his particular affection for Mozart’s style may well be one of the explanations not only of his well-rounded style, but also of the intellectual architecture of his theological writings, which are characterized by a high degree of perfection, with a rare combination of simplicity, clarity, depth, and both logical and persuasive power.

That’s why Cologne Cardinal Joachim Meisner calls Pope Benedict the “Mozart of Theology.” Cardinal Meisner developed this further in a homily that he gave on the occasion of the Pope’s 80th birthday in St. Hedwig’s Cathedral in Berlin:

“Pope Benedict XVI has the gift of pointing out to people the sanctifying message of the Gospel in its beauty, fascination and harmony, so much so that he is called the ‘Mozart among the theologians.’ His theology is not only true and good, it is also beautiful. His words sound like music in the ears and hearts of people. He manages masterfully to transform the notes of the Gospel into thrilling music. That’s why the stream of pilgrims that flock to his audiences is growing every month.”

Something we have in common. Mozart is my favorite composer, too.

EWTN Programming Error

Due to a programming error, the Fourth Season of the Apostle of Common Sense will begin on March 9th, not yesterday, the 2nd, as was previously reported.

Thanks, and hope you'll watch next Sunday.

Keep Praying please

At the request of Frank's wife Ann, I'm asking you to please keep praying for Frank. She reports that he is at the end of his life, and will only live a day or so. He is 89 and would turn 90 March 12.

Thanks everyone.

Please Join us in Prayer for Frank Petta

Please pray for Frank Petta. His wife Ann tells us he is "very sick".

Frank is one of the original 25 people who started this Chesterton Group 27+ years ago.

He founded the Chicago Chesterton Society. It added Milwaukee and became the Midwest Chesterton Society with annual conferences. Then it became the American Chesterton Society with headquarters in the Twin Cities.

Thanks for the prayers, God's will be done.

Baby Worship

Ronald McCloskey reminded us that the thing that is in us that loves babies, will love Dickens.

And that reminded me of the "In Defense of Baby Worship" essay that Chesterton wrote, and that I love. Here is a little bit, and if you click on the title above, you can get a bigger piece of the essay.

" If we could see the stars as a child sees them, we should need no other apocalypse. . . We may scale the heavens and find new stars innumerable, but there is still the new star we have not found - [the one] on which we were born. But the influence of children goes further than its first trifling effort of remaking heaven and earth. It forces us actually to remodel our conduct in accordance with this revloutionary theory of the marvellousness of all things. We do actually treat talking in children as marvellous, walking in children as marvellous, common intelligence in children as marvellous. . . [and] that attitude towards children is right. It is our attitude towards grown up people that is wrong. . ." GKC

Baby worship is right. So is all-people worship. Every man is a child of God, made in His image and likeness. It's just often harder to see what's wonderful in an adult; nonetheless, we adults are still marvels, and marvelous, each and every one of us.