Dr. Thursday's Post

The Peril - and a Bridge into Light

We ended last week, smack in the Octave of Easter (the week of eight Sundays!) with a real cliffhanger:

...there is a great and possible peril to the human mind: a peril as practical as burglary. Against it religious authority was reared, rightly or wrongly, as a barrier. And against it something certainly must be reared as a barrier, if our race is to avoid ruin.
[CW1:236]

And I am sure everyone was wondering what that peril is. Good. So you can wonder just a little more, but you are about to find out - if you dare.

We are coming to the first really serious peak in our "study" (that is a pompous term for my boisterous and lengthy meanderings) of GKC's centennial book, Orthodoxy. We had a couple of weeks where we made a slight detour for the sake of the season - so just in case you let it slide and want to catch up, you ought to read (or re-read!) Chapter III called "The Suicide of Thought" - up to the paragraph end I have just quoted.

Very well. All ready to resume the hike? Good. As Hans the guide called out, "Forüt!" - "Forward!" (That's from Jules Verne's Journey to the Center of the Earth, in case you've forgotten... we aren't going there today. Sorry. That leaves from Iceland in late June - wanna go?) Ahem.

What, then, is this peril? Actually, we were told about it, a paragraph or two ago:

The whole modern world is at war with reason; and the tower already reels.[CW1:235]

Yes, please read that again. These times are dark. Few things have been darker, been more misnamed than "the Enlightenment". These times, NOT the 13th century, are the Dark Ages. These times are emphatically NOT the "Age of Reason". You can find this discussed elsewhere; the philosophers, if any still are with us, must now go stand in the corner, for they have refused to help. But GKC is here, with light, with weapons, with truth... (Compare these with Milo's gifts in The Phantom Tollbooth - a book which in so many ways hints at the same things GKC tells us!)

So what is the peril? Summon all your courage, and read on - when you dare.

"That peril is that the human intellect is free to destroy itself." [CW1:236]

Yes. You can, if you choose, think yourself into a state where you can no longer think. No alcohol, no drugs; nothing like that. You read the wrong books, listen to the wrong music, watch the wrong TV shows, visit the wrong web-sites... and Poof.

Your Mind - It's Gone!

By action of your own mind, you make yourself a PUPPET - and no longer think.

You may think this is nonsense, pure fantasy... I can think myself into NOT thinking? Ah, yes... Remember Milo, stuck in the Doldrums in The Phantom Tollbooth because he wasn't thinking? But this is not fantasy. This is for real. This can REALLY HAPPEN... and HAS HAPPENED. GKC is not so much giving a commentary (or predicting, considering its aptness for the present time!) but simply reporting.

Do you think this is profound, or find it unexpected? You will be even more surprised at what comes next:

Just as one generation could prevent the very existence of the next generation, by all entering a monastery or jumping into the sea, so one set of thinkers can in some degree prevent further thinking by teaching the next generation that there is no validity in any human thought. It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. If you are merely a sceptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, "Why should go right; even observation and deduction? Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic? They are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape." The young sceptic says, "I have a right to think for myself." But the old sceptic, the complete sceptic, says, "I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all."

There is a thought that stops thought. That is the only thought that ought to be stopped. That is the ultimate evil against which all religious authority was aimed. It only appears at the end of decadent ages like our own...
[CW1:236, emphasis added]

An aside: I wonder, did John Paul II read this before he wrote his 1998 encyclical called Fides et Ratio? (That is, "Faith and Reason"!) Alas, he did not quote GKC; I checked. (If you are seeking a doctoral topic, perhaps a study comparing these two great works might be most profitable.)

The surprise, I am sure you noticed, is that there is an answer, and it is in what MOST people nowadays consider the most unlikely place: the greatest support of Reason is in Faith. In fact, one cannot even have Reason unless one first has faith.

The few real philosophers with us are nodding happily. They are delighted that GKC has taken the Three Great Self-Evident Principles of Thought as his starting point, even though he doesn't state them explicitly. They will not mind that I review them for you:

(1) The existence of the thinking subject.
(2) The principle of contradiction: "A thing cannot at the same time be and not be."
(3) The natural capacity of our reason to know the truth.
These are also called the first fact, the first principle, and the first condition of certain knowledge.
[See Scholastic Philosophy by Michael W. Shallo, S.J.>

These three principles cannot be proven, but must be accepted, or you can do NOTHING AT ALL. Not even write a journal article for a philosophy magazine. Or even post a comment on a blogg...

Yes, if you never resume reading this book, nor ever read any GKC again, please memorise this ONE line.. OK, these three sentences - at least the one in BOLD:

"It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all."

Aren't you glad you kept reading? You thought all you were going to hear about was that awful peril - and here Chesterton is handing us a weapon! Wow. What a GREAT tool we now have! We have beaten flat most of the last few centuries of philosophers, and can now toss their books into the trash. They are all LIARS, rather, they are HYPOCRITES, doing what they refuse to admit is possible:

[The "moderate realism" of Thomism and Scholastic Philosophy] is the only working philosophy. Of nearly all other philosophies it is strictly true that their followers work in spite of them, or do not work at all. No sceptics work sceptically; no fatalists work fatalistically; all without exception work on the principle that it is possible to assume what it is not possible to believe. No materialist who thinks his mind was made up for him, by mud and blood and heredity, has any hesitation in making up his mind. No sceptic who believes that truth is subjective has any hesitation about treating it as objective.
[GKC, St. Thomas Aquinas CW2:542-3]

But you want to know more. GKC immediately gives an example from one of his "Heretic" friends, H. G. Wells. (Note: I call him that because of Chapter 5 in GKC's Heretics, and not from any personal criticism; GKC considered him a friend.)

...already Mr. H. G. Wells has raised its ruinous banner; he has written a delicate piece of scepticism called "Doubts of the Instrument." In this he questions the brain itself, and endeavours to remove all reality from all his own assertions, past, present, and to come. But it was against this remote ruin that all the military systems in religion were originally ranked and ruled. The creeds and the crusades, the hierarchies and the horrible persecutions were not organized, as is ignorantly said, for the suppression of reason. They were organized for the difficult defence of reason.

Man, by a blind instinct, knew that if once things were wildly questioned, reason could be questioned first. The authority of priests to absolve, the authority of popes to define the authority, even of inquisitors to terrify: these were all only dark defences erected round one central authority, more undemonstrable, more supernatural than all - the authority of a man to think. We know now that this is so; we have no excuse for not knowing it. For we can hear scepticism crashing through the old ring of authorities, and at the same moment we can see reason swaying upon her throne. In so far as religion is gone, reason is going. For they are both of the same primary and authoritative kind. They are both methods of proof which cannot themselves be proved. [That's almost literally the definition of the above three principles!] And in the act of destroying the idea of Divine authority we have largely destroyed the idea of that human authority by which we do a long-division sum. With a long and sustained tug we have attempted to pull the mitre off pontifical man; and his head has come off with it.
[CW1:236-7, emphasis added]

Wow, did you catch this: "in the act of destroying the idea of Divine authority" - isn't that horrifying! For that is the secret aim of so many of these philosophers! It's a war, after all - remember GKC's last words? "The issue is now quite clear. It is between light and darkness and every one must choose his side." [Ward, Gilbert Keith Chesterton 650] And we'll see, perhaps next week, how this idea will link to other matters - big, nasty, debate-making matters - that you might not expect.

But for today, just look at this - doesn't something seem familiar here? Remember: "If thy head offend thee, cut it off; for it is better, not merely to enter the Kingdom of Heaven as a child, but to enter it as an imbecile, rather than with your whole intellect to be cast into hell - or into Hanwell."[CW1:224; cf Mt5:30, 18:8] Ah, yes - but here, there's someone else doing the pulling!

I was about to list names of these Dark Powers - but that would just make noise and waste your energy. (You'll hear one of them in the near future anyway; no it's neither "Sauron" nor "Voldemort".) Let them remain in the dark - you know who they are - I shall just call them the Dark Powers of Evil - those who have rejected the Good - these are all at work, claiming to advance "Reason" but really attacking it! They are hard at work, to pull off the mitres we all wear, in our sworn dedication to Faith... Indeed, the tower already reels.

You may think it is funny to consider all humans wearing the mitre, the conical hat of bishops, the symbol of pontifical power - but these things are serious, and come up in so many places in GKC. You need to ponder what it might mean to be a "pontiff" = "to build a bridge" - and how that must be both a matter of faith as well as reason. If you need a reading assignment, see GKC's memorial at the death of Francis Thompson, ILN Dec 14 1907 CW27:603, or look up the life and work of John Roebling (the Brooklyn Bridge designer), or of St. Benezet. Or, perhaps, even the Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas, where you'll read:

Thus alms are besought for the building of a bridge, or church, or for any other work whatever that is conducive to the common good..." [Summa II-II Q187 A5, emphasis added]

But - yes, yes - unless you read it in GKC, some of you won't believe it. So:

"...when men wish to be safely impressive, as judges, priests or kings, they do wear skirts, the long, trailing robes of female dignity."
[What's Wrong With the World CW4:128]

Or if you prefer the fictional version:

"'All ceremony,' he said, 'consists in the reversal of the obvious. Thus men, when they wish to be priests or judges, dress up like women."
[Napoleon of Notting Hill CW6:247-8]

Why is this relevant? Because women are nearly always the first teachers of children. Remember, you cannot spell M-A-N without M-A - a truth which confutes all the feminists!

Let me end this very difficult and complex - but extremely important - stage of our journey with another quote from that excellent book on Education - no not Newman, but GKC. Another one you ought to memorise:

"A teacher who is not dogmatic is simply a teacher who is not teaching."
[What's Wrong With the World CW4:162]

I know at first you'll think that bit about women has NOTHING to do with pontiffs. You'll need to think about that - and perhaps read that book after we're done with this one.

Yes - please think carefully about all of this - while you still can. They are already attacking!

--Dr. Thursday

P.S. I must insist on this bridge matter as being a wonderful symbol for intellect and reason. Reason is, in a sense, a bridge we build from our inmost self to Reality - and like all bridges, requires faith and a firm foundation. It's most thoroughly human: "Building a bridge seemed such a clean, heroic thing for a man to do." [said of Roebling in David McCullough, The Great Bridge p.82-83] I could quote many additional demonstrations, but I shall give just the one which I first learned from Fr. Jaki:

The rebuilding of this bridge between science and human nature is one of the greatest needs of mankind.
[GKC, The Defendant 75 quoted in Jaki, Chesterton a Seer of Science 45]

Rod Bennett to Discuss Cecil Chesterton's History of the United States

Join in the conversation, where he'll be posting excerpts daily for discussion.

ChesterCon08 Schedule ready for viewing/registration

The 27th Annual Chesterton Conference is announced!

Go register now, before everyone else does.

The Suprise

We watched The Surprise again as a family yesterday and really enjoyed it. As Dale explains at the start, it was slated to be revised, but that never happened. It does end rather abruptly, but Dale comes back in for a nice fireside chat about the meaning of it all.

Looking for a great gift for a graduate, confirmandi, or just something to watch together as a family? The Surprise fits the bill.

Alive and Young: Chesterton Thing 2

Creative Paul Cat made this very cool sphere of Gilberts.

ChesterTeens Create New Chestertonian Easter Egg

Creativity abounds.

Easter: Dr. Thursday

Authority: Riddles and Puns, Burglars and Police

Alleluia!!!

Ah - the Octave of Easter! It's a week of eight Sundays. (No this is NOT an allusion to The Man Who Was Thursday.) The Canadian rock group "Rush" has a song called "Time Stand Still" - but here we have just a hint of that mystic eternity as the Church suspends all other feasts for these eight days! (the Annunciation, which falls during this week in 2008, yet cannot be suppressed, shall be celebrated next Monday.) Yes, despite some curious and confused looks from the less attentive in the congregation, the careful and reverent priest will chant sed in hac potissimum die or "...on THIS EASTER DAY" in the Preface of each Holy Mass during this week.

Yes, indeed, O ye rockers! Time DOES stand still. How? Click here to find out.Truly we HAVE to celebrate during this week of Sundays, because this Son was dead and has come to life again - this Brother of ours was lost - and now He is found!!! [cf. Lk 15:24]

"Early in the morning of the first day of the week, when the Son had risen..." [cf. Mark 16:2]

Puns - did you say puns? Yes, of course - there are lots of puns to handle - one of the funniest is this thing about RISING - which occurs during the feast of Azymes, the ancient Pasch, the Time of the Unleavened - where we are the New Leaven. [1Cor 5:6-8] Leavening, for those of you who don't bake, is any agent added to dough to make it rise - to make it get lighter than it is... (And we hear our big-billed toucan friend murmur, "Angels can fly because they can take themselves lightly." CW1:325) Typical leavening agents are lard or butter, baking powder, baking soda and some acid, and so on, but most of all, yeast, which is zumh = "zyme" (long E) in Greek.

An aside: if you're wondering why "zyme" sounds familiar, it's in the word "enzyme" (something found IN YEAST)... But we're not going to talk biology today, as exciting as it might be, and even though this feast is about the resurrection of the BODY...

No: instead, we'll take just a tiny glance at one paragraph from Orthodoxy, then we can resume our festival.

Here it is:

The sages, it is often said, can see no answer to the riddle of religion. But the trouble with our sages is not that they cannot see the answer; it is that they cannot even see the riddle. They are like children so stupid as to notice nothing paradoxical in the playful assertion that a door is not a door. The modern latitudinarians speak, for instance, about authority in religion not only as if there were no reason in it, but as if there had never been any reason for it. Apart from seeing its philosophical basis, they cannot even see its historical cause. Religious authority has often, doubtless, been oppressive or unreasonable; just as every legal system (and especially our present one) has been callous and full of a cruel apathy. It is rational to attack the police; nay, it is glorious. But the modern critics of religious authority are like men who should attack the police without ever having heard of burglars. For there is a great and possible peril to the human mind: a peril as practical as burglary. Against it religious authority was reared, rightly or wrongly, as a barrier. And against it something certainly must be reared as a barrier, if our race is to avoid ruin.
[CW1:235-6]

We've had a pun or two already, and will probably have more. So... perhaps you are wondering, does GKC actually advise us to do physical harm to the officers of the law? Of course not. Perhaps you'd prefer to think of posting negative comments in a policeman's blogg, or writing editorials against the idea of Law Enforcement.... Well, again, it's not quite that either.

Let me try something. Anyone who has read many of the best "Boy's Books" - like, let's say, The Mad Scientists' Club or even The Phantom Tollbooth, or to vary the genre, the Sir Henry Merrivale mysteries by John Dickson Carr - if you HAVE read such things, you know that boys of all ages especially like to do daring tricks, and play hilarious pranks. Not real crimes of course, but pranks... Wrong, perhaps, but NOT (emphatically NOT) evil...

Such is the kind of "attack" GKC is suggesting. Pranks, I say, not crimes, things no "mature adult" would do, more out of embarrassment than out of "respect" for the Law, at the border where there's still some light to the humour even though some shadows are looming....

There is a certain rebel in so many of us, which gives rise to practical jokes, to boldness - but this is not a "Boy's Book". We are NOT talking about playing tricks in the town square! No, as usual, GKC is desperately trying to construct a metaphor about a exceedingly complex idea, and one which will bring out far more argument and debate than any merely civil power, police force, bad cops, or corrupt city governments have EVER had.

Let's just say, for discussion, that GKC really meant to "attack the police" - let us take this in its extreme sense to mean "to abolish the police utterly"... to destroy Authority.

BUT!!!!

GKC tells us how stupid it would be to reject the idea of police as if we had never heard of burglars...

There IS something real that threatens us, something dangerous in this life, something we need protection from...

GKC is about to reveal that the authority "in religion", just as the authority "in the police" or "in the Law", exists for a very good reason, and was placed there as a protection against a Very Real Threat.

And that threat is NOT what you might otherwise have guessed. But for the answer you will have to come back next week.

For now: back to the feast! It's still Easter Sunday for another three days...

--Dr. Thursday

The Cassette's Sing Chesterton

From Stephen, either the leader of the band, or just a band member:

I play in a secular band called the Cassettes from the Washington, DC area. If you watch the video for the song "Rogue Gnome" to the end, you'll hear a rather familiar paraphrasing of a quote from one of our favorite authors [Chesterton].
Made up of myself, a Catholic, a Muslim, a lapsed-Romanian Orthodox/Non-denom Protestant, and a "secular" Jew, The Cassettes don't have any particular religious stance, but I should say that we are fighting, in our small way, towards what I would suggest is something close to Distributist ideals. We try to work and play with local and small-minded (in the Schumacher sense) folks as much as possible, including playing on street corners for passers-by when the mood strikes us.

Check here for more of The Cassette's music videos.

Alive and Young: Chesterton Thing

Alive and Young's Paul Cat has been learning some graphic design, calling attention to himself on airplanes, and playing with GKC's image. Check it out here: Alive and Young: Chesterton Thing
I think it's amazing the creativity inspired by Chesterton. Tomorrow I'm going to tell you about this band that plays Chesterton. And then there's this Chesterton Easter Egg...and did I tell you about the Chesterton cornflake that got $1300 on eBay?

Happy Easter!

On the third day the friends of Christ coming at daybreak to the place found the grave empty and the stone rolled away. In varying ways they realised the new wonder; but even they hardly realised that the world had died in the night. What they were looking at was the first day of a new creation, with a new heaven and a new earth; and in a semblance of the gardener God walked again in the garden,
in the cool not of the evening but the dawn.
--G. K. Chesterton The Everlasting Man CW2:345

Good Friday/Holy Saturday Chesterton The Everlasting Man

They took the body down from the cross and one of the few rich men among the first Christians obtained permission to bury it in a rock tomb in his garden; the Romans setting a military guard lest there should be some riot and attempt to recover the body.

There was once more a natural symbolism in these natural proceedings; it was well that the tomb should be sealed with all the secrecy of ancient eastern sepulture and guarded by the authority of the Caesars.

For in that second cavern the whole of that great and glorious humanity which we call antiquity was gathered up and covered over; and in that place it was buried. It was the end of a very great thing called human history; the history that was merely human.

The mythologies and the philosophies were buried there, the gods and the heroes and the sages. In the great Roman phrase, they had lived. But as they could only live, so they could only die; and they were dead.
--G. K. Chesterton The Everlasting Man CW2:344-5

Thanks to Dr. T.

George MacDonald: Mary Magdalene

A beautiful poem for today.

Good Friday Thoughts from Chesterton's Orthodoxy

God the rebel, God with his back to the wall, God for atheists

That a good man may have his back to the wall is no more than we knew already; but that God could have his back to the wall is a boast for all insurgents for ever. Christianity is the only religion on earth that has felt that omnipotence made God incomplete.

Christianity alone has felt that God, to be wholly God, must have been a rebel as well as a king. Alone of all creeds, Christianity has added courage to the virtues of the Creator. For the only courage worth calling courage must necessarily mean that the soul passes a breaking point - and does not break.

In this indeed I approach a matter more dark and awful than it is easy to discuss; and I apologise in advance if any of my phrases fall wrong or seem irreverent touching a matter which the greatest saints and thinkers have justly feared to approach. But in that terrific tale of the Passion there is a distinct emotional suggestion that the author of all things (in some unthinkable way) went not only through agony, but through doubt.

It is written, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." [Mt 4:7 quoting Dt. 6:16] No; but the Lord thy God may tempt Himself; and it seems as if this was what happened in Gethsemane. In a garden Satan tempted man: and in a garden God tempted God. He passed in some superhuman manner through our human horror of pessimism.

When the world shook and the sun was wiped out of heaven, it was not at the crucifixion, but at the cry from the cross: the cry which confessed that God was forsaken of God. [Mt 27:46 quoting Ps 22:1] And now let the revolutionists choose a creed from all the creeds and a god from all the gods of the world, carefully weighing all the gods of inevitable recurrence and of unalterable power. They will not find another god who has himself been in revolt.

Nay (the matter grows too difficult for human speech), but let the atheists themselves choose a god. They will find only one divinity who ever uttered their isolation; only one religion in which God seemed for an instant to be an atheist. [cf The Everlasting Man CW2:344]

--G. K. Chesterton Orthodoxy CW1:343
Thank you, Dr. T.

Holy Thursday

This is Holy Thursday, and just as the Church shifts the calendar of fixed dates to accommodate the variable, we also shall shift our focus. The wonder is that we shall nevertheless consider the very next bit of Orthodoxy, since it plays a role in today's considerations.

As those who attend the evening Mass today shall see, although this Mass is the Mass of Masses - the anniversary, as it were, of the first Mass - the gospel reading for today is not about the Eucharist. It's about Subsidiarity. Yes. Did Dr. Thursday just say subsidiarity? Why? Click here.It's where Jesus washes the feet of the Apostles [John 13] Here we see the truth set forth in very clear, though quite horrifying detail. Horrifying, that is, to the ancient Aristotelian view of society with its slaves serving at the bottom and its "best" people ruling (Greek "aristocracy"= rule by the best) at the top. Horrifying, too, to the modern corporate mind which sees their megastructures built from the top down, paying the do-nothing executives VAST amounts and the least minimum possible to the underlings who actually do the work. (What? Not much different in 2300 years?)

But from Subsidiarity, we learn that the higher orders exist to serve the lower - which Jesus demonstrated by washing the Apostles' feet. Ever think about that? Those were bare, or at best sandal-clad feet, that had recently stomped through dust and mud and trash and ... ah... other things one might find on the horse and donkey and camel-travelled roads of that time.

Hey! That's slave work - being done by the Master? Yes: "He took the form of a slave, being born in the likeness of men..." [Phil 2:7]

Why do I use this word "horrifying"? What does that have to do with Orthodoxy, or with the current moment in the liturgical cycle?

Well, when one is about to die, one has to try to deal with the most important matters in one's life. As we know from St. Paul, and from the three Synoptic evangelists, the Eucharist was established amid the Passover rituals, as the new and everlasting passover-covenant. St. John reports how Jesus repeated this dogma six times, [see John 6] utterly scandalizing many who heard it, so much that they went away. We also know, from St. John, the lengthy prayer-instruction which Jesus gave just after the evening meal [John 14-16] - within which are more clues to this mystery.

But as I said, echoing St. John (13:1), Jesus knew he was about to die. This is the single most talked-about death, the single most dramatic death, the single most important death to occur in history, or even in fiction. This death is, as I have harped on previously, an important thing to remember. Dickens told us how important it was that we know, at the outset of the "Christmas Carol":

Marley was dead: to begin with. There is no doubt whatever about that. ...
There is no doubt that Marley was dead. This must be distinctly understood, or nothing wonderful can come of the story I am going to relate.
[C. Dickens, "A Christmas Carol"]

Likewise, we have to enter into this matter of Christ's death - and be fully convinced of it, in order to proceed into these next days.

But "Horrifying"? Why? Because of the death? Because of the manner of death?

No. Because it was so unreasonable, so inappropriate.

Peter, always the spokesman for the others, certainly thought so: "Lord, far be it from You [to die]..." (Mt. 16:22) And also, St. Paul called the crucifixion (1 Cor 1:23) a "stumbling block" to some - apparently the Greek word is "scandal" - that is, "the distressing effect on others of unseemly or unrighteous conduct". He also called it "foolishness" to others. That is, something quite irrational- the Greek word apparently is "moron".

Now, if you take just a few minutes from your day and read the next two or three paragraphs from Orthodoxy CW1:235-6. But don't worry if you cannot, we shall talk some more about them in the future. What does GKC tell us there? The critical line is in that first short paragraph, near the bottom of 235:

...what peril of morbidity there is for man comes rather from his reason than his imagination.

Well! Chesterton, if we are reading him right, seems to be hinting that the problem we men face comes from expecting REASONABLE things - presumably in places where things are just not going to be reasonable.

Or - maybe - just maybe - he's giving some kind of strange paraphrase ... ah ... of St. Paul.

Did I just write that?

Yes, I did. Just last week I was considering something, and I have begun to note some interesting alignments - maybe we might say that GKC is a disciple of St. Paul. I am not arguing this in any strict sense; nothing more, perhaps than a "slovenly poetry", without rhyme or even rhythm. Unreasonable, perhaps, but imaginative.

But there was one thing, NOT from Orthodoxy which hit me, as I thought of the events we recall this week, and considered my writing on our present book... this idea of a journey. And I recalled this, which I warn you may seem very blunt, and perhaps horrifying:

...the life of Jesus went as swift and straight as a thunderbolt. It was above all things dramatic; it did above all things consist in doing something that had to be done. It emphatically would not have been done, if Jesus had walked about the world forever doing nothing except tell the truth. And even the external movement of it must not be described as a wandering in the sense of forgetting that it was a journey. This is where it was a fulfilment of the myths rather than of the philosophies; it is a journey with a goal and an object, like Jason going to find the Golden Fleece, or Hercules the golden apples of the Hesperides. The gold that he was seeking was death. The primary thing that he was going to do was to die. [see Mt 16:21, Lk 12:49-50] He was going to do other things equally definite and objective; we might almost say equally external and material. But from first to last the most definite fact is that he is going to die.
[GKC, The Everlasting Man CW2:339, emphasis added]

OK, now compare that with this:

For I judged not myself to know anything among you, but Jesus Christ: and him crucified.
[St. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 2:2)]

I know; the words are not even close. I said I was NOT making that kind of argument! But the thought is the same. It's what I said before; it's the Dickens opening. It's most unreasonable, it's putting the End - (isn't death an End?) at the very beginning. It's upside down. Of course it is! He told us so himself, feeding, as it were, GKC with whole rafts of paradoxes. "I have come to serve, not to be served, and to give his life..." [Mt 20:28, emphasis added; this verse is the very kernel and object of Subsidiarity!] Mary, his mother, carrying Jesus within her as an embryo of just a few cells, stated this of God: "He hath put down the mighty from their seat and hath exalted the humble." [Luke 1:52] And Jesus repeated that this inversion shall occur [Lk 13:20] and, as we heard, demonstrated it by washing those dirty feet.

((An aside: Don't let anyone ever tell you Chesterton is the Master of Paradox. Really, that's just another title of our Lord. Just check out the gospels, and you'll see it's true.))

You look a bit concerned: Is that all? I'm still confused. Isn't there any more?

Sure there's more. There's a lot more - to Dickens, to St. Paul, to GKC - and to our remembrance of these next days. There will be, in a future chapter, very powerful and bitter - and shocking - comments about this death, and we shall see a courageous God, a God with his back to the wall, a God who was a rebel, a God who seemed to be atheistic (See CW1:343) But for today that is all you ought to consider.

May God give you the grace "to know nothing but Jesus Christ and Him crucified".... "to begin with. Or nothing wonderful can come of the story" you are about to hear. [1Cor2:2, cf. Dickens' "Christmas Carol"]

--Dr. Thursday

Catholic Blog Awards

Congratulations American Chesterton Society Blog!

We won!

Well, we came in Eleventh Place (with 20 votes) in the "Best Group Blog" category. Yeah, us!

We also came in 93rd (with one vote) in the "Most Informative and Insightful" blog.

Thanks to everyone who voted.

Unexpected Chesterton talk coming up in Chicago Area

Event Calendar

4/9/2008
"G.K. Chesterton's Discovery of Metaphysical Realism"
Details:
“G.K. Chesterton’s Discovery of Metaphysical Realism” is the topic of a lecture that will be presented by Fr. Aidan Nichols, O.P., a renowned theologian, author and John Paul II Memorial Visiting Lecturer at the University of Oxford, at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 9 in the Krasa Center Presentation Room. The lecture is the first in a series at Benedictine titled “Theology in Life” which focuses on theology for lay people and how they can relate that theology to their lives in the workplace, civil society, political society and family. The lecture is sponsored by the Department of Religious Studies and St. Procopius Abbey. It is free and open to the public.

Contact Information
Christine Fletcher

GKCleveland's First Meeting

As reported in the March issue of Gilbert, there is a new Chesterton society in Cleveland, (see pg. 15) who is lucky enough to have a G.K. Chesterton room where they can meet and stare at Chesterton's large portrait on the wall while talking about him.

The most interesting item, to me, buried in the second last paragraph of that article, was the report of a small hand-drawn booklet, made for Sheila Matier of California (age 9) containing the original poem "The Three Conquistadors".

This poem was mentioned in Maisie Ward's biography of Chesterton, and part of the poem was reprinted, but not the entire thing. People have been searching for this poem for a long time. Including me.

At one point in my duties as a Chestertonian, I was put to the task of trying to find this person and possibly this manuscript. I went down a bunch of dead ends for a year or more. And now, I have come to discover that according to Dale Ahlquist, President of the American Chesterton Society, that TWO such manuscripts have been located!

The first is, as Gilbert recorded, in the collection of Chestertoniana at the Special Collections of the John Carroll University just outside Cleveland. The membership at the first GKCleveland got to see this manuscript with their own eyes (and possibly in their own hands) during that first meeting. (I wonder, did it smell like cigar smoke?!)

According to Dale, there is a second, possibly identical manuscript in the Huntington Library in Los Angeles!

I would be very curious to know how two such items came into existence. Does anyone know any more about this?

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.