Hey! Tim Jones here.
Saint Gilbert?
Bereft of any terribly original or helpful thoughts of my own, I would like to draw your attention to recent posts by Sean Dailey at the Blue Boar, and Eric Scheske at The Daily Eudemon, as well as this news story at Catholic Online, all highlighting a small but solid and growing movement for the sainthood of G.K. Chesterton.
It seems clear to me, and to many of Chesterton's readers, that of course
he was a saint, but it is not clear to all. Old stereotypes die hard,
and for some the picture of a rotund, hearty, jocular, wine-bibbing
Englsih journalist does not fit their idea of sainthood – never mind
the luminous spirituality underlying his prose and poetry, and the many
people (like C.S. Lewis) he inspired to see afresh the truths of the
ancient creed.
He was not a missionary or a cloistered religious.
He was not a priest, a theologian or a martyr. He was enthusiastic
about books, beer and bacon. He was no slayer of infidels, but a slayer
of heresies… he slew them with his pen. We hardly need to look around
for definitive arguments against the modern heresies that most plague
the people of the West… G.K.C. dealt them the death blow a century
ago, though many of them continue to walk around like zombies. For the
most part, in all seriousness, we need not invent new arguments against
these varied insanities, we need only to blow the dust off of
Chesterton's eloquent defense of reason and common sense.
I
remember well the moment at last year's Chesterton conference when the
audience was rather stunned to hear from speaker William Oddie that not
only was there no "cause" being championed for G.K.C.'s sainthood in
his home country, but that the idea was pretty well dismissed with a
kind of condescending chuckle by church officials in his home diocese.
It seems they, too, were influenced by stereotypes, or perhaps were too
close to Chesterton's roots to consider the idea… "Only in his
hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor.".
For
my part, I find myself more often, now, calling on G.K.C. for prayer
and intercession, along with other favorite patron saints (Fra
Angelico, Catherine of Bologna, Luke the Evangelist, Augustine…). I
think I might also add J.R.R. Tolkien to that list, if I am going to
teach. I am pretty confident that he, too, is in a position to hear and
to help.
(Cross-posted on Tim Jones' blog Old World Swine, for double your blogging pleasure)
Is there enough evidence? I don’t mean that G. K. C. wasn’t a great and good man, but I sympathize with whoever is tasked with digging up the needed proofs. 🙂
…not to mention intercessions and miracles.
Tim J.
I do like your habit asking for GKC’s intercession, even if I think it will be hard to find “public” evidence of supernatural intercession. Maybe that’s the way G.K. would have it.
I’m not sure about sainthood. A doctor of the Church, certainly. But isn’t sainthood normally bestowed on those who live a life or at least perform an act of heroic virtue? As great a man as GK was, I’m not sure if that definition could necessarily apply.
“Diego”-
“These indulgences of the flesh lead to the novel development of doctrine”
Wow, really? Talk about a novel teaching… that is one I’ve never heard. So only teetotalers are capable of teaching sound doctrine? Well, that leaves out the Apostles.
Would you care to elaborate on which novel development of doctrine you are referring, or are you just hauling out your sawed-off twelve gauge of sophistry and hoping to hit something?
This post is about the possibility of G.K. Chesterton being beatified by the Catholic Church, not another springboard for your inane attacks the Catholic Church. Keep it up and I will happily delete your comments.
Joanna –
I think G.K.C. demonstrated heroic virtue in his dogged resistance to heresy in a place and age where doing that kind of thing was to risk one’s reputation and livelihood. Are there any doctors of the Church who are NOT saints? Just curious.
People can disagree, of course, but his sanctity (though he might have scoffed or maybe laughed at the term) is woven through all his writing.
I am not aware of any miracle attributable to G.K.C.’s intercession… yet. But how can that happen without someone praying and asking for it?
Personally, I find him a great inspiration whether he is beatified or not. I just think that “St. Gilbert” would be a very good thing for the Church and the world.
I recall reading in the Gospels about someone who was called “a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax-collectors and sinners”. What was His Name again?
Tim J. –
Re: GKC’s heroic virtue – was GKC’s livelihood affected by his views? IIRC, he was quite well off. Moreover, by that definition most of the faithful, practicing Catholics in America should be canonized after death (especially if Obama’s anti-faithful-Catholic policies continue to be implemented).
I must confess I don’t know enough about the bedrock requirements that a person’s life must fulfill to merit the acclaim of sainthood, but I for one am all for finding more saints who were NOT clergy. That’s no complaint against saints who are indeed clergy. But it’s also frustrating for those who know they are not meant for holy orders that they have so few examples of commonly-known lay saints whose professional accomplishments in the modern-era exemplified heroic virtue.
I would second diego’s comment.
Diego wrote:
At a minimum I like to keep the determination of Sainthood to the clergy. Wishing someone to be a saint based on their writings can lead to deception. A classic example is when Saul summoned the spirit of Samuel. God seriously judged Saul for this action, so I would be extra careful. You may be exposing yourself to evil spirits.
The thoughts in this paragraph are a bit disconnected. If it meant to say that clergy cannot be deceived as to who is a saint, then this is simply wrong as history has shown. If it meant that the laity, many of which lack theological training, may be more easily deceived than some learned clergy, there may be some truth to this, but sometimes the laity can see through to the obvious much faster.
I do not see the connection between being deceived by the writings of someone and God being angry at Saul. If I recall, Saul sinned exactly because he did not obey something in writing (from the Pentatuch).
In fact, the laity used to raise saints to the altar by acclamation (with the approval of the bishop) before the middle Medieval period when Pope Alexander III, in 1200 A. D. started to formalize the process and make it the purview of Rome. Pope St. Sixtus V established the first manual for how to determine if someone should be raised to the altar in 1590. It was at that point that the process became formalized.
People can be deceived, but sometimes, they show a sensus Catholicus that alerts the clergy that a saint might be acting. Look, for example at St. John Vianney.
All that being said, the determination of who is a saint, in a formal sense, is reserved to the Congregation for the Cause of Saints in modern times (as codified in 1983) and they take into account everything, including reports from the laity, especially those who have first-hand knowledge of the saint.
In any case, the cause for canonization must be started by a bishop, so, until that happens, GKC’s cause is merely speculative.
The Chicken
Diego:
1. King Saul asked a witch (superstition, against the 1st Commandment) to summon Samuel, and did not pray to God to send Samuel for help.
2. Samuel the Prophet was clergy.
3. Canonization of a Saint is an infallible decree.
Now, sure, just because someone writes well doesn’t cut it. Even so, G. K. Chesterton was, to my mortal knowledge, a devout man and loving husband. He welcomed the chance to prove his humility and his faith. He was able to both befriend and satirize his ideological opponents, defend his faith, and show to the world that Christianity is joyful, rather than dour.
Yes, let there be a Cause for G. K. Chesterton! Patron of bacon and beer! (Or rum and cheese if you’ve read “The Flying Inn”.)
Canonized saints are meant to serve as an example for the rest of us who hope to reach heaven, JoAnna, so perhaps he would be a good model for us in just such times.
Also, according to Wikipedia, “Chesterton’s estate was probated at 28,389 pounds sterling, approximately equivalent to £1.3 million in modern terms.” Where I live, at least, that would comprise owning a modest house and having a modest retirement fund.
I think it would be a good idea to open causes for both Chesterton and (for me especially) Tolkien. I say especially in the latter case because his writings have played a role in my faith journey to the point that, fiction though most of them are, they were a consideration in my decision to apply for the deaconate this spring.
One point against him is that he wrote too much! Every word of his writing would have to be found and examined! I’ll add my name to the list of people who have, and do pray to him occasionally…
Canonization’s not as impossible as some of you think. Don’t forget:
“At his [Chesterton’s] death in 1936 the Holy See cabled Cardinal Hinsley: “Holy Father deeply grieved death Mr. Gilbert Keith Chesterton devoted son of Holy Church gifted Defender of the Catholic Faith. His Holiness offers paternal sympathy people of England, assures prayers dear departed, bestows Apostolic Benediction.”
The same was said about Archbishop Sheen, Jeremy. And there are those who say that he was “too proud”.
Tolkien and Chesterton were great Christians and great men, but Dante Alighieri has similar levels of qualification, and he is not been canonized after 700 years. Don’t hold your breath.
Um, if I’m not mistaken, “Diego” sounds an awful lot like our old friend “San”/”Francisco”/”Francisco2”. What next “Ta Cruz?” “Bernardino?”
It sounded to me like he was cautioning Catholics against praying to saints and comparing such prayers to necromancy. Did I read you right, my Californian brother?
I see a Chesterton canonization sort of how I see the terraforming and colonization of Mars. Maybe not practicable. Maybe not even a good idea. But if it happened it would be so cool!
DIEGO/FRANCISCO – YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN BANNED FROM PARTICIPATION ON THIS BLOG. YOUR COMMENTS ARE NOT WELCOME UNDER ANY PSEUDONYM.
Your comments on this thread have been deleted. If you insist on returning, you may also be open to prosecution.
As a police officer, I would suggest that this troll actually contact a criminal law attorney and find out the facts. He has already committed a crime.
Hmm. I thought that might be Frisco, but in the event it weren’t I answered his points.
Patrick wrote:
Canonization of a Saint is an infallible decree.
Yes, it is. It is an ex cathedra announcement.
Diego,
Given the recent court ruling that allows prosecution of people on the Internet who violate the rules of posting provided by the company hosting the site, Jimmy would have a strong case that you are violating typepads rules regarding harassment by participating in this blog:
You acknowledge and agree that Six Apart may preserve Content and may also disclose Content if required to do so by law or in the good faith belief that such preservation or disclosure is reasonably necessary to: (a) comply with legal process; (b) enforce the TOS; (c) respond to claims that any Content violates the rights of third-parties; or (d) protect the rights, property, or personal safety of Six Apart, its users[that’s us other comboxers] and the public.[my emphasis]
Part d is defined subsequently:
You agree that you will not:
(a) upload, post, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another’s privacy (up to, but not excluding any address, email, phone number, or any other contact information without the written consent of the owner of such information), hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;
(k) “stalk” or otherwise harass another;[here, “another” may, presumably, be taken as the other combox readers]
Jimmy has, repeatedly, removed your posts in a good-faith effort to remove offensive speech that would violate the TOS. If you continue, it would be seen as harassment under law (harassment is not defined according to communication method – it may be in writing, verbally, or non-verbally). Jimmy may seek a restraining order and if you violate that, fines.
You do not have a good case, here, and the fact that the lawyers would be Evangelical is irrelevant since the case would be tried on a point of law, not content.
Ed Peters, who is a civil/canon lawyer who reads this blog, can correct me if my interpretation of the law is in error.
In any event, your behavior has not been Christian, in the sense that it has been rude (see 1 Cor:13 and 1 Pet3:15). If you were genuinely serious about discussing what you see as problems with the Catholic Faith, instead of lobbing apologetical hand grenades, you would have either asked, politely, for permission to do so in an appropriate thread – several can be found on this blog, if you search, or you would have e-mailed Jimmy, privately, and asked if he would post some questions you have and ask for combox discussion. In any case, however, you would have been polite and respectful enough not to interrupt on-going discussions in several threads, one of which was on a sensitive subject. An Evangelical lawyer might defend you for about five seconds with clearly unChristian conduct such as this.
No, ultimately, this is not a matter of law, but of charity. Prove that you have charity and real concern for the owner of the site and the combox posters (and you may not cite fraternal correction as an act of charity, because your rudeness has ruined your case for this – see 1 Pet 3:15) and I will, speaking for myself, gladly discuss your theology with you, either here, with Jimmy’s permission, or elsewhere, where practical.
If you are really serious about understanding Catholicism, then you deserve an answer to your questions, but if you already think you understand Catholicism (you don’t) and are here to cause trouble, please, go away.
Clear enough?
The Chicken
P. S. Sorry, Jimmy, Tim J., and SDG if I overstepped any Rules in my reply. I do not want to side-track this thread as I did one of the the last ones. I’ll bet GKC would have had a much better reply than mine.
MC, I’m not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV), but it sounds like you’re spot-on.
San/Francisco/Diego: feel free to ask your questions at forums.catholic.com (unless, of course, you’ve been banned from there. If you do join up, I highly recommend you read the forum rules re: charity first.
You know, you’re really not acting out of love and Christian charity right now. If leaving Catholicism for the Evangelical movement has made you bitter and angry, perhaps you might want to reexamine your actions. The love of Christ should inspire joy, not acrimony.
“Peter, Paul, and Jesus preached the Gospel message and were accused of being uncharitable by the Jews and Gentiles.”
I can’t think where that would have been. The usual complaint is that they were too charitable, curing on the Sabbath, etc.
“So being uncharitable is not the correct word.”
How does that follow??
Diego, if no acrimony, why the bitter accusations and false claims? Why return under several names when you’ve been asked by the blog owner to leave?
Dear Diego,
You wrote:
1 Peter 3:15 is a reference on how one should respond when one is being persecuted for doing good and has nothing to do with being charitable. 1 Cor 13 is about using the Spiritual Gifts in Love.
You are being “persecuted,” so to speak for doing what you deem to be a good work and 1 Pet 3:15 certainly applies. You should have given your witness in gentleness, not rudely interrupting several on-going discussions. You completely misunderstand what 1 Cor 13 is about if you think it is about using the spiritual gifts in love. In fact, love is precisely separated from simple spiritual gifts in the passage (St. Paul says, very clearly, that spiritual gifts will pass away, but love will not).
As for why people responded to your original posts, as I mentioned, we have no problem discussing your points, but Jimmy reprimanded you, in part, because you wandered into an on-going discussion and started side-tracking the topic by your insistent posts. The people, such as myself, who responded, got caught up in the discussion before we realized what were happening. We all should have simple stopped talking on the new (your) topics, apologized, and then asked how we might proceed to discuss them without hijacking the already on-going thread. This was not done. Since you are new, here, one such infraction might be chalked up to ignorance of the blog owners policies, but you did the same thing in multiple threads. That was the final straw.
Even now, I would bet that you could repair the damage by having a polite and apologetic (no pun intended) e-mail discussion with Jimmy. There are many topics you could contribute to from your perspective without getting sidetracked by theology. When the time is right, when a thread comes about that allows you to get into theological differences in depth, that would be the time for the discussion you really want.
We have had evangelicals and even atheists as welcome posters on this blog, but they didn’t walk in, sit down, and set up a tent show as you seem to have done.
The fact that I am writing to you, now, is not because I want to engage you in discussion (since you have been disinvited), but because I want to restore peace, if it is possible, so that you may, eventually, be welcomed back to post on this blog.
At some point, you will have a decision to make: is posting to this blog important enough to abide by the rules and to respect the good intents of everyone else who posts? If so, then approach Jimmy. He is a reasonable and a forgiving person. If not, then how could we invite you to post, since you would be interrupting other topics, which might be important to other people, by your own insistence on having your points, which are not topic-oriented, be discussed, then and there?
It all comes down to just simple courtesy, my friend.
I’ve said enough. I do not want to get dragged into a prolonged meta-discussion. Jimmy has asked that you not return. I think the situation can be mended along the lines I have suggested. I will hold my peace, from now on, in responding to you until Jimmy says it is alright.
The Chicken
“No, I seriously doubt there would be any damaging P.R. to Jimmy Akin.”
Tim, George M. Cohan is famous (apart from all that music stuff) for saying, “I don’t care what you say about me, as long as you say something about me, and as long as you spell my name right.”
I am not aware of making any false claims.
Um, how about all the stuff you’ve said about Catholicism that wasn’t true?
…as desired by the owner of this blog and, most recently, Tim J.
I for one have been praying to the great GK Chesterton, Dante, and Tolkein for many a year now. I find their intercession beneficial to my writing. There are few artists among the saints. I have heard that because he lived such ascetic life famous architect Antoni Gaudi was a perfect candidate. But unfortunately, his masterpiece is still being built and to top it off, the city is planning on converting it from a church into a train station. Though he lived a much more rigid rule of life, the nature of his work means that his legacy as an artist is still up in the air. For Chesterton and Tolkein, however, there is no doubt as to the efficacy of their words.
All that remains is an examination of their lives.
It does not surprise me that GKC is not championed in his homeland. The English have a rather lower view of their own Christian writers (including CSL and JRRT). Five years ago I took the train to Beaconsfield and then walked down main street stopping in shops, but could not find anyone who knew where GKC’s home or grave was. A flower shop did not know where the RC Church was. When I finally stumbled upon the RC Church, a kind gentleman there directed me to the gravesite and house. GKC’s status in the UK is extremely low, indeed.
“and to top it off, the city is planning on converting it from a church into a train station…”
Acch!!
Bob S., your story reminds me of when Chesterton stopped at a little inn one day, not knowing exactly where he was;
I inquired casually what was the name of the town. The old lady
answered that its name was Stilton, and composedly continued her
needlework. But I had paused with my mug in air, and was gazing at her
with a suddenly arrested concern. “I suppose,” I said, “that it has
nothing to do with the cheese of that name.” “Oh, yes,” she answered,
with a staggering indifference, “they used to make it here.”
I put down my mug with a gravity far greater than her own. “But this
place is a Shrine!” I said. “Pilgrims should be pouring into it from
wherever the English legend has endured alive. There ought to be a
colossal statue in the market-place of the man who invented Stilton cheese.
There ought to be another colossal statue of the first cow who provided
the foundations of it. There should be a burnished tablet let into the
ground on the spot where some courageous man first ate Stilton cheese, and
survived. On the top of a neighbouring hill (if there are any
neighbouring hills) there should be a huge model of a Stilton cheese, made
of some rich green marble and engraven with some haughty motto: I suggest
something like ‘Ver non semper viret; sed Stiltonia semper virescit.'”
The old lady said, “Yes, sir,” and continued her domestic occupations.
After a strained and emotional silence, I said, “If I take a meal here
tonight can you give me any Stilton?”
“No, sir; I’m afraid we haven’t got any Stilton,” said the immovable one,
speaking as if it were something thousands of miles away.
StubbleSpark wrote: “the city is planning on converting it from a church into a train station.”
To which Tim replied: “Acch!!”
So far as I can tell, Tim, he didn’t mean that literally. Work progresses on Sagrada Família and it “is scheduled to open for worship by September 2010.” (See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagrada_Família#Current_status)
However, there is a plan for a high-speed rail tunnel to pass under the main façade of the church. (See: telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1576082/Train-tunnel-threatens-Sagrada-Familia.html)
Ironically, perhaps, according to the second article, “Gaudi himself … was killed by a tram in 1926.”
I think that from what I know about Mr. Chesterton, he would be a great saint. We need more lay saints. It is interesting though that one never reads about a cause being opened for Thomas a Kempis given his book is the second most read book after the Bible.
“I think that from what I know about Mr. Chesterton, he would be a great saint. We need more lay saints. It is interesting though that one never reads about a cause being opened for Thomas a Kempis given his book is the second most read book after the Bible.”
Yeeeeeah, funny story, that. They did start the process for that, actually. They disinterred his remains and found that he’d tried to claw his way out of his coffin, as he had been buried alive. Apparently, this puts him under suspicion of having experienced final despair, so the process ground to a halt.