As we saw in the previous posting in this series, when the
Catholic Church “canonizes” somebody, it has good reasons for doing so. Similarly, when the Catholic Church doesn’t canonize somebody, it has
equally good reasons for not taking
action. In the case of Robert Cardinal
Bellarmine, the Catholic Church delayed canonizing him for over three centuries
— and all because a great many people simply couldn’t get a rather simple
theory correct. They were trapped in one
paradigm relating to the natural law when Bellarmine was operating from within
another.
In my opinion, the same thing is going to happen with the
“cause” for canonization of Gilbert Keith Chesterton — except that the problems
involved are a little bit more fundamental than most people realize or are
willing to admit. Frankly, most people simply don’t care about the theories of sovereignty and natural law Bellarmine
wrestled with as long as the government isn’t being abusive, and administers
justice in a reasonably disinterested manner.
What we take as the basis of matters of faith and reason,
however, affects pretty much everything and everybody on earth — and that is
where today’s Professional Chestertonians and neo-distributists as well as the
rest of the Chestertonian Establishment have done Chesterton the man (and
possibly saint) the greatest disservice they could if the goal is to have his
sanctity and heroic virtue recognized and used as a model.
Let me be clear on two things before I go any further. I mentioned both of these things briefly
before, but it’s a good idea to mention them again — especially since they are
the main reasons I believe Chesterton will not be canonized anytime in the
foreseeable future.
One, by “Professional Chestertonian” I mean anyone whose
career, vocation, avocation, lifestyle, personal philosophy, self-image or
worth, reputation, or any other major aspect of that person’s life, liberty,
property, or pursuit of happiness is in some way heavily influenced by, or
dependent on Chesterton, or (more usually) an image of Chesterton that he or
she has constructed and enshrined in some fashion.
Such people profess
Chesterton, and in some way their lives would be substantially different had
they never become acquainted with his life and work; they are professionals. It does not mean that their income, all or
part, or their reputation is dependent on Chesterton in some fashion, although
that sometimes turns out to be the case.
Such people have a clear vested interest in maintaining their personal interpretation
and profession of All Things Chesterton against all others. The “territorial imperative” is in full
operation.
Two, by “neo-distributist” I mean anyone who applies to him-
or herself the term “distributist,” or some variation thereon (such as
“distributivist”), but who has changed some essential aspect of Chesterton’s
thought (often unconsciously) to conform it to preconceptions or opinions about
human nature, the social order, the institutions of the common good, the
principles of faith and reason, the motives of anyone with whom they disagree,
or the natural law that differ substantially from the principles that guided
Chesterton in these areas.
As I said at the beginning of this series, this has nothing
to do with the orthodoxy of Chesterton’s actual
thought, sanctity, or heroic virtue.
Except for a few, easily correctible errors that do not affect the
underlying principles (just various applications thereof), there is nothing
wrong with anything Chesterton said or did after he became a Christian that
gives any rational person reason to suspect him of heterodoxy.
It does, however, have everything to do with what
Chesterton’s followers have done to
his thought, and the (per)version(s) of it they have gone to great lengths to
promote, and to browbeat and intimidate others into accepting. Their departures from Chesterton’s thought
and the extraordinary interpretations they have forced on both Catholic social
teaching in general, and Chesterton’s thought in particular make it highly
unlikely that any conscientious examiner would accept as orthodox such arrant
nonsense clearly and directly opposed to what the Catholic Church teaches. That many of Chesterton’s latter day
followers exhibit a high degree of malice toward anyone whom they think
disagrees with them simply highlights the possible unorthodoxy of their
thought.
We will start to address particulars of this in the next
posting in this series.
