There are many things that I find of value in Chesterton, but I will take Luther over Aquinas.
Chesterton took Aquinas over Luther and Augustine. You take Luther over Aquinus. And I will merely take all three.
I fear that Chesterton has become guilty of those very same principles which he disdains in others.
I think it was CS Lewis who said that Chesterton sometimes fell for the excesses of Belloc. Chesterton was a great writer, but he sometimes went to excess with exaggeration and caricature in his criticism.
Half truths can do more harm than out and out lies.
That is a very good point. If Chesterton had spent as much time trying to understand Luther as he did Aquinas, that last chapter on Aquinus would have been more balanced.
posted on 06/19/2010 12:28:52 PM PDT
("That if gold rust, what shall iron do?" --Chaucer)
Chesterton was a man of this time in which there was much more antipathy between denominations. My grandfather was convinced that all Roman Catholics had two horns and a tail. It is rare today to find people voicing such views. I fear that it is not because people are more loving, but that doctrine is less important. I hate to be put in a position of comparing Aquinas and Luther. I can appreciate both. If Chesterton’s purpose is to throw red meat to all those that despise Luther and Protestants in general, he achieved his purpose. If he wanted to persuade those followers of that Augustinian that they are wrong, he failed. You do not persuade people by attacking them.
posted on 06/19/2010 5:28:00 PM PDT
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson