In yesterday’s posting we saw that the “cause” for the canonization of G.K. Chesterton was
given the thumbs down by Peter Doyle, Bishop of Northampton, and that this
excited a somewhat negative reaction on the part of some Chestertonians, as
followers of Chesterton are called.
 |
| Gilbert Keith Chesterton |
At the heart of
the disappointment suffered by the followers of the English journalist,
appeared to be a misunderstanding regarding the difference between principle
and application, as well as an inadequate grasp of the concept of
infallibility. There is also the issue
that some Chestertonians claim that the Just Third Way of the interfaith Center
for Economic and Social Justice is contrary to Catholic social teaching, and
its adherents are therefore dissenters.
This is something
that a great many people, especially Catholics, misunderstand about their own
Church’s teachings. The Catholic Church
claims to teach principles infallibly in matters of faith and morals. It does not claim to apply principles
of faith and morals — or anything else — infallibly. Nor does it claim that any of the experts understand
any of its teachings infallibly . . . especially in areas outside of faith and
morals. . . .
 |
| Pope Leo XIII |
The bottom line
is how could CESJ possibly be dissenting from something when dissent isn’t an
issue or even possible? Who cares how
workers (or anyone else) become capital owners, as long as it is moral and
financially feasible? It is not dissent
to inform a bishop — or anyone else, including the pope — that a suggested
method of reaching a desired goal won’t work, or something else would work
better. Money, credit, banking, and
finance are not exactly within the competence of the pope as pope, or a bishop
as bishop. Of course their opinions
outside their area of expertise have weight, and should be treated with
respect, but not if their opinions are wrong or inadequate.
What would be
dissent is disagreeing with or rejecting what a pope or bishop decides or
teaches within the area of his competence, that is, in matters of faith and
morals. We can, for example, agree with
a bishop who says we must respect human dignity, and disagree with him when he
gives particulars that do not appear to make sense or that seem inadequate or
wrong when he says how to respect human dignity. That’s not dissent.
 |
| Bishop Peter Doyle |
What would be
dissent is when a bishop says we must respect human dignity and we say, no, we
don’t need to respect human dignity. The
former is a disagreement on how we respect human dignity, not whether we
respect human dignity, which is the latter case. By saying we don’t need to respect human
dignity, we reject the bishop’s authority to say anything about human dignity.
[For the record,
these are what we call “examples.” We
believe that human dignity must be respected; the whole of Catholic social
teaching as well as the Just Third Way take this as a given. HOW to respect human dignity can be
discussed, but not whether it should be respected.]
And that, having
made our point, brings us back to our starting point. The disappointment of many Chestertonians
over the action taken by the Bishop of Northampton seems to have led them to
forget a few things . . . such as disagreeing with and second-guessing a bishop
in the field of faith and morals might start to get into actual dissent, as
might questioning the bishop’s authority or calling him a liar for making
“false accusations” against Chesterton.
 |
| Hilaire Belloc |
More immediately,
some Chestertonians don’t seem to realize that one of the reasons the Catholic
Church canonizes people (it does not “make people saints”) is to serve as
examples to be followed by others. It’s
not a popularity contest. And some of
the interpretations latter day Chestertonians put on Chesterton’s words and
actions might not be the kind of example the Catholic Church wants or can
permit people to follow.
This says nothing
about Chesterton, but a great deal about some Chestertonians. Chesterton, for example, might have meant
nothing at all malicious by his comments about Jews, and he may have repented
if he thought people took them what he considered the wrong way. Nobody is perfect. That’s not the point. The problem is that others might assume that
saying such things is acceptable or even virtuous, just as some people today
seem to think hatred or disparagement of another bunch of Semites who happen to
be Muslims is somehow good, that Protestants are evil because they are
Protestants, or that White Supremacy is an acceptable ideology.
 |
| E.F. Schumacher |
Then there is the
fact that far too many Chestertonians and distributists seem to think that
distributism is socialism in all but name, yet Chesterton was quite clear on that
point, as he was on private property. Still,
under the banner of “Small is Beautiful,” which happens to be the title of a
book that was billed as a New Age guide to “Buddhist economics” (?!?!?!?), socialist
principles have been incorporated into many people’s understanding of
distributism.
The book, by the
way, was written by E.F. Schumacher, a member of the Fabian Society who
converted to Catholicism — and remained a Fabian. Interestingly,
the Fabian Society uses the wolf in sheep’s clothing as its emblem. Other Chestertonians claim that the writings
of R.H. Tawney, considered by some to be the premier English socialist, are
consistent with distributism and Catholic social teaching. This is even though Tawney ridiculed
Chesterton and Belloc and attacked the Catholic Church, and he was on the
Executive of the Fabian Society from 1920 to 1933.
 |
| The Fabian Wolf |
Examples could be
multiplied, but it is not necessary. The
possibility remains that Chestertonians may have only themselves to blame for
the bishop’s decision, who had to consider not merely Chesterton, but how
people understand Chesterton. After all,
Blessed Joachim of Flora will probably never be canonized due to the
possibility that it would be taken as reversing the condemnation of his
writings . . . which were badly flawed, even heretical.
So why is Joachim
considered blessed? Because of his
absolute obedience in submitting his writings to the judgment of the Church,
and not second-guessing religious authority in matters relating to their area of
expertise. He was probably very
disappointed at the condemnation (even though the full condemnation only took
place after his death), for it rejected his life’s work . . . but people were
using his writings to justify dissent from the Church’s teachings, even putting
them above the Bible. Some of them
claimed to start a new church, even a new Christianity, with Saint Francis of
Assisi as the new messiah. (No, we didn’t
make any of that up. Chesterton himself
alluded to it in his book on St. Francis.)
 |
| St. Robert Bellarmine |
And what about
Saint Robert Bellarmine, a “Doctor of the Church”? His canonization was delayed for three
centuries because of serious flaws in his political thought (he theorized that
God grants certain rights directly to the collective, an abstraction, which is
impossible for reasons we won’t get into here).
Once Pius XI corrected Bellarmine’s errors, Bellarmine was beatified,
canonized, and named a doctor of the Church, all in less than a decade.
So, yes,
Chestertonians have a right to be disappointed, but that does not give them the
right to question the Bishop of Northampton or reject his authority in his area
of expertise, any more than they have the right to judge anyone else in matters
of faith and morals.
#30#
