Saint Chesterton?

October 4, 2013 • 10:44 am

Well, two recent Popez are about to become saints, which is bad enough, but, really—G. K. Chesterton? Yes, that’s right: Saint Chesterton may be in the offing!

Last August, Christopher Howse at the Torygraph reported stirrings that there was a groundswell of sentiment toward canonization of the unkempt Catholic writer, though he suggested it would be unwise. Referring to Chesterton’s famous book on Saint Francis, Howse noted:

St Francis was heroic, and as Chesterton recognised, an ascetic who fasted and did penance not because he hated the world, but because he loved it. Chesterton was not obviously ascetic. If he was fat through careless eating, his death certificate gave, as a contributary cause, the effects of alcohol. That is not necessarily a bad thing, any more than the effects of smoking might have been.

But one cannot help thinking that Chesterton’s reliance on his wife had an element of self-infantilisation that was unfair on her. Even when she felt unwell, she knew she had to keep him groomed and organised (no easy task). Again, this should not debar Chesterton from heaven. But though saints have their faults – which are not to be imitated – canonising Chesterton would risk his faults being imitated by mistake.

That should be the end of it. But now the Diocese of Shrewsbury reports, on its website, that a Catholic bishop is opening a case to investigate the possibility of Chesterton’s sainthood:

The Rt Rev. Peter Doyle, the Bishop of Northampton, has appointed Canon John Udris, to lead preliminary investigations into the possibility of opening the Cause for Canonisation of the 20th century journalist and author.

A statement released by the diocese said that the appointment follows numerous approaches from Chesterton devotees from all over the world.

“Since the Rt Rev. Peter Doyle was appointed Bishop of Northampton in June 2005, there have been a number of approaches from people in the UK and, in particular, in the USA enquiring about the possibility of opening the Ccuse of GK Chesterton,” it said..

“In response to these approaches, the bishop has appointed Canon John Udris, a priest of the diocese and currently a spiritual director at St Mary’s College, Oscott, to undertake a fact-finding exercise on his behalf.”

. . .Dr William Oddie, the Oxford-based author of Chesterton and the Romance of Orthodoxy and The Holiness of GK Chesterton, said he was “absolutely delighted that the bishop has now taken a definitive first step toward the opening of GK Chesterton’s canonisation cause”.

“This is something that has been prayed for for many years,” Dr Oddie said.

“Chesterton is a man from whom the simple love of God flows like a river,” he added. “He was a man full of the joy of life that had been given him by his belief in God … it is in every word he ever wrote.”

So does every religious writer deserve sainthood? Where are Chesterton’s goddam miracles? Did somebody get cured of the chilblains when reading one of his books? Well, we all know that the Vatican, like a magician, can pull miracles out of a hat whenever it wants to.

But they’ll have a harder time explaining away Chesterton’s anti-semitism. The Jewish Chronicle recounts that in a post called, “Can this Jew-hater G K Chesterton be a saint?” Their “j’accuse”:

Thus we find that in his Short History of England (1917), Chesterton wrote approvingly of Edward I’s expulsion of the Jews from England in 1290. These Jews, Chesterton insisted, were the “capitalists of their age,” and Edward’s eviction of them was the commendable act of a “tender father of his people.” Moving forward to more modern times, Chesterton had the effrontery to attack the “acrid and irrational unanimity of the English Press” in siding with Captain Alfred Dreyfus, and continued to evince hostility towards Dreyfus even after the French state had admitted his innocence of the charge of treason levelled against him. As Kamm reminded us, Chesterton publicly (1911) denounced the type of Jew who is “a traitor in France and a tyrant in England.”

Chesterton was a leading member of the National League for Clean Government, which in 1913 sponsored meetings attacking Jewish influence on public morals. In 1918, he wrote a discreditable letter to Lord Reading (Rufus Isaacs, then the Lord Chief Justice of England), expressing the hope that Isaacs would play no part in peace negotiations with Germany. “Is there any man”, Chesterton asked, “who doubts that you will be sympathetic with the Jewish International?”

And in The New Jerusalem (1921) Chesterton declared his belief that, ultimately, Jews could never be considered loyal to the countries in which they dwelt. By all means, he argued, “let a Jew occupy any political or social position which he can gain in open competition.” But every Jew (remember this was 1921, not 1221) should wear a distinctive dress: “The point is that we should know where we are; and he should know where he is, which is in a foreign land.”

I doubt that the Vatican will actually make him a saint, for if they did that they’d have to follow with Ceiling Cat knows who, including Saint C. S. Lewis, Saint Evelyn Waugh, and Saint Graham Greene.  I’ve tried to read Chesterton, but simply can’t do it, just as I can’t read P. G. Wodehouse (yes, I know I’ll be faulted for it; but I see it as one of those English/American dichotomies, like my complete failure to even giggle at “Yes Minister”).

At any rate, it shows either the desperation of the weak-mindedness of Catholics that they’d even consider something like this.

chesterton
You’ll soon be able to get to God more easily by praying to St. Chesterton

h/t: Dom

58 thoughts on “Saint Chesterton?

  1. “Well, we all know that the Vatican, like a magician, can pull miracles out of a hat whenever it wants to.”

    Is that where they get them? I thought they were pulled out of other places.

  2. Saint Chesterton? Absolutely. St. CSLewis, St. Waugh, St Everybody-and-their-cat — as long as they were Catholic. Hell, even if they weren’t. The more the merrier. They shouldn’t even have to be dead.

    Let them saint people left and right. Let it get out of hand. Beatify everything in sight.

    My mother’s a saint. No, really. Last week. She returned someone’s wallet … and apparently cured someone in Malaysia of scrofula.

  3. “So does every religious writer deserve sainthood?”

    Why not? One fictional demi-god is as good as the next.

  4. The marginalization of all saints continues.

    Stained glass, steeples, and garden effigies define saints. Groundless and selfish Catholics will forever try to connect this world to the transcendent.

  5. I quite enjoyed some of his Father Brown stories. Perhaps oddly, some of them, like “The Blast of the Book”, display a strong skepticism towards the supernatural. The following line is surely applicable in a good many situations: “I suppose the hardest thing is to convince anyone that 0+0+0=0. Men believe the oddest things if they are in a series.”

    But like so many religious people he apparently was quite unable to apply the same skepticism to the most obviously appropriate target.

    1. Not unlike Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Sherlock Holmes was the kind of man who would say, The idea of a vampire was to me absurd. Such things do not happen in criminal practice in England, whereas his creator allowed himself to get duped by two clever little girls with cardboard fairies and a camera.

      1. two clever little lower class girls.

        Part of his blind spot was that Doyle didn’t believe children of such humble origins could put one over on a man of his standing.

    1. Sorry if I appear dumb here, but do you mean Wodehouse of the PG variety? And are you saying our gallant host is a non-appreciator?? Because, if so, then, well, I am astounded!

      1. Be astounded:

        I’ve tried to read Chesterton, but simply can’t do it, just as I can’t read P. G. Wodehouse (yes, I know I’ll be faulted for it; but I see it as one of those English/American dichotomies, like my complete failure to even giggle at “Yes Minister”).

        1. This is extraordinary news. He’ll be saying he doesn’t care for Molesworth next. And come to think of it Humph was missing from his Jazz Greats list.
          I might have to reconsider my subscription.

  6. All those suggested literary saints are indeed cringe-worthy, but I would like to nominate Saint Hillaire (Belloc). The Path to Rome, indeed! He did it on foot, singing, “Apres de ma blonde, il fait beau, fait beau,…”.

    1. “Au pres de ma blonde, qu’il fait bon dormir”. I seriously doubt Belloc ever slept with a blonde, of either sex.

      “These Jews, Chesterton insisted, were the “capitalists of their age,” and Edward’s eviction of them was the commendable act of a “tender father of his people.”

      History Fail Mr Chesterton! As with most things Edward 1st did, it was about the money. He had already expelled the jews from Gascony in 1287 and appropriated all their properties and receivables. In 1290 he did the same thing to the jews of England. Money was involved in another way as the expulsion of jews was a quid pro quo for the highly antisemitic aristocracy in exchange for them approving a new tax to provide still more cash for, what else?, Edward’s scottish war.
      Tender father of his people be buggered! What a blatant lie. Edward was one of the most ruthless sovereigns England ever had.

  7. Apparently the “truth” of Christianity was revealed to C.S Lewis during long walks to the zoo with J.R.R. Tolkien. It had something to do with discussions about fantasy, literature, G.K Chesterton, and the odds of all three men using initials to represent their first and middle names for added panache. Apologetics became infinitely more annoying and theology now had the literary equivalent of moralistic musketeers dedicated to constructing air castles.

      1. Well, St. Stephen, St. Sebastian, and St. George were probably mythical, and St. Wenceslas, St. Olaf, and St. Louis were kings, so a mythical king should be OK.

        Gandalf was an angelic being, but that didn’t hold St. Michael back.

        On the other hand, Gandalf, Aragorn (and Frodo too) are often interpreted as Christ figures, and well, “I am a jealous god” and all that.
        🙂

  8. The real pathetic cowardice of sainthood is that it requires miraculous intercession after death.

    Imagine the capacious embarrassment that would overcome the church if their intended saint actually spoke against his or her own sainthood. “To be honest, I am not really sure I deserve this. In fact, I am not 100% convinced I have any special divine attachments…possibly of anykind.”

  9. Despite being British, I warmly agree with Jerry about Chesterton and Wodehouse. I was interested in boyhood by the Father Brown stories, but later came to dislike hugely the bluff, no-nonsense, knock-down ‘common sense’ (really Catholic dogma in disguise) which is the bullying bedrock of Chesterton’s stories – and the man was a bully as his anti-Semitic attacks show: and what is interesting about some of those attacks, as an examination of the remarks Jerry quotes above shows, is that in some cases they reproduce in anti-Semitic mode common charges about roman catholics.

    1. Chesterton is famous (if you read any Hitchens) for manufacturing a reputed miracle of that ghoul Mother Theresa. The miraculous effect was obtained using a new low-light cine film from Kodak.

      1. I don’t think so, as Chesterton died some 14 years before that wretched Gonxhe hag founded her charity mission (in 1950). Perhaps you were thinking of Malcolm Muggeridge?

        1. OK. That’s what comes of failing to check sources. Importance of a public peer review process!

          On another note, it would be a very brave Catholic bishop who proposed canonising the (Anglican) C.S. Lewis.

          1. 🙂 — I don’t know if you are younger than I am (49 yrs), but in case you are I have some bad news. It doesn’t get any better. At least that is the way it seems to me. Perhaps it is the altitude, but I doubt it.

            In any event, I will investigate the Catholic (of which I am culturally of the Western US variety) vs. the Anglican (of which I am decidedly not) angle, and try to determine my life choices accordingly (which is admittedly a somewhat pointless endeavor).

  10. Thanks for this. I had very little knowledge of Chesterton. A far from attractive human being apparently.
    “Yes Minister” not funny???!!! For me, it is one of the supreme TV comedies. A desert-island-DVD if ever there was one.

      1. They’re both good comedies, in their separate ways. The urbane, devious and obfuscatory Sir Humphrey is the diametrical opposite of Peter Capaldi’s Malcolm Tucker who is the most abrasive and scathing character ever to claw his way onto a TV screen. They’re both fascinating to watch to see what they’ll come up with next.

  11. Blasphemy – you don’t like Wodehouse?

    Next you’ll say you don’t like Monty Python.

    A tip – read a short story called “Uncle Fred Flits by”.

    If you can’t laugh at that, there’s no hope.

  12. As I recall, there is a Father Brown story in which an atheist police detective is treated quite positively by the author but then at the end kills himself because without ‘meaning’, hey why not? (‘meaning’ clearly only being available through Chesterton’s God).

    But the book “The Man who was Thursday” I liked quite a bit. [A police informant infiltrates a secretive anarchist group only to find that everyone else is also a police informant! a great premise, damaged in the telling, of course, by heavy handed Christian allegory right at the end, *sigh*]

  13. On a positive note for some,he hated Muslima as well as Jews.
    (and didn’t think much of East Asians either)

    http://www.famousliteraryworks.com/chesterton_lepanto.htm

    (Fits in Orwell’s category of “good bad poem” of the rollicking ballad type.)

    I recall one Father Brown story where a general commits murder because he’s a Protestant who reads the Bible by himself without a Catholic priest to tell him what to think; another when a liberal Anglican priest also murders because he doesn’t believe the Host actually turns into the Body of Christ. (And, of course, atheists are generally murderers).

  14. Re Chesterton. He also late in his career had a failure of nerve on evolution and embraced creationism. Really old editions of “The Everlasting Man” use the word ‘n–ger’ which was later replaced by Negro. However, I did enjoy some of the Father Brown stories and The Man Who was Thursday.

    Re Wodehouse. I’m not only a fan. One of his least appreciated achievements is writing the lyrics to the song “Bill” from “Showboat”. All the other lyrics are by Oscar Hammerstein, but Bill was a song cut from an earlier show by Kern and Wodehouse. ( I guess I can’t say it’s an “unsung” achievement 🙂 http://www.youtube.com/watch?=10pVCqlescE )

  15. Chesterton said he didn’t hate Jews and was not anti-semitic. He said he was a semite. He certainly appears to have hated Socialism and Capitalism as Scientistic-Plutocratic-Materialistic manifestations and associated certain kinds of people with those evils – including a certain type of Jew. He had something of the Darwinian in him – taking the category of race as a given – though he hated Darwinism in so far as it entailed a materialist conception of Man’s nature (to use the sexist terminology of his time – the word “sexist” not yet having entered the language). He spoke a lot about “the problem of the Jew”. We should be careful not to identify his use of the phrase with that of the Nazis. He was staunchly anti-Nazi. He thought the solution was for them to go home and therefore a homeland was needed for them. Some Jews thought the same thing, of course. Some didn’t. He thought that those who didn’t were a problem. To themselves as much as anyone else. He took a stand against eugenics when it was a very cool concept. Some of his best friends were Jews. The final solution was never his solution.

    He spoke his mind without fear or favor. I don’t think he would mind us doing the same about him. To properly understand him we do need to place him in the age in which he lived. That said his Catholicism blinded him even as it guided him. It’s always the way with “isms”.

    1. Many racists don’t admit to being racists. They just feel that they have some insight about how some other group is different. Racists and sexists often feel that they are looking out for the other group’s best interests.

    2. “something of the Darwinian in him – taking the category of race as a given”

      A bit handy with the tarbrush there, Leigh. Which ‘category of race’ are you talking about? Darwin’s, the one used in the long title of ‘The Origin’, referred to any heritable variant within the species, and his theory predicts, and explains, an unbroken continuum between individual variants and the deepest splits between phyla. How is Chesterton’s racism comparable to that?

      1. Odd. It looks as if Jerry must have removed a comment that my comment (26) was a response to. Which makes my comment look slightly awry. If Darwin did not consider the human races as conforming with his theory, then I stand corrected. Eugenics and social Darwinism drew upon Darwin’s work. Europe was a battleground of ideas as well as of nation states in the early 20th century. Upheavals were imminent. New ways of thinking were bashing up against the old. Racism was endemic, though the word did not exist.

        The comment to which I was responding, said that to say that Chesterton hated Jews is preposterous. I don’t think it is preposterous, if one considers some of the things he said, but I know that Chesterton denied it. He was a complex and larger than life character and I am able to believe that he did not hate Jews – whilst still being a racist. Not the kind who think of themselves as superior, but rather the sort who just don’t want to mix. But I am far from being an expert on the guy. I could be wrong, but as far as I know he was not an out and out bounder.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *