This essay might be about the "splendor" of truth rather than about its "delight," but John Paul II famously claimed the "splendor" for himself – Veritatis Splendor. Chesterton simply rejoices in truth, but not just for the sake of his own rejoicing, but because there is something to rejoice about. "I had heard that I was in the wrong place, and my soul sang for joy" – this is Chesterton’s startling reaction to his discovery that man is not made only for this earth but through it for eternal life. The "splendor" of truth, I suppose, stresses its own luminousness, its own shining, its reality, while "delight" indicates our proper reaction to what is, that it is at all, to what sheds its light before us when we realize at last that we need light, that there
is light.
...
Because Chesterton later wrote his own Autobiography, itself a marvelous book, Orthodoxy is not an autobiography, though it is completely autobiographical. Though he was not a Catholic when he wrote it, it is nevertheless completely Catholic. Though it is written in a completely unscholarly and familiar style, it is thoroughly scholarly and formal in its argumentation. When everyone else found "orthodoxy" to be a bad word, Chesterton found it to be the exact description of what keeps us sane. "When ever we feel there is something odd in Christian theology, we shall generally find that there is something odd in the truth."
Saturday, July 23, 2005
"Delight of Truth"
One of my favorite writers has another(!) good one out: Chesterton and the Delight of Truth. Fr. Schall, SJ, writes:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Senator Bill Frist, a pro-lifer, decided to support embryonic stem cell research. He makes a distinction between his belief in faith and in science. How does he do that since faith has no basis in science? Also, Frist says life begans at conception yet he is willing to us frozen embryos for experiments. Is his middle initial M. for Mengele? Didn't I tell you that those "good" Christian politicians are liars and fakes. Doo you believe me now?
Very disappointed in Frist, though I am somewhat not surprised. Expect to see him challenged for the Senate Majority position in the upcoming term. Perhaps Lott? I am not sure just yet.
"How does he do that since faith has no basis in science?
Just remember they both should have a basis in truth, which is one so there is no way claims of faith should contradict findings of science. When this happens, one is wrong.
"Didn't I tell you that those 'good' Christian politicians are liars and fakes. Doo you believe me now?"
I am not sure where you got the "good" quote, but I do not think most of them are "good Christian politicians." Some are. Some are not. Some share my values. Some share some of values. Some do not share much.
I do not believe you because you have not shown very much evidence. Frist is the only bit I have seen, but then again there are many Republicans who have the same position as he does. If they were running against a pro-abort Dem, then I would find myself voting for the one who would do the least amount of harm, and since we are in the middle of a war, I would vote for the one who would support policies and the people that would be needed to keep us as safe as possible and bring down as much as possible the Islamists around the world, who have not forgotten Lepanto, Vienna, and so on. The Jihad rages on, in their minds. Only that Americans would realize the nature and scope of this war. Only that, regrettably, President Bush would speak more often about the depth of the history involved in this war. Perhaps that is the job of the pundits and columnists. Then only that the mainstream media would communicate the severity and the necessity of this war. Yet, that would be implicit support of Bush, which, even though he is partially just continuing a policy of Clinton's, that is something they would do everything in their arsenal not to do. They are responsible for so much.
Post a Comment