Saturday, October 2, 2010

An Observation on the Debate

The following is an essay Paul Murano wrote after attending last Saturday's debate.

Christianity vs. Humanism: Which offers the greater hope for humanity? - - An observation

While I was watching the debate between Christians and Humanists I was struck by a few things. First I was impressed that people of different worldviews had the good will to get together and learn about each other, to gain further insight into why we think the way we do. It was a display of community outreach that could bring about positive results.

It wasn’t too long before I realized that one of the gentlemen who represented Humanism was not debating Christianity, but rather distortions of Christianity. He made clear his problem with the unreasonableness of fundamentalist beliefs (and the way the secular media likes to caricature them). This is not necessarily his fault; he may not have known that the Catholic Christians on the other side of the panel would also reject those beliefs. With absolutely no disrespect to Protestants, Catholics believe that Christ established the Church 2000 years ago and in an unbroken succession the fullness of truth and grace still subsides in the Catholic Church. To Chesterton and Catholics in general Catholicism is true Christianity; other denominations have a portion of the truth. This is not an arrogant claim, but a sincere assessment based on history, tradition, and faith. So there was a fundamental difference in how each side of the debate defined Christianity to begin with. In fact Catholics would agree with Humanists on the points that he mentioned, which specifically related to preserving the environment, the reactionary and vengeful attitude displayed after 9/11, and that the world is much more than 6000 years old; and Catholics do not believe that everyone in the world is going to hell if they don’t explicitly believe in Jesus or that everything is pre-determined including who will be saved, as the humanists accused. I have often found that those who reject the Catholic Church usually aren’t rejecting Catholicism, but a false image or representation of it. For this reason, and because of the fact that there is also a Christian Humanism, it might have been a good idea to call the event, “Catholic Christianity vs. Secular Humanism” or simply “Catholicism vs. Humanism”.

I came out of the debate realizing that the difference between the two sides was not in these accusations but in something more basic. What I saw that night was that one side respected human reason as a way to attain truth, and so did the other. One side had a love for science and the scientific method, and so did the other. The difference was that one side recognized something more than these two ways to certitude. In recognition that man is limited in his being and potential knowledge and with a belief that the Creator of the universe has not remained in hiding, faith is added to reason and science as a complementary and vital avenue to truth. Faith in authority, which we all practice, is extended to the ultimate Authority, the God and Creator of the universe who has revealed Himself to restore the relationship lost with those created in His image. The Garden of Eden story spoke of the rebellion called original sin where a personified serpent gave man and woman the ultimate seduction: If you reject God “You will be your own gods”. That seduction from the Evil One echoes throughout history, and in the 20th century into the 21st secular humanism in all its forms explicitly took the bait; and as God originally warned suffering and death is the result. Only one side hold the faith that they are loved by God and have been given the means to overcome suffering and death - to enter what surpasses this life into never-ending joy.

The Humanists considered their position to be the humble non-elitist position because they claim not to have received any special revelation from above. But I would challenge that assessment and propose that the opposite is true, for two reasons:

  1. There was a certainty that supernatural claims are make-believe. But how could someone know this, for this knowledge would transcend the limits of human reason and the scientific method. It is like a fish claiming to be certain there is no reality outside of his experience of ocean life. That would be a foolish claim.

  1. Because of this rejection secular humanism in effect claims man to be his own ultimate authority, his own god. Man can create his own truth and reality, and redefine morality according to his liking. This seems considerably less humble than recognizing and submitting to One higher than himself.

So why do Christians believe that this supernatural realm does exist? The onus would actually be on Humanism to prove it doesn’t. Religion and language are two universal traits that separate human beings from all the other earthly animals. It is “hardwired” into human nature - children and primitive tribes all have a sense of the supernatural and an innate propensity for language. Religious belief remains until or unless it is brainwashed out of us. This usually happens in our modern culture at around the time of adolescence when the loud voices of cynical secular media and academia get hold of us. Socially it has occurred with the modern post-Christian movement, after our opulence led us to believe we could be our own gods and create our own reality. But why, we might ask, do human beings begin with such propensities for symbolic language and religious belief? Perhaps there’s a connection. Both point to an immaterial or spiritual component in man that can grasp immaterial things like ideas, thoughts, and essences. We come into the world with a propensity to believe in something higher than the senses can experience, beyond what we could ever know empirically. By nature we seek God, and by faith we believe He seeks us.

Every human propensity has an external object that satisfies it: hunger is a sign that there is food for the body, thirst that there is water, a mind that thinks and conceives ideas points to an immaterial dimension of the world, a heart that seeks perfect love is a sign that there is a perfect Lover that will fulfill it, and hope for happily-ever-after found in literature throughout history, is a sign that there is one, heaven. All of these desires are common and universal and can be said to spring innately from our human nature. Each of them points to an external reality that is meant to satisfy them.

The debate spent a lot of time speaking about what each side stood for but not as much time on the actual question posed, which was: Which holds the greater hope for humanity?

Let’s look at this objectively and succinctly. Secular humanism claims that we may create a better and more peaceful existence without God, and as a result have more hope. Let’s see if this deems true. Secular humanists would live their lives for the smaller goals that we all do, like developing one’s talents, cultivating friends, loving one’s spouse, caring for one’s children, contributing to one’s community, and the like. Mixed in with all of this, for the few decades we have on earth is tragedy, heartbreak, sickness, suffering, and death of loved ones. If we’re lucky we might have eight or nine decades of experiencing this before we die. Then our bodies decay and decompose and within a couple of generations no one on earth will remember you nor care about you or your memory. In a nutshell this is the hope of the secular humanist. On a larger scale, in the past century humanist utopias have been tried and miserably failed. In the 20th Century the socialist humanist movements of Communism and Nazism not only failed but contributed to the greatest killing of humanity in history. Humanists would claim that religion has been the cause of many wars. I would say people are the cause of wars and religion has often been used as an excuse. That’s a criticism of the dark side of people, not religion; for people would find another excuse if religion was not available. [But let’s relate this to the current debate. How many Catholic countries have been known for going to war? Tribal wars continue from time immemorial, there have been brutal wars in the Far East and Middle East, and there have been two world wars in the past century, but none of the major players were Catholic nations. Catholic countries like Italy, Poland, Ireland, and most in Central and South America never have been war-like. Only when infiltrated by outside aggressive forces have there been defensive skirmishes (such as in Nicaragua and Northern Ireland).]

Is there any more hope in the Christian worldview? Christian hope is tied to eternity and eternity is tied to time. This life is the springboard, the womb that prepares us for the life to come. Our hope is in a God who is infinite goodness and love, who cares about us and seeks to help us through the misery and injustice that we as a human race have gotten ourselves into. And Christian hope is in everlasting life of total fulfillment, not life for a few decades with struggle. When time is not related to eternity this life becomes ultimately meaningless. The Christian hope is that the innate desires we all possess as human beings will be fully satisfied, and that true fulfillment and never-ending joy will be realized after the period of living the consequences of our own selfishness has been completed. Everything that occurs now is believed to have a reason, and is directed toward that end which never ends. As Christians know from the New Testament all things work for good for those who love God; and that eye has not seen nor ear has heard the wonders that God has on store for those who love Him; where every tear will be wiped away and there will be no more death or mourning, weeping or pain, for the old order will have passed away.

In comparing which of the two views offers the greater hope, you make the call.

Paul Murano

Monday, September 27, 2010

Debate Recap

I gotta say, it was an interesting night at the Chesterton Society/Worcester Humanists debate last night. There was a very good vibe in the air, lots of conviviality, and a genuine feeling that people were looking forward to a lively exchange of ideas.

I got to the debate at about 6:15, and there were already about ten cars in the parking lot (the debate was scheduled to being at 7PM). I had the feeling that there was some excitement about this debate, and that the crowd might be bigger than the twenty or thirty I anticipated. I entered the Unitarian church hall, where I had once been a parishioner, and it was a hive of activity. The humanists were working to set up the hall, to prepare the video equipment used to record the debate, setting out refreshments, and welcoming folks who were coming in the door.

I was engaged with last minute preparations with Michael Hughes, our principal debater, so I was somewhat distracted. I had also been trying to think of questions that might be posed to the Chestertonian side, and coming up with what I hoped were thoughtful answers. A particular question that had been bugging me: the claim that society had somehow "moved on" from Christianity, and that life had become progressively better as the Church's power had waned. I found an answer that satisfies me - have you?

I have to admit that I was nervous as things got started. I was glad that Mike had the intro - I could wait to see how things would go while he was on the hot seat. We had all heard the intro before - I had actually read his latest draft that morning. I knew that it was good, so I could take notes and see how the crowd was reacting. The crowd was large - all the chairs in the room were taken. It seemed that there were a lot more attendees on the Humanist side than the Chesterton side. But all told, there were over one hundred people in attendance. But it was not a hostile crowd. There were a few heads that consistently shook horizontally whenever the Chestertons spoke, but, by and large, the faces were generously listening.

The Humanists intro was pretty good. There were some inconsistencies, some bits of misinformation, and some claims that were slightly puzzling. But it was thoughtful, and it was a far cry from the usual fare of bits-and-parts bickering that usually makes up these discussions. Our opponents, Mr. David Niose and Mr. Brian Seitzman, were both gentlemen, well spoken, and generous.

I was somewhat dismayed that the schedule veered from what I thought it was going to be - instead of a five-minute rebuttal, we were asked to pose questions to the other side. As was evident from the rest of the questions that were posed that night, it was much easier to ask questions of the Catholic side, since there were more substanital issues and stances to which the Church subscribes. Trying to get a Humanist to answer questions about Humanism was somewhat like nailing jello to the wall. What it means to be a Humanist is fairly simple and stated in a few short phrases that do not provide traction for probing inquiry. I would have liked very much to have a few minutes to respond to the claims made by the Humanist side during the debate - especially things surrounding the fractured nature of Christian churches, some bits of misinformation about Christianity, and to discuss the reductionist nature of the Humanist position.

During the Humanists concluding remarks, I had to look down and take notes to prevent saying something like "Oh, my God" really loud. After an hour and change of debate, it was humorous, if exasperating, to hear their primary debater say that there could be no rational basis for religious belief and to basically blame it on a maternal guilt complex. Not shocking, but shocking, at the same time.

I call the debate a success, and here's why: we stated our position cogently without sinning against charity in the course of the debate. Well, I may have venially sinned against charity at several points in the debate, but luckily they only occurred between my ears and I didn't act on any temptation to smack anyone over the head. Victory!

Seriously, it was a success because we went into the lion's den and stated a case while preserving the bonds of charity. I don't care if anyone was converted (I do, really) they should have been!
One particularly difficult moment was when one of the Humanists got up, ostensibly to ask a question, and started reading what I presumed to be quotes from Hitchens' book on Mother Teresa. Total bunk, which was not unusual for the night, but I feel a certain delicacy in matters surrounding Mother Teresa. My response is akin to what one would feel if someone were insulting someone's mother. It is neither gentlemanly nor dignified to comment on such matters, and I feel the best, and most appropriate, response is a bonk on the head. Alas...

But three cheers for the Chestertons for their performance on that memorable evening, and especially for Mr. Michael Hughes, our chosen champion and fidei defensor. He acquitted himself admirably on the field of battle, and has shown himself trusty in pitched intellectual struggle.
The next debate will probably be in January or February of next year. (Mr. Niose, the Humanists' primary, humorously remarked that December is a busy time, even for a Humanist.) My wife recommended a more focused topic. I'm open to all comers - let me know what you think. Oh, and let me know what you're willing to do, as we'll be responsible for far more this time around. We can't be outdone in hospitality by the Humanists, who did, in fact, put on quite a nice evening.

Thursday, August 5, 2010

Humanist Debate

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I'd like to solicit your ideas for the upcoming debate with the Greater Worcester Humanists, which is scheduled for Saturday, September 25 at the Unitarian Universalist Church on Shore Drive. As a primer to conversation, I would like to present you with some material from the Humanists' website, outlining the virtues and doctorine of the Humanist movement. You'll remember that the topic of the debate will be "Christianity or Humanism, Which Holds the Better Hope for Humanity". Here are the aforementioned links:

What is Humanism, by Fred Edwords
http://worcester.humanists.net/home/humanism

Humanist Manifesto III - 2003
http://www.americanhumanist.org/who_we_are/about_humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III

Humanist Manifesto II - 1973
http://www.americanhumanist.org/who_we_are/about_humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_II

Humanist Manifesto I - 1933
http://www.americanhumanist.org/who_we_are/about_humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I

Other Humanism Essays and Links
http://www.americanhumanist.org/Who_We_Are/About_Humanism

Michael Hughes and myself will be participating in this first debate. We'll be meeting on August 20th at the Old Timer in Clinton to discuss our strategy, and anyone who is interested in participating on that evening is welcome to provide us with their feedback. We'll also be holding something of a "mock" debate in the course of the meeting on September 11th.

In the meantime, please provide some feedback on the Humanist literature referenced above. The wider the circle of intellectual vision we can bring to this debate, the better off we will be. You can leave your comments by clicking on the link below that says "# COMMENTS". If you have any questions about leaving comments online, shoot me an email.

Best,

AFZ
Prez.

Friday, June 25, 2010

On Localism

The following is an article that was published on the T&G website on my new blog, Locally Grown. I thought you Chestertonians might find it interesting.

Best,

AFZ



Did I mention that I’m an amateur philosopher? Well, I am. I won’t bore you with all of my philosophical meanderings, but I will make some case for the philosophical basis for localism. By 'localism' I mean an emphasis on your immediate community in terms of economics, recreation, and politics. Our culture has become more and more 'global', which is not per se a bad thing. Globalism has brought significant economic growth for large swaths of world population. But, I would argue, globalism has over-extended itself in many areas to the detriment of, again, large swaths of world population.

The guiding principle, for me, in discussions of 'globalism' vs. 'localism' is something called the Principle of Subsidiarity. Subsidiarity states that all institutions should function at the lowest hierarchical level at which they are effective. Stated simply, it says that “Small is Beautiful”. There are some things, like building jets, that can’t be done effectively at a local level. But there are other things, like making hamburgers, that can be done quite well at a local level. And not only can hamburgers be made locally, there will be more benefits to sourcing, producing, and buying your burgers locally.

There are many reasons for this, but here is a briefly stated list that outlines the benefits of buying your burgers (or art supplies, or tires, or real estate services) from a local, independent business:
  1. Several studies have shown that when you buy from an independent, locally owned business, rather than a nationally owned businesses, significantly more of your money is used to make purchases from other local businesses, service providers, and farms - continuing to strengthen the economic base of the community.
  2. Non-profit organizations receive an average 250% more support from smaller business owners than they do from large businesses.
  3. Where we shop, where we eat, and have fun - all of it makes our community home. Our one-of-a-kind businesses are an integral part of the distinctive character of this place.
  4. Locally owned businesses can make more local purchases requiring less transportation and generally set up shop in town or city centers as opposed to developing on the fringe. This generally means contributing less to sprawl, congestion, habitat loss and pollution.
  5. Small local businesses are the nation's largest employer, and often provide employees with more opportunities for professional growth, personal development, and advancement.
  6. Local businesses often hire people with a better understanding of the products they are selling and take more time to get to know customers.
  7. Local businesses are owned by people who live in this community, are less likely to leave, and are more invested in the community’s future.
  8. Local businesses in town centers require comparatively little infrastructure investment and make more efficient use of public services as compared to nationally owned stores entering the community.
  9. A marketplace of tens of thousands of small businesses is the best way to ensure innovation and low prices over the long-term. A multitude of small businesses, each selecting products based not on a national sales plan but on their own interests and the needs of their local customers, guarantees a much broader range of product choices.
  10. A growing body of economic research shows that in an increasingly homogenized world, entrepreneurs and skilled workers are more likely to invest and settle in communities that preserve their one-of-a-kind businesses and distinctive character.

I'm not anti-growth, and as I said, I believe that some businesses best function at a large, international level. But I believe that we have been sold a bill of goods when we are told that it's all about the bottom line. Sure, McDonalds can get me a hamburger in two minutes for 99 cents. But, to paraphrase Hilaire Belloc, "Industrialism has ensured that all over the world men can enjoy exactly the same bad wine." McDonald's has ensured that we all have access to the same bad hamburgers, almost to exclusion.

It's hard to take a stand for localism without some bashing of globalism. But the point is not to bash, but to point out the benefits of local, independent businesses. Personally, I find the investments that I make with local businesses always pay off. Even though I can't buy a can opener anywhere but Wal Mart or Target, there are lots of opportunities to support local businesses. I think it's an investment you won't regret.

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Faithful Presence

A fairly interesting discussion of the Christian impact on culture is to be found on Christianity Today's website here.

The article is an interview with James Davison Hunter, author of To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World. Mr. Hunter's primary hypothesis is that cultural impact is not merely a factor of the quantity of material that a group or school contributes to the public sphere, but also a factor of the vehicles by which it arrives there. An interesting contrast brought up in the discussion is the fact that Christian publishing generates revenues of $10 billion annualy but is not at all discussed in the New York Times Review of Books. It is an example of structures of cultural elites controlling access to the cultural discussion.
How is it that American public life is so profoundly secular when 85 percent of the population professes to be Christian? If a culture were simply the sum total of beliefs, values, and ideas that ordinary individuals hold, then the United States would be a far more religious society. Looking at our entertainment, politics, economics, media, and education, we are forced to conclude that the cultural influence of Christians is negligible. By contrast, Jews, who compose 3 percent of the population, exert significant cultural influence disproportionate to their numbers, notably in literature, art, science, medicine, and technology. Gays offer another example. Minorities would have no effect if culture were solely about ideas, but that's clearly not the case.
His prescription is something he calls "Faithful Presence", as well as a thoughtful dialogue with the centers of cultural influence. Both are, I think, Chestertonian in nature.

Faithful Presence, in essence, is an abandonment of Nietzschean principles of 'will to power' by allowing Christian influence to permeate society through, well, actual Christian charity. According to Mr. Hunter, looking to change the culture directly is an adoption of the principles of power that Christians are railing against in the first place.

This does not constitute an abandonment of dialogue, but rather an insertion of Christian ideas into the intellectual conversation in a way that is inherently Christian in execution. So not just the end of the intellectual discussion (or the discussion of law, morals, art, etc.) must be Christian, but the means by which that discussion is engaged. The whole process must be recognizable as Christian, throughout.

This is where Mr. Hunter's thinking is reflecting G.K. Chesterton the most. Chesterton was not only known as a Christian in thought, but he was also perceived to be a Christian in his style, manner, bearing, and in all his dealings. He was a joy to be around, even when he disagreed with you.

It reminds me of a maxim of St. Josemaria Escriva: "Be firm in doctorine, but pliant in manner." The combination of charity in thought and deed is thoroughly Chestertonian.

The stakes are high, in that it is our ability to be Christian in the public sphere that is at stake. But I believe that Mr. Hunter's thesis is a useful reflection that reminds us that Our Lord said that as Christians we would be known by our love for each other.

Saturday, May 29, 2010

Mary and the Convert, Part II

I have here rashly undertaken to write on a subject at once intimate and daring; a subject which ought indeed, by its own majesty, to make it impossible to be egotistical; but which does also make it impossible to be anything but personal.

"Mary and the Convert" is the most personal of topics, because conversion is something more personal and less corporate than communion; and involves isolated feelings as an introduction to collective feelings. But also because the cult of Mary is in a rather peculiar sense a personal cult; over and above that greater sense that must always attach to the worship of a personal God. God is God, Maker of all things visible and invisible; the Mother of God is in a rather special sense connected with things visible; since she is of this earth, and through her bodily being God was revealed to the senses. In the presence of God, we must remember what is invisible, even in the sense of what is merely intellectual; the abstractions and the absolute laws of thought; the love of truth, and the respect for right reason and honourable logic in things, which God himself has respected. For, as St. Thomas Aquinas insists, God himself does not contradict the law of contradiction.

But Our Lady, reminding us especially of God Incarnate, does in some degree gather up and embody all those elements of the heart and the higher instincts, which are the legitimate short cuts to the love of God. Dealing with those personal feelings, even in this rude and curt outline, is therefore very far from easy. I hope I shall not be misunderstood if the example I take is merely personal; since it is this particular part of religion that really cannot be impersonal. It may be an accident, or a highly unmerited favour of heaven, but anyhow it is a fact, that I always had a curious longing for the remains of this particular tradition, even in a world where it was regarded as a legend. I was not only haunted by the idea while still stuck in the ordinary stage of schoolboy scepticism; I was affected by it before that, before I had shed the ordinary nursery religion in which the Mother of God had no fit or adequate place. I found not long ago, scrawled in very bad handwriting, screeds of an exceedingly bad imitation of Swinburne, which was, nevertheless, apparently addressed to what I should have called a picture of the Madonna. And I can distinctly remember reciting the lines of the "Hymn To Proserpine," out of pleasure in their roll and resonance; but deliberately directing them away from Swinburne's intention, and supposing them addressed to the new Christian Queen of life, rather than to the fallen Pagan queen of death.

"But I turn to her still; having seen she shall surely abide in the end; Goddess and maiden and queen, be near me now and befriend."

And I had obscurely, from that time onwards, the very vague but slowly clarifying idea of defending all that Constantine had set up, just as Swinburne's Pagan had defended all he had thrown down.

It may still be noted that the unconverted world, Puritan or Pagan, but perhaps especially when it is Puritan, has a very strange notion of the collective unity of Catholic things or thoughts. Its exponents, even when not in any rabid sense enemies, give the most curious lists of things which they think make up the Catholic life; an odd assortment of objects, such as candles, rosaries, incense (they are always intensely impressed with the enormous importance and necessity of incense), vestments, pointed windows, and then all sorts of essentials or unessentials thrown in in any sort of order; fasts, relics, penances or the Pope.

But even in their bewilderment, they do bear witness to a need which is not so nonsensical as their attempts to fulfill it; the need of somehow summing up "all that sort of thing," which does really describe Catholicism and nothing else except Catholicism. It should of course be described from within, by the definition and development of its theological first principles; but that is not the sort of need I am talking about. I mean that men need an image, single, coloured and clear in outline, an image to be called up instantly in the imagination, when what is Catholic is to be distinguished from what claims to be Christian or even what in one sense is Christian.

Now I can scarcely remember a time when the image of Our Lady did not stand up in my mind quite definitely, at the mention or the thought of all these things. I was quite distant from these things, and then doubtful about these things; and then disputing with the world for them, and with myself against them; for that is the condition before conversion. But whether the figure was distant, or was dark and mysterious, or was a scandal to my contemporaries, or was a challenge to myself--I never doubted that this figure was the figure of the Faith; that she embodied, as a complete human being still only human, all that this Thing had to say to humanity.

The instant I remembered the Catholic Church, I remembered her; when I tried to forget the Catholic Church, I tried to forget her; when I finally saw what was nobler than my fate, the freest and the hardest of all my acts of freedom, it was in front of a gilded and very gaudy little image of her in the port of Brindisi, that I promised the thing that I would do, if I returned to my own land.

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Mary and the Convert

Before the month of May is out, I thought I'd share a lengthy piece by G.K. on Our Lady in two parts. I present Mary and the Convert, from The Well and the Shallows. -AFZ

I was brought up in a part of the Protestant world which can best be described by saying that it referred to the Blessed Virgin as the Madonna.

Sometimes it referred to her as a Madonna; from a general memory of Italian pictures. It was not a bigoted or uneducated world; it did not regard all Madonnas as idols or all Italians as Dagoes. But it had selected this expression, by the English instinct for compromise, so as to avoid both reverence and irreverence. It was, when we came to think about it, a very curious expression. It amounted to saying that a Protestant must not call Mary "Our Lady," but he may call her "My Lady." This would seem, in the abstract, to indicate an even more intimate and mystical familiarity than the Catholic devotion. But I need not say that it was not so. It was not untouched by that queer Victorian evasion; of translating dangerous or improper words into foreign languages.

But it was also not untouched by a certain sincere though vague respect for the part that Madonnas had played, in the actual cultural and artistic history of our civilisation. Certainly the ordinary reasonably reverent Englishman would never have intended to be disrespectful to that tradition in that aspect; even when he was much less liberal, travelled and well-read than were my own parents. Certainly, on the other hand, he was entirely unaware that he was saying "My Lady"; and if you had pointed out to him that, in fact, he was generally saying "a My Lady," or "the My Lady," he would have agreed that it was rather odd.

I do not forget, and indeed it would be a very thankless thing in me to forget, that I was lucky in this relative reasonablenesss and moderation of my own family and friends; and that there is a whole Protestant world that would consider such moderation a very poor-spirited sort of Protestantism. That strange mania against Mariolatry; that mad vigilance that watches for the first faint signs of the cult of Mary as for the spots of a plague; that apparently presumes her to be perpetually and secretly encroaching upon the prerogatives of Christ; that logically infers from a mere glimpse of the blue robe the presence of the Scarlet Woman--all that I have never felt or known or understood, even as a child; nor did those who had the care of my childhood. They knew nothing to speak of about the Catholic Church; they certainly did not know that anybody connected with them was ever likely to belong to it; but they did know that noble and beautiful ideas had been presented to the world under the form of this sacred figure, as under that of the Greek gods or heroes. But, while putting aside all pretence that this Protestant atmosphere was actively an anti-Catholic atmosphere, I may still say that my personal case was a little curious.

On St. Philip Neri

Yesterday was the Feast of St. Philip Neri, a truly Chestertonian saint. Over at the First Thoughts blog, there is a lengthy excerpt of the Venerable John Henry Newman reflecting on St. Philip's contribution to Church and culture. Here's a sample:
St. Philip Neri ... lived in an age as traitorous to the interests of Catholicism as any that preceded it, or can follow it. He lived at a time when pride mounted high, and the senses held rule; a time when kings and nobles never had more of state and homage, and never less of personal responsibility and peril; when medieval winter was receding, and the summer sun of civilization was bringing into leaf and flower a thousand forms of luxurious enjoyment; when a new world of thought and beauty had opened upon the human mind, in the discovery of the treasures of classic literature and art.

He saw the great and the gifted, dazzled by the Enchantress, and drinking in the magic of her song; he saw the high and the wise, the student and the artist, painting, and poetry, and sculpture, and music, and architecture, drawn within her range, and circling round the abyss: he saw heathen forms mounting thence, and forming in the thick air:—all this he saw, and he perceived that the mischief was to be met, not with argument, not with science, not with protests and warnings, not by the recluse or the preacher, but by means of the great counter-fascination of purity and truth. He was raised up to do a work almost peculiar in the Church. . . . for Philip preferred, as he expressed it, tranquilly to cast in his net to gain them [souls]; he preferred to yield to the stream, and direct the current, which he could not stop, of science, literature, art, and fashion, and to sweeten and to sanctify what God had made very good and man had spoilt.

The rest is here.

Thursday, May 13, 2010

The Reason - Commentary and Poem by Michael Hughes

“Poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.” Alarms and Discursions (1910)

One might add on High Schools, as well. Localism is one of the key dimensions of a Chestertonian worldview—you live somewhere, part of a neighborhood, a network, a community: besides the parish and the town hall, what institution could be more important than the local high school, or regional one, which unites several towns? You probably remember your local high school, for better or worse: your life then and there makes you an alumnus or alumnae of a particular alma mater. We know to call ‘homeless’ a man without a home, but what should we call a man without an alma mater? An educational orphan? Do you have a reason to love your alma mater? Would you wear her colors proudly?

Aren’t these observations true in the greater Worcester world? You need just flash the colors and mascot of your high school (I wear the Red and White Pioneer of St. John’s High, where I teach) and you’re back in the realm of medieval heraldry, of the pageantry of Renaissance city states, enacting a sartorial symbolism which both connects you with your own tribe and alienates you from the surrounding principalities. “Go Pioneers!...Go Naps!... Go Guardians!…Gaels!….Colonials!…Polar Bears!” As surely as the fleur-de-lis upon Henry the Fifth’s chest, ‘Prince Hal’ today is wearing the garb of his own home country, his High School. And while the young men of SJ go home to their many hometowns, could we rightly say that the strength of a town or community is reflected in how many Varsity Letters, jackets and caps are worn with pride by the students outside of their school? Will an adult in Leominster sport a Blue Devils logo? Could he be seen in public being friendly with someone wearing the Fitchburg red?

Dare we hope for a chivalrous devotion to our own logos, while being hospitable towards those from the ‘enemy’? As Chesterton said of the various contradictories which Christendom sustained in paradoxical harmony, they abide “side by side like two strong colours, red and white, like the red and white upon the shield of St. George” So, the next time you see me at Fitton Field, cheering on the Pioneers at the annual Thanksgiving Day game, wearing the red and the white, say hello, whether you’re wearing the purple Guardian of St. Peter Marian, or the logos of other alma maters. Chesterton certainly believed our friendship was possible, despite, or perhaps because of our local loyalties. Why can we do so? God, Our Father, gave us the Reason.


Click on the image below to see Mike's poem 'The Reason':

Tolerance

The following parody is a great example of the intolerance of "tolerance", especially as it applies to some modern educators.



Contrary to the hippie peacenik, former-seminarian "facilitator" (played by Kevin O'Brien), G.K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy is an outline of sanity. (BTW, the etymology of orthodoxy is actually ortho = right or straight, and doxy = opinion or thinking; that is, orthodoxy comes from the Greek meaning right opinion.)

Friday, April 30, 2010

A Tree with History - from today's T&G

This is a link to an interesting story in the T&G today on the "Whipping Tree" in Harvard:

http://www.telegram.com/article/20100430/NEWS/4300549/1116

A historical curiosity for some, it hearkens back to a time when religion and culture were deeply interwoven in Worcester County.

Thursday, April 29, 2010

ARTICLE FOR GILBERT MAGAZINE - APRIL, 2010

MARCH CHESTERTON MADNESS

Chestertonians in Central Massachusetts were thrice blessed last month. Beginning on March 20, Dale Ahlquist returned to Worcester as the keynote speakers the the 10th annual Catholic Men's Conference giving locals a preview of his talk on What's Wrong with the World for the ACS conference in Emmitsburg, Marland, this August. The Catholic Men's conference was sold out with approximately 1300 attendees. Dale spoke at the Worcester Men's Conference three years ago and was voted the most popular conference speaker of all time. Copies of What's Wrong with the World literally flew off the table after Dale's talk. Fr. Mitch Pacwa and Msgr. Stuart Swetland also spoke at the Men's Conference this year, familiar faces on EWTN along with Dale's.

Later that evening, Chestertonians were again treated to some erudite discussion of our hero as the local Worcester Chesterton Society (which began to meet July 2009) hosted Dale for more lively discussion of What's Wrong with the World along with libations, dinner, song and autographs at the Webster House -- so named because Daniel Webster gave a fiery speech at that establishment in 1832. (We're not exactly sure he spoke at the restaurant but he did speak at the Republican Convention in Worcester in 1832.) Our private room was full that evening, and the normal number of 12 members grew to about 25 to share in the fun. The Worcester Chesterton Society meets the second Saturday of the month at the Webster House but broke with time-honored tradition when Dale was in Worcester. Our blog is gkcsw.blogspot.com for Gilbert subscribers in Massachusetts.

Our joy was made complete when later that same week, on March 25, the Worcester Chestertonians, in conjunction with the Center for Religion, Ethics and Culture at the College of the Holy Cross, celebrated the 80th Anniversary of the visit of Gilbert Keith Chesterton to America and the College of the Holy Cross by inviting Rev. Ian Boyd, C.S.B., and Dermot Quinn, Ph.D. Fr. Ian Boyd is the president of the G.K. Chesterton Institute for Faith and Culture at Seton Hall University. Dr. Quinn is founder and editor of the Chesterton Review and professor of History at Seton Hall. Gilbert Magazine interviewed Fr. Boyd in the June 2005 issue. During his visit, G.K. filled Worcester's Mechanics Hall for his talk on "Some Heresies of Our Mass Production."

Chesterton wrote that this visit was the high point of his second trip to America. He was a friend of the Rev. Michael J. Earls, S.J., of Holy Cross college. Chesterton stopped by the school on Dec. 9, 1930, his second trip to America, when he was greeted on the steps of the Dinand Library by seven students dressed in the attire of literary figures of the past, such as Dante and Chaucer. Speaking in front of the entire college on a frigid afternoon, Chesteron delivered a speech and was adopted as an Honorary Crusader by the student body. He said, "Thank you for this very great honor, and I accept it with all my heart. I'm not much of a Crusader but at least I'm not a Mohammedan." Later while reciting Joyce Kilmer's poem "Trees" Chesterton planted a white cedar in front of O'Kane Hall on the campus. That tree, dubbed the Chesterton Tree, died once or twice since 1930; however, a replacement tree still stands on that very spot. Happily, the original news reel of GK's visit can be viewed on You Tube.

In anticipation of the speaking event at the College, Mark Savolis head of archives, set up two display cases of Chesterton memorabilia, including rare books by GKC and photos of GK's visit to Holy Cross. The exhibit was co-curated by Robert Dornfried, class of 2011, and Rebecca Camargo, class of 2012. Viewers in the library's reading room got to glimpse a collection that is usually in the wine cellar of the college. That evening, in the Rhem Library (which was SRO), 125 fans were treated to the verbal tapestry woven by Fr. Boyd and Professor Quinn, as well as by our very own Msgr. Thomas Sullivan, Treasurer and co-founder of local Chesterton society and Holy Cross alum. We learned of the intellectual and cultural climate of Worcester USA in 1930, demonstrating the value of Chesterton not only to his contemporaries but also to our own times. These talks will be available by podcast at http://www.holycross.edu/crec/listen_learn.

Outside the Rhem library that evening, fans hovered about not one but two tables of Chesterton books and memorabilia. Gloria Garafulich Grabois, Assistant Director of the G.K. Institute for Faith and Culture, was signing up new subsribers to the Chesterton Review, while local G.K.C. society members, Candace Jaegle and Ed Thomas, sold books and merchandise for the American Chesterton Society. And so, as the evening drew to a merry close, we Worcester fans went home with copies of the Chesterton Review and the scholars from Seton Hall went home with Chesterton refrigerator magnets.

In conclusion, March Madness in Worcester, Mass., demonstrated clearly an excitement for Chesterton's ideas 80 years later to all kinds of folks right in our own back yards.


4/26/10
by Candace Jaegle, Historian and Tony Zamarro, President; edited by Msgr. Thomas Sullivan, Treasurer
Worcester Chesterton Society

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

On Infidels

I've been somewhat obsessed lately with a Bob Dylan album that was released in 1984 called Infidels. I must admit that I thought I was past my Bob Dylan phase, but, sincerely, I have always found the man fascinating. Someone who can reach the heights of fame that he has, while, really, defying categorization, is amazing to me. So, I'm listening to this album every day now, and I can't completely explain why. Let me share some lyrics with you:

From License to Kill:

Now, they take him and they teach him and they groom him for life
And they set him on a path where he's bound to get ill
Then they bury him with stars
Sell his body like they do used cars. [...]

Now, he's hell-bent for destruction, he's afraid and confused
And his brain has been mismanaged with great skill
All he believes are his eyes
And his eyes, they just tell him lies.

From Union Sundown:

Well, you know, lots of people complainin’ that there is no work.
I say, “Why you say that for
When nothin’ you got is U.S.–made?”
They don’t make nothin’ here no more,
You know, capitalism is above the law.
It say, “It don’t count ’less it sells.”
When it costs too much to build it at home
You just build it cheaper someplace else.
Talk about shades of Distributism...

This album dates to just after Bob's 'Born Again' period when he was frequenting Vineyard churches. Bob had a conversion in an Arizona hotel in the late seventies. He had a fever, and he describes an experience where he felt that Jesus was in the room with him, touching his arm. Bob's conversion had foreseeable consequences in the circles he was wont to travel in at the time. He is remembered as having said from the stage:
Years ago they ... said I was a prophet. I used to say, "No I'm not a prophet" they say "Yes you are, you're a prophet." I said, "No it's not me." They used to say "You sure are a prophet." They used to convince me I was a prophet. Now I come out and say Jesus Christ is the answer. They say, "Bob Dylan's no prophet." They just can't handle it.
Some of the responses of his pop-music contemporaries were pretty humorous. During his born-again period Dylan recorded a overtly religious song called Gotta Serve Somebody, with the refrain: "It may be the Devil, or it may be the Lord, but you gotta serve somebody." John Lennon responded by recording a song called Serve Yourself, with obvious connotations.

Here's some more lyrics from Infidels. From the song I and I:
Been so long since a strange woman has slept in my bed.
Look how sweet she sleeps, how free must be her dreams.
In another lifetime she must have owned the world, or been faithfully wed
To some righteous king who wrote psalms beside moonlit streams. [...]

Think I’ll go out and go for a walk,
Not much happenin’ here, nothin’ ever does.
Besides, if she wakes up now, she’ll just want me to talk
I got nothin’ to say, ’specially about whatever was.
The fascinating thing to me is simply that someone is saying things like this in a place where Dylan is (or was). I don't know that it is Chestertonian, per se, because I think that Chesterton came from a Truth-seeking perspective, primarily. But here is someone in the dizzying heights of fame, exploring issues of comparable gravitas.

Sometimes I get the feeling that Bob has gotten lost in the inevitable tangle of relationships and confusion that defines so much of modern life. Here is Bob recently on faith:
Here's the thing with me and the religious thing. This is the flat-out truth: I find the religiosity and philosophy in the music. I don't find it anywhere else. Songs like "Let Me Rest on a Peaceful Mountain" or "I Saw the Light"—that's my religion. I don't adhere to rabbis, preachers, evangelists, all of that. I've learned more from the songs than I've learned from any of this kind of entity. The songs are my lexicon. I believe the songs.
I suppose we'll have to let Bob sit content where he is, for now. But his career is testament to the complicated web that grace can weave through any life - especially when one is open to the Truth.

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

On Chat Rooms and Civility

This paper exists to insist on the rights of man; on possessions that are of much more political importance that the principle of one man one vote. I am in favor of one man one house, one man one field; nay I have even advanced the paradox of one man one wife. But I am almost tempted to add the more ideal fancy of one man one magazine... -G.K.'s Weekly, April 4, 1925

I think a lot about public discourse. Evidently, some other people do, too. Recent articles on discourse have appeared in The Wall Street Journal and our own Worcester Telegram.

I'm a regular poster on the Worcester Telegram's comment section. I find the discussion spirited, and refreshingly open - although ironically most comments are made anonymously. I find it a strange yet attractive dichotomy. The conversation is robust, but secretive. I post under a pseudonym on the site, for better or worse. To be honest, I don't want a potential future employer Googling my name and discovering that I'm involved with (gasp!) public discourse.

Chesterton once said something to the effect of the following: "Polite men in our modern society are encouraged never to argue about religion and politics, but these are the only things that are truly worthy of argument." Chesterton's view is rife with optimism about the possibilities of dialogue, and the opposite view is rife with pessimism about the same.

My experience in the comments section of the Telegram have given me reason to hope. It is almost like a digital Speaker's Corner, forcing a debater to hone his arguments and rhetorical skill. It may be just my imagination, but I also get the feeling that there are a lot of eyes watching - many more eyes than fingers reaching for keyboards to respond. There are few places today where many people are coming together to 'converse' about politics and/or religion. By converse, I mean also those who are merely listening to the reporter speak about the issue, whether on television or in the news, or online. The news media is not hesitant to jump into political and religious discussions, and the media is rarely impartial.

G.K. was no stranger to controversy, and he used his weekly publication to weigh in on the issues of the day. Reading some of his discourses in Masie Ward's biography, one is reminded of the dialogue seen every day on the T&G comment pages. If I had the time, I'd even find an example. But I will say that I think Chesterton would be entirely at home in the blogosphere, or on the Comments pages of his local news organ.

But there is the confounded anonymity - so many modern commentators lament the lack of accountability on blogs and web chats, an anonymity that, in theory, leads to all sorts of viciousness and backbiting. I'm reminded of Chesterton's story The Ball and the Cross, which ends with an atheist and a Catholic locked up in an insane asylum. Their crime was that the Catholic had challenged the atheist to a duel for desecrating an image of Our Lady and the atheist had accepted. The world could only imagine that they were insane to take such a thing so seriously. The modern world has long had a low opinion of those who dare to argue about politics, and an even lower opinion of those who dare to argue about religion. Is it more admirable to take up these debates openly? Absolutely. Does the anonymity of the participants detract from the ideas they are discussing? I'm not sure.

Thursday, April 15, 2010

May Meeting Agenda

Dearest Chestertonians,

We cannot help but extend our most sincere gratitude to James Woodruff for his presentation last Saturday on the subject of "Chesterton and Edmund Burke". His presentation was thorough and erudite, as well as entertaining. I didn't see a single Chestertonian fall asleep for his whole talk (I was watching). It also sparked some lively discussion on politics, history, and topics in between. The complexity of these issues tempts us to oversimplification - and discussion leads to understanding. As Chesterton said, politics is one of two things worth arguing about. Thanks for provoking the argument, James.

Speaking of arguments, the agenda for our May meeting will focus on the current health care debate in the United States. I have selected some readings related to the topic and have attached them to this email in pdf format. However, I don't want to limit the discussion to the ideas included in the attached documents. Since Chesterton wasn't available for comment on the health care legislation, we are forced to infer his ideas from other writings. Any light that can be shed by Chestertonians (present or no) on this topic will be most welcome. Here's to a hearty debate.

The writings I have selected come from three sources: Chesterton, Dale, and the Distributist Review. They are marked either as GK, Dale, or DR, resepctively. They ar all fairly short - less than ten pages each.

We'll be meeting at our normal time and place - May 8th at 7PM, at the Webster House Restaurant in Worcester.
Other notes:
  • Last year we met bi-monthly during the summer, taking off June and August. It has been suggested that we switch to taking off July and August instead, as these are the times that most people are away for summer vacation. Please let me know via email, or in person, if you have a preference for either arrangement.
  • Please keep abreast of developments in the Society via our website: http://gkcsw.blogspot.com. Daily perusal will ensure that you never miss a moment of the excitement that membership provides.
  • Speaking of membership, we have two types. Honorary members come to meetings and sometimes pay for their own dinners. Honorable members also sometimes pay for their own dinners and have paid their dues of $25 per year. Of which type are you?

Best always,

AFZ
Prez.

Audio from 'Chesterton in America' Talks at Holy Cross

Hat tip to Monsignor Sullivan for passing along this link to audio from the 'Chesterton in America' talks given by the Chesterton Institute and co-sponsored by the Chesterton Society of Worcester and the Center for Religion, Ethics, and Culture:

http://www.holycross.edu/crec/listen_learn/

Enjoy. They are absolutely worth the listen.

Monday, April 5, 2010

On Thinking Local First

I'm fully sold on Chestertonian economics (sorry, pun fully intended). Chesterton's economic theory was called Distributism, and briefly stated it is the theory that the means of capital production should be distributed amongst as many people as possible. Chesterton compared Distributism to monogamy - just as we all should fully possess our spouses, but we should limit ourselves to a single one, so we should own our property but desire not to possess our neighbor's rightful share.

It is a sane and responsible ownership - man is custodian of his own domain, pruning, tending, and bringing forth the fruits thereof. In the process of this ownership he is realizing his destiny as a steward of creation.

Distributism has had a rough time of it in certain circles. Richard John Neuhaus once proposed that if Chesterton were alive today he would bend to the realities of modern economics and renounce Distributism. Chestertonians replied that modern economics only demonstrate the problems that Chesterton foresaw - the concentration of vast amounts of wealth in a small minority, the intrusion of commercial interests into politics, and the common man's lack of power in the face of commercial interests. As such, they claim that Chesterton would not renounce Distributism, but rather he would even more urgently repeat the call for the distribution of capital to the Common Man.

How would we, if we were so inclined, put into practice the principles of Distributism? The most straightforward way to be Distributists is to vote with our dollars for small, independent merchants whenever we are able. Practically, it is very difficult to make all of our purchases at small, independent businesses. But it is possible to make some, and to incrementally take back some of the ground that has been given up to large, corporate entities.

In Worcester, some local independents have organized to promote the value of thinking local. Worcester Local First is a network of over 200 locally owned and operated businesses in the City of Worcester (full disclosure, I work for Worcester Local First). Other organizations have sprung up throughout North America. Although a lot of these organizations are motivated by a progressive ethos against big business (in a podcast promoted by the national umbrella organization, a speaker calls for a return to 'The Spirit of Stonehenge'!), there is much to be admired in their organization and efforts towards encouraging what they call 'Local Economies'.

In this they are Chestertonian. As with all things, Chesterton sought to return power to the Common Man, who he saw as the guarantor of Common Sense.

For more on Distirbutism, check out the following resources:

http://chesterton.org/gkc/distributist.html - The American Chesterton Society's Distributist page
http://distributism.blogspot.com/ - The Distributist Review Blog

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Sacrament of Personal Freedom

After the recent Worcester Catholic Men's Conference, the Chesterton Society of Worcester hosted a dinner with Dale Ahlquist, president of the American Chesterton Society. After dinner, I was able to talk one-on-one with Dale, and I mentioned one of my most favorite Chesterton passages. Like the late great Mr. Chesterton, I despise birth control. So many of our social ills can be traced back to the increased use of contraceptives.

In the chapter "Babies and Distributism" from the book The Well and the Shallows, Chesterton gives several reasons why he despised birth control. These reasons are worthy enough, but the highlight of this chapter is not the list of reasons against contraceptive use, but rather the argument for having a child. Chesterton understands that to talk of the child as-a-burden is to put reality upside down. In this modern dreary world of wage slavery and the world's corresponding view that people are mere economic units whose duty it is to consume and buy products for the health of the state, there is no true outlet of creativity... except one. It is no wonder that there is such a dearth of hope in modern society, and that there is such a pent up desire for change. There is something missing, and we collectively cannot put our finger on it. We're missing our children.

Our great source of freedom comes from the first obligation God placed on men, "Be fruitful and multiply!" Chesterton understands true creativity:
Now a child is the very sign and sacrament of personal freedom. He is a fresh free will added to the wills of the world; he is something that his parents have freely chosen to produce and which they freely agree to protect. They can feel that any amusement he gives (which is often considerable) really comes from him and from them and from nobody else. He has been born without the intervention of any master or lord. He is a creation and a contribution; he is their own creative contribution to creation. He is also a much more beautiful, wonderful, amusing and astonishing thing than any of the stale stories or jingling jazz tunes turned out by the machines. When men no longer feel that he is so, they have lost the appreciation of primary things, and therefore all sense of proportion about the world. People who prefer the mechanical pleasures, to such a miracle, are jaded and enslaved. They are preferring the very dregs of life to the first fountains of life. They are preferring the last, crooked, indirect, borrowed, repeated and exhausted things of our dying Capitalist civilisation, to the reality which is the only rejuvenation of all civilisation. It is they who are hugging the chains of their old slavery; it is the child who is ready for the new world.
The world has it wrong. Children are not a burden, they are a blessing.

YouTube Photo Montage of Chesterton in America

Via Monsignor Sullivan, the Chesterton Institute uploaded this montage of photos from the event on Thursday night to YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drG2NDZlhos

I will keep everyone updated as to the status of the podcast of the talks, which should be available shortly.

Monday, March 29, 2010

Misty Brook Farm - Community Supported Agriculture

Dearest Chestertonians,

Thanks to Kurt Zelch for this link to an article on Misty Brook Farm in Barre, MA:

http://www.telegram.com/article/20100328/NEWS/3280388/1101

Misty Brook is a Community Supported Agriculture Farm (CSA), where you can pay for a farm share and receive locally grown meat, dairy, and vegetables every week. It may be a good way to support local agriculture.

You can check out the farm's website for more information on buying shares:

http://www.mistybrook.com/

Sunday, March 28, 2010

On Chesterton and Moderate Politics

It is, appropriately, a paradox that being Chestertonian makes you both a political moderate and a political extremist. You're a moderate in the sense that the Chestertonian view is the middle between extremes. You're an extremist in the sense that this point of view will draw breath of fire from both liberals and conservatives, and raised eyebrows from the apolitical.

The extremist sense of Chestertonian politics is easy to describe - pro-life, pro-family, against big business, against big government, and outspoken about the differences between men and women. The Chestertonian view of these issues will surely raise the temperature of any political discussion.

As for its moderate characteristics, well, there are two aspects to Chestertonian politics that make them moderate. First, they truly fall between extremes. Creating an artificial pole of 'liberal' and 'conservative' in government and economics (which is not hard to do, as they are truly polarized) we see one interested in government intervention and the other interested in personal responsibility. Moral conservatives frown on drink, while moral liberals frown on very little. In terms of care for the poor, one favors handouts and the other favors, well, very little.

There is another sense in which Chestertonian politics are moderate, in this case in the sense of being mild and reasonable. This is embodied in the Chestertonian value of dialogue. There is a refreshing lack of polarity in political discussions of a Chestertonian bent. It can be disarming, after mentioning one of the above 'extreme' topics, to hear someone discoursing on them reasonably, with adequate pauses allowed for the expression of an alternative opinion. It is very quaint, really, this mode of dialogue.

Although there can be little doubt that this method of political dialogue is exactly what is needed right now, it remains to be seen whether the political system is capable of rehabilitation. But, as Dale said to us last Saturday, there is no greater cause than one that is uncertain of victory. The question is, then, whether these political principles will be put into practice at all.

Saturday, March 27, 2010

Welcome

This blog has been set up for members of the G.K. Chesterton Society of Worcester to share writings, thoughts, and controversies in a public space. There being no doubt that the greatest intellectual and literary talents in all of Worcester reside within this group, reading this blog is sure to be an exercise in managing high expectations. However, we should not make this a reason to restrain our considerable talents, but rather we should incite each other to reach for the highest pinnacles of illumination and demonstration possible for such an elite group.

Write on, Bretheren, and let humility be no bar to excellence!