Speaker 0 00:00:00 Jerson, he was trying to think out for himself a way to get out of this pessimism that was surrounding him and the materialism, cuz he, he had a sense that wasn't right. So basically, orthodoxy is his journey from trying to figure out the world without being a Christian. And then suddenly funny, every solution he found was, was already there in Christianity. And that's what led to his faith.
Speaker 2 00:00:29 Welcome to the Catholic Theology Show, sponsored by Avi Maria University. I'm your host, Dr. Michael Dnet, and today I am pleased to have on the show Father Joseph Fasio, founder and editor of Ignatius Press and the also the founding, uh, provost and, uh, theologian in residence at Ave Maria University, uh, many years ago. So we're delighted to have, uh, you back at Ave and delighted to have you on the show today. Thank
Speaker 0 00:00:59 You, Michael. I'm here. My voice is not here. I, uh, God is telling me I've been talking too much. We're giving a course here on Chesterton, and it's two and a half hours every evening, uh, three days a week. And I've, uh, used off my reserves of vocal energy. Well, we're, we'll do the best we can.
Speaker 2 00:01:17 Yeah. We're pleased to have you here, and we are excited today to talk more about, uh, GK Chesterton. Uh, as you mentioned, you are teaching a class along with Joseph Pierce, uh, to our students, uh, this semester. And, you know, one thing just kind of beginning, uh, uh, is this kind of, I think just the basic question is why Chesterton listeners may know that, you know, you did your doctoral dissertation under Right. Um, you know, then Professor Ratzinger who became Pope Benedict, uh, you worked with Andre Andre de Lubock, uh, the great, you know, patristic and really just great dogmatic theologian, um, par Solans, uh, you wrote on Hansler Fazar, uh, so many kind of brilliant theologians that have dominated 20th century Catholic theology. And yet, uh, I've, I know that in your 40 years or more of teaching, uh, you've consistently turned to GK Chesterton and his writings. Uh, so could you say a little, a word or two about, you know, why Chesterton as one of your favorite authors to teach and to study? Sure.
Speaker 0 00:02:19 Well, when I finished my doctoral studies in Germany in 1974, I came back to the university, to the United States, to the University of San Francisco. Uh, and I taught my first class in theology and I was very excited cuz I'd done my, my thesis on Huns Valar. Uh, and so I took his book, uh, theological Anthropology or Wisconsin <inaudible> of the Hole in the part to this freshman class. And I thought, oh, this is great, you know, and oh man, was that terrible? They, they didn't understand anything. I tried to explain things. Their eyes were just glazed. And I yes. That, that didn't work too well. Uh, then the next year I thought, you know, I'm going to teach a course on, uh, Louis' Perra CF Lewis' Perra, because that's a very, very theological book, even though it's written as a science fiction thing. Yes.
Speaker 0 00:03:12 But, you know, and I taught that, uh, and it was a little better, except that they didn't get the theology part of it, you know, <laugh>, it was just a story. So I, I've kind of, my teaching altered a bit to teach undergraduates, and, uh, I found that there's a lot of theology in Chesterton and CS Lewis and Tolkin, uh, and it's sometimes a better entree for the students who aren't majoring in theology, you know? Yes. Uh, to, to bring them into theological thinking. And I told the class when we first began our class here on Monday night, that I think that in the 20th century, there, there are three great lights in the early 20th century mm-hmm. <affirmative>, uh, and those were, uh, Chesterton, CS Lewis and j Tolkin. Uh, and they're all literature, although Toki, I mean, CS Lewis got his degree in philosophy. Really?
Speaker 0 00:04:11 Yes, yes. Uh, Chessen didn't have a degree at all. Uh, and, and Toan was, was of course in literature, but they, uh, embodied in an incarnate way, the, the Catholic view of the world. Yeah. And of man and of God. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>. And then I, I told the class that, you know, in this generation after them, more or less, we had three other great lights. We had Tolu Bach, who was born in 1896, and we had Baltasar born in 1905. And, uh, Ratzinger born in 1927. Uh, and they were more specifically theological. However, all three were highly literate, you know, in the arts and culture and, and music. Mm-hmm. <affirmative> especially Baltasar and Ratzinger. It wasn't just the philosophy, it was literature. In fact, lazars Baltazar's thesis, which ended up being three volumes, the apocalypse of the German soul, uh, was a, you know, a tour to force of all modern German literature with the, from the aspect of eschatology.
Speaker 0 00:05:17 So I, I found, you know, after studying, you know, rat Valar, who's one of the deeper theologians, and with Ratzinger's, my guide that I found the theology the same theology, the same view Yeah. Was there mm-hmm. <affirmative>, you know, in fact, I told the class, Chessen will throw off a little sense here or there, and there's a tremendous, you know, theological depth to it. But you have to unpack the thing, for example, this thing on evolution, you know, where it talks about, if evolution is simply saying that, you know, from an ape where you got to a human being over time, uh, it took a long time. Uh, that's okay. But the fact that it, it happened slowly, does not explain how a non-rational being and then can become a rational being. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, but it's not a problem for Christians because God is outside time, he says, and can work slowly as well as quickly as far as we are concerned.
Speaker 0 00:06:11 Mm-hmm. <affirmative> so that you could teach almost a course Yeah. On evolution and creation, uh, and use that three or four sentences as the basis for it. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>. So, I, I, I find, uh, the theological content of, of Justin to be, you know, quite extraordinary. In fact, you probably know this story, but, uh, and you are, uh, a, a lover of St. Thomas. Yes. Which we all should be. Yes, yes. Uh, two of the greatest, probably the two greatest, uh, Thomas in the 20th century were Aryan Jill son. And I have it from one of Jillson students who was taking, uh, course from Jillson up in Toronto, St. Michael's College in Toronto. And, uh, I forget what year it was, but this is the year that Chester and wrote his book on Thomas Aquinas. And it came, and, you know, the students get the book, you know, one seminar.
Speaker 0 00:07:04 And, and so they, they wondered what Jo Son's gonna say the next day, you know, and Joon came in the room the next day, and he threw the book across the room against the wall, and he said, I've been studying Thomas all my life. I'm a tic scholar. He said, I couldn't write a book as good as that. That book is the best book I've read on Thomas Dequin. And yes. How did she, I mean, he didn't read the Summa mm-hmm. <affirmative>, you know, but he just, he intuits things, you know, so there's, uh, you know, that that's one reason I use them is that mm-hmm. <affirmative>, just as Christ told parables and did not, you know, teach a metaphysic class. Mm-hmm. <affirmative> good as those metaphysic classes are to human beings. We're we're, we're body and soul. We get things through the senses. And so if you can embody the word, uh, then you have a better chance of entering into person's mind and heart. And of course, what's the model for that? Is the word became flesh.
Speaker 2 00:08:03 Yes. Yes. That's really, wow. That's, uh, so well put. And I, I do think in, especially Chesterton and, and Lewis as, as well as to, they somehow, uh, kind of like re they, they allow you to kind of walk back into the Middle Ages and hear these, uh, hear these ideas in a fresh, contemporary way that you don't even realize you're doing it. It doesn't sound old, but they're communicating classical themes from Augustine, from Aquinas, from Dante, uh, and yet they do it in a way that's conversational, filled with images. Uh, sometimes they tell stories. Uh, both or Chester and Lewis both wrote novels as well as, uh, you know, prose works. Uh, even their apologetic works. Cuz Chesterton was a huge influence on many other great kind of well-known converts. His conversion kind of spawned many others. Uh, he was able to kind of, uh, I don't know how to put it, enter into kind of sympathetically the view of his opponents, and then show how, in a way, kind of ultimately silly <laugh> those views are.
Speaker 2 00:09:16 And he can say this in a way without, uh, hubris or pride because he himself held them. And he's really just describing, I held this view when I was a younger man. Yes. And now looking back, I see how, how silly it was, and ultimately Right. Orthodoxy, which is the book we're gonna talk about today. Kind. Yeah. Classical, you get there, classical, um, kind of Catholic Christian orthodoxy ends up kind of being the view in a way that puts us most in contact with reality. And these modern philosophies, or atheistic philosophies, in a way, are kind of rejecting not only part of orthodoxy, but they end up projecting part of reality.
Speaker 0 00:09:56 Yes. And, uh, what you said there about Lewis, for example, having been a heretic, so to speak, or an believer Yes. Uh, then coming to, and now you, you understand the position. Well, orthodoxy, as you know, is not, uh, volume one of anything is volume two. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, I mean, he first wrote a book called Heretics. Yes. This is 1908. He's not a Christian. He's a Christian, he's not a Catholic yet, comes later, but he writes a book on modern heresies, and he was, he was in the period, you know, 1890s, that was kind of the pessimism, Chauvin Howard type thing. And, uh, an neoism was very, very prominent and but in materialism. And so he wrote about these heresies, and of course someone said, oh, well, that we we're all interested in what you think these are. What, what's your philosophy, Mr. Chester? Mm-hmm. <affirmative>. He said, well, you asked me, I'll write a book.
Speaker 0 00:10:49 And so, well, you did. Yeah. And what you said about imagination it, one of the big themes, it's not thematic, but it's runs through the book, it's the imagination as a source of knowledge and a source of truth. And this is as in common with these other writers like Tolkin. I remember when I first read Tolkin, I was studying, you know, doing my thesis on Balza, and I could only write about, you know, one page a day with the Istic Library, which I said to this, the philosophy library. I went over there and I'd been reading Lewis with, uh, this group of, uh, Christian soldiers. I was an army chaplain part-time. And, uh, we were reading Lewis Read Everything by Lewis, you know, and I, I saw this book, uh, you know, Lord of the Rinks there. And on the back, you know, it had Louis's, uh, blurb for, you know, okay.
Speaker 0 00:11:40 Yeah. I still remember, you know mm-hmm. <affirmative> Bright as it was burning fire and Sharp as a sword, you know? Mm-hmm. <affirmative>. Oh, okay. So I would read that back and forth on the bus from the apartment I, where I lived to the university. And it was fascinating. But I, I had, you know, I had this sense, this is a Catholic book. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, you know, this is a deeply Catholic book, but I can't prove it, but I just feel it, you know? Well, then of course you find out Tolkin wrote to his friend, father Murray, who was an mm-hmm. <affirmative> English Jesuit that, uh, yes. Lord of the, is a book Catholic in, in its intent, uh, even more Catholic in his revision. Uh, it, it's all, uh, at, at the feet of our lady. You know, it was just tremendous to see Toki himself saying, this is a Catholic book.
Speaker 0 00:12:29 Yes. And it is. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>. So, and what you mentioned too about, uh, seeing things like freshly seeing, like, like they're new. One of the great things about Chesterton, and it's very con, you know, very obvious in orthodoxy, is that the sense of wonder, uh, he says, you want to see things as if you've seen for the first time mm-hmm. <affirmative>. So, uh, this is an example from, from, uh, everlasting Man, but he says, you know, a man on a horse, you get used to that, well, wait a minute, that's not a normal thing. You have to imagine what it's like for the first man to see this creature coming out of the forest, and, uh, and then riding him how exciting that would be. Yes. And so he, he does that with, with various ideas in, in orthodoxy
Speaker 2 00:13:17 Anyway. Yeah. Maybe just to kind of, uh, develop that one point a little bit further. Yeah. Uh, he actually says in the beginning, right, in this chapter called, I think, uh, right, the ma the maniac, or the Man, the Man,
Speaker 0 00:13:28 Man, the
Speaker 2 00:13:28 Maniac. The Maniac. Um, but where he actually says that kind of, uh, big like insanity, right? Lunacy, these different themes stem from an excessive use of reason, not an excessive use of imagination. Right. Which is a Right. A very bold claim. Uh, but how would you Right. Discuss that a little bit of that idea that maybe we, the modern world kind of, we, we worship reason, uh, and yet he wants to suggest in some ways, you know, reason alone can actually lead us astray.
Speaker 0 00:14:04 Insanity is not a defect of reason. It's an excessive reason. And the parent, the paranoid is an example. You know, you tell the paranoid, well, no, then another, everybody's not looking at you. Yes. Look at that. That guy there's looking that way. Yeah. He's trying to fool me, you know? Yes. So they have a theory to explain everything. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, they have lost a sense of proportion, the sense of form mm-hmm. <affirmative>, you know, and, and so that's just In's point is that reason by itself, without the full human compliment of, of faculties, including imagination, can lead you astray. Mm-hmm. Well, look, we see it to bring it down to the contemporary, uh, the radical traditionalist, you know? Mm-hmm. Uh, I've had this thing, I just had any, an argument the other day, uh, with discussion argument about the fragments of the host, you know? Mm-hmm. Well, it's bread, you know?
Speaker 0 00:14:59 Okay. Uh, and therefore you have to, you know, hold your fingers together and everything else. I said, well, you know, bread, bread, uh, actually has two different meanings. One is the, you know, it's a chemical thing. You know, you've got certain things, molecules in there. The other one is a human thing. It's a loaf in front of you between them, you know, uh, it's hard to draw the line, but you can't want to pick up all the molecules of bread that might have spread somewhere. Hmm. It's, the example I use is, uh, cuz I'm from California and in San Francisco, and we got a bay there called San Francisco Bay, and it, it goes into the Pacific Ocean. So we all know the difference between San Francisco Bay and Pacific Ocean mm-hmm. <affirmative>, but where does the, where's the line between them? Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, there is no line between them. You try and think it through too much. Right. Well, one is this, this is essence is the ocean, the essence is the bay. You know, they can't be in between. Right. So that's reason run amok. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, you know, and, and
Speaker 2 00:16:05 You know, it's interesting, I think Pascal and his, uh, criticism of, uh, DeHart, uh, makes a similar argument about, uh, the, where he mentioned something like, we don't know when the dusk, or, you know, we don't know in a way when night turns Okay. In today, but we certainly know the difference between night and day. Exactly. But if we want to get what Decart says we need for reason to function, which is a clear and distinct idea, well, we just, we don't live in that world of absolute certainty. But he also says, nor do we have the world of absolute doubt. And in part maybe that's what kind of Chesterton is getting at when he says, right. Uh, certain modern philosophies of maybe atheism, pessimism, uh, these sorts of different elements, materialism, they, they kind of, he, he describes 'em Right. As a circle where they kind of are complete and you can't break out of them. They're just too small to fit the world in. Right. And Right. Our own intuitive sense that, um, you know, and it's interesting, right? The most intuitive sense he has is some idea this question is existence is good. Yes. Right. That, that when a kid first, child first encounters reality, there's a wonder and a surprise and a sense that this is good. Uh, and that in a way is the one thing that you can't, you have to begin with. You can't argue too.
Speaker 0 00:17:31 Right. And that's why he, his first chapter is called In Defense of Everything Else, introduction or Chapter one, I think. Yes. Uh, well, what does that mean in defense of everything else? Well, he says, I'm not going to defend that we all want to have a life that that is imaginably adventurous, and whether surprises and, and so on. Yeah. We can be grateful for things. We see things and we're thankful for them. I'm not gonna defend that. Cuz if you don't accept that, well, we can't even talk. It's the first principle basically. Yeah. But, and then also what you said about Decart, basically, you know, Decart was sort of the, the, if you want to pick an, an origin, again there, you can't have a perfect beginning like the dawn. Yes. But I mean, certainly he's considered to be the beginning of rational and the enlightenment and so on.
Speaker 0 00:18:18 And it worked his way out into pessimism and materialism and monism and pantheism and all these sorts of things. And so Chest is attacking, I shouldn't say that cuz he doesn't really attack mm-hmm. <affirmative>, he really, he, he really approaches things, you know, and he's very, he was a friend of, of all the people he, uh, opposed, you know, like George Bernard Shaw and HD Wilson mm-hmm. <affirmative> and so on. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, but, but so chess and is going towards the, the consequences of de card being, uh, you know, taken through history. But what he does too, just as you said, he goes back to this principle, his principle is gratitude. He says, you know, being is there, you know, uh, we can, we can thank Santa Claus for putting goodies in our socks, you know, but what can we thank someone for putting our legs in our socks? You know, putting
Speaker 2 00:19:07 Yes. Uh,
Speaker 0 00:19:09 So yes, he, he's going back to first principles, but he does it in a way that you see the wonder, you see the child likeness of, of Chesterton. Yes. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, uh, and you asked at the beginning, you know, why I studied these Theos, why would I teach chess and so on? I mean, for one thing, uh, well, Lewis was a theo theologian, I think, but of, of, of sorts. Yes. But I mean, bath is our love Chesterton. He, he read all of
Speaker 2 00:19:35 Chesterton, you know? Mm-hmm. <affirmative>. Uh, that's, uh, and, and it's interesting too, the way he does that is in some ways, you know, people that are, uh, listeners that are more familiar, maybe with Aquinas and Aristotle, you will hear that Chester's going back to what are the first principles Yes. The principles of being, the principles of, right. The, the, you know, that, that, um, the law of non-contradiction, and they cannot both be and not be at the same time some notion of causality. But the way we describe it that way, it begins to sound abstract. So he begins with kind of a simpler thing, which is that it is good to be, which is, and just that like we ought to thank we, you know, a certain sense as we see these magical things, like in a story we see trees bearing, you know, magical trees.
Speaker 2 00:20:22 Well, what about the fact that trees bear fruit? Exactly. That's kind of magical. The fact life is magical. The fact that I see is magical. All of these things are ones that we can, uh, when we observe them, we can say it's good. And then you can go back. If you think about this to like atomistic principle, you would say, well being and goodness Right. Are right. Convertible. Right. But being in goodness, convertible sounds strange, but the simple idea, is it good that I am. Right. And in some ways, right. That's kind of goes back to the heart, not only of Aristotelian and philosophy, but really back to the heart of Genesis. Right. Just Yes. Like Genesis wanted. It is good. Right. That we are, and
Speaker 0 00:21:03 It is it good that grass is green in the sky is blue. Yes. And in this beautiful chapter of the ethics of elfa, which should be read for itself, if you don't read the old book, uh, he makes that point that, uh, science says these laws, you know, they consider laws like the sunrise. Every, but that's doesn't, doesn't doesn't have to rise every day because it could be different, but the law could be different. Yes. Or, or grass is green. Yeah. We, we know scientifically there's chloro plasm, and the photons come in and some are absorbed and become energy for glucose. And some, uh, are reflected and the green wavelength is reflected. And so grass is green. It has to be that way. A scientists would say, because the molecule of such and such, and that's what you need to produce the ATP and everything, add aine triphosphate, uh, but which is key for all for our, it's all our energy. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, uh, but chess and say, well, it didn't have to be that way. You know, God could have created a whole different universe. There's no law that says it had to be these atoms and these molecules and this periodic table and so on. So he makes us aware of two things. We, we've, we've mentioned 'em both here, but just mm-hmm. <affirmative> to kinda summarize them. One is things didn't have to be the way they are. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, uh, like, you didn't have to be here and I didn't have to be here. Yes.
Speaker 2 00:22:26 But
Speaker 0 00:22:27 Things didn't have to be at all mm-hmm. <affirmative>, you know, so being, didn't have to be, uh, un unless God, you know, pure act, you know, the creator had brought it into resistance, but he could have done it differently. And he certainly could have done it without you and me. So mm-hmm. <affirmative>, uh, he has that wonderful thing in there about <laugh>. He says, uh, people often talk about, you know, failed genius as, as someone who, uh, might have been, but he says, what I like to think of is I might have not been, you know mm-hmm. <affirmative>, we, we, we might not have been at all. Yes. Yeah. So, so
Speaker 2 00:23:01 Right. That wonder that anything exists Yes. Is a wonderful thing. And to think that, that the existence of anything is really, uh, the gift of a creator. And then each thing that does exist was somewhat willed to be, as he describes it. I think he says that. Right. Even I think he says, right. When we see nature happening on its own, we often see things crumbling and decaying. And when things stay constant, it's because there's a person at work continuing them. Right. If you build a bridge and you don't continue to maintain it, it will fall apart. Um, right. Even birds, if they build an nest and they don't continue to build it, it will fall apart. So when we see things being maintained, we ought to think, oh, wait a second. This is the sign of a personal. So when we see things in creation being Right, maintained, even the whole laws of physics, uh, why not see them not merely as the process of material randomness, but it would be more understandable to see them as the personal will of a wise, good, loving creator. Which in a way, he came to just by thinking about the reality. Right. Right. And then kind of discovers, oh, wait a second. What he discovered for the first time turns out to have been orthodoxy Christian orthodoxy with the whole idea of this is what
Speaker 0 00:24:33 Well, that's right. You know, he, he begins with this image. There's two ways of, of getting home. One is staying there. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>. And one is going around the world and coming back there. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>. And he said he took the second way. Uh, he, he was trying to think out for himself a way to get out of this pessimism that was surrounding him and the materialism, cuz he, he had a sense that wasn't right. And so he, he began to think about this and about that. And every time he thought he had a new idea, oh, this is, this, this makes sense. Oh, it's already been there. That's Christianity, that's orthodoxy. So basically mm-hmm. <affirmative> orthodoxy is his journey from trying to figure out the world without being a Christian. And then suddenly funny, every solution he found was, was already there in Christianity. And that's what led to his faith, you know, to his being a Christian. Yeah. Yeah. And then, uh, on this, this thing about, uh, nature, he talks about it's magic. You know, grass didn't have to be green. It's, it's like in magic grass, in the ethics of Elland, you can make grass purple. You know, you make this guy red, whatever mm-hmm. <affirmative>, uh, and he said, well, therefore I began to realize that if all these things are magic, well there must be magician there somewhere, you know?
Speaker 2 00:25:42 Ah-huh.
Speaker 0 00:25:43 <affirmative>, he, as you said, you know, chaos. He says chaos is not interesting. In fact, there's a beautiful image in, uh, <laugh> of the two poets in, uh, the anarchists in the poet, uh, in men who was thirsty. Cuz Joseph and I are teaching that along with, uh, everlasting Man and Orthodoxy and <laugh>. The, uh, this one poet is saying, uh, you know how boring it is though. You get on the train and, and you get off the Victoria, you know it's gonna be that station every day, the same station. And, uh, uh, Sims, who's the, uh, who's the protagonist against, uh, Gregory? He said, no, no, no. He says, that's the exciting thing. I mean, you know, if someone, you know, shoots up a bird with an arrow at a distance, you Oh, that's wonderful. What if we did it 10 times in a row? Well, that'd be pretty amazing. Wouldn't it be? And so the fact, the fact that this train always gets to Victoria Station, that's a victory. Uhhuh <affirmative>, you know, it, it's order mm-hmm. <affirmative>. So that, and, and so it ends up by saying, uh, Simon says, uh, you take your Byron, I want my Bradshaw. Byron was a poet. Mm-hmm. <affirmative> Bradshaw in England is the producer of the timetables for the trains, you know? Oh,
Speaker 2 00:26:54 Okay. So, yes.
Speaker 0 00:26:55 But then also Che, he does it in Orthodox, he does it everywhere. He could write about, about a piece of rubber band, you know mm-hmm. <affirmative> or a piece of cheese or a piece of, I mean, he would take anything and find in it being and, and, and wonder, you know, and, and beauty and Yeah. Something magic, basically.
Speaker 2 00:27:16 Yeah. That's great. Well, uh, let's, uh, let's take a break. And when we come back, I want to maybe talk a little bit about how Chesterton introduces this idea of paradox, but paradox not as a, uh, kind of a dead end of thought, but as a means to discover truth, uh, that maybe is greater than we initially intuit. Okay. Uh, so we'll come back in a minute.
Speaker 3 00:27:46 You are listening to the Catholic Theology Show presented by Ave Maria University. If you'd like to support our mission, we invite you to prayerfully consider joining our Annunciation Circle, a monthly giving program aimed at supporting our staff, faculty, and Catholic faith formation. You can visit
[email protected] to learn more. Thank you for your continued support. And now let's get back to the show.
Speaker 2 00:28:13 Well, welcome back Father Fasio. And so we said we would talk a little bit about, uh, his understanding of paradox. Uh, could you say more about what paradox is for Chesterton and how it helps him to illuminate the truth?
Speaker 0 00:28:29 Sure. Well, one of the great Chean scholars I would call him is Dale Alquist, who runs the American Justice Society. And he, when his children became high school age, he was not satisfied with the schools in this area. So he started his own school at Chess Academy. Uh, as we speak, Michael, there are fif, there are 46 of them across the country, and one in Iraq. Wow. And one in Italy. And there's gonna be 16 more next year. But he goes around giving talks, uh, to people that they want to found these things and, cause we're good friends for many, many years. But I went to his talk when he came to, uh, in San Francisco area, and in his talk, he was talking about the curriculum. And, uh, in a certain part of his talk, he said, and we read Homer because, because life is a battle, you know, and we read the, cuz life is a journey, and we read Dusty Ky because life is a family struggle. We leave Dante because life is a comedy, and we chess in because life is, and I read a paradox, he said, that's right. You know? Yes. So chess is known for paradox, but sometimes people think, well, that means some kind of flippancy. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, you know, or arbitrariness or just a, a humor that with no basis in, in anything substantial. But the fact is, what is paradox? Paradox is apparent contradictions, you know? Mm-hmm. <affirmative>. But he will say, for example, courage. What's courage? It's a tremendous desire to live
Speaker 2 00:30:06 Mm-hmm.
Speaker 0 00:30:07 <affirmative>, but a willingness to die. You know? So you combine those things, you see mm-hmm. <affirmative>. So you, you can't just take one or the other, you willingness to live, you be coward, you know, or you just risk to die. You're fool hearty. Yeah. But you put 'em together and it becomes exciting. It becomes an adventure. So for him, the idea of paradox is that you have these qualities which seem to be incompatible, but in fact there's a way they fit. And Christianity is the one that makes 'em fit properly. Like, he'll talk about, uh, they criticize the church for being pacifist, you know, because turn the other chic on the other side, they criticize church for the crusades for being be coast, you know. But the, how does the church handle that? Well, you've got, you've got the passage, you, you've got the religious orders, you've got the honoraries. On one hand, you've got the temples on the other, but it's all part of one. Mm-hmm. <affirmative> one organism, you
Speaker 2 00:31:05 Yeah, yeah. Right. Catholics both fast and feast. Right, right. You know, but it's, uh, and somehow, how do those two go together? Well, you know, it's, it's because of it's reality. Right. In a way, both the bride groom is both with us and not with us. Yes. So we have to do both. And, and maybe even that goes back to this earlier sense of both, right. Faith and reason, reason and imagination. Uh, you can think about it like faith without reason would end up probably in kind of fanaticism. Right. Believing anything. Believing, believing kind of, uh, absurd things about oneself and about God. Right. So we need reason, but reason without faith, uh, will, will, will kind of collapse upon itself. Right. Because reason itself, as Chester says, is something you have to have faith in. You can't. That's right. Can't argue to argument. You have to have faith that your reasoning skill, that reason is real. And so Right. He even says like, if you begin with one mystery, namely the mystery of God and existence, that I cannot explain from that, then I can explain a little bit about everything else.
Speaker 0 00:32:18 Right. And he uses an image for that. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, because that you've expressed it perfectly in philosophically. Yes. But what he would say, and Lewis actually follows him in this, is that the sun is the one thing you can't look at directly. Yes. But he, it illuminates everything else. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>. And it's like I was saying on, uh, during the class, based on this book here, that, that, to give an example of that is that philosophy and, and reasoning. It can come to the idea of God as pure act. Uh, and God is as eternal and infinite and without limits. Yes. Ah, but what about the Trinity? Mm-hmm. <affirmative> philosophy can't get to that. And yet the Trinity, cuz there are limits in a sense that the father's not the son, the son is not the spirit. Right. But they're, they're God father's God, but he's not the son and so on.
Speaker 0 00:33:08 Well, that explains creation because if in the Islamic view of things, God is a modest God, uh, there's no love, by the way, there's 99 names for God in the Quran, right? Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, but two of 'em that don't exist. Father is one and love is the other. Yeah. Those two names, they're not names for God. Well, they can't be. Why? Because you can't just love yourself. I mean, love is something which between persons. Right. And so if God were only one, then in order to love, he'd have to create, which would mean he's dependent upon creation to be love. So now sudden we have God who's dependent upon his creation. Yeah. So there's, there's the example, and, and it, it comes through in, uh, this book because he says, you know, it's not good for man to be alone. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, but then he says, it's not good for God to be alone either.
Speaker 2 00:34:02 <laugh> Yes. That
Speaker 0 00:34:03 Is beautiful. But that the, the, the mystery of the Trinity actually makes creation int intelligible. Mm-hmm. <affirmative> without that mystery you can't
Speaker 2 00:34:10 Afford. And I like the example he gives of, um, when he talks about kind of sometimes maybe the paradox, like, uh, Christianity is criticized for, you know, being, you've mentioned Pacifistic on the one hand, militaristic on the other. Well, but it's somehow both, uh, it somehow is too into marriage cuz it wants people just to have marriage and children. But then it's against marriage cuz it calls people to celibacy. Well, well what is it? You know, what I, and, and he, and he kind of gives the image though, of a mountain peak, which is you can fall off on one side or the other. But the thrilling thing about the romance of Orthodox is it describes it is that it stays along the mountain peak. It could fall into Right. Hating the body. It could fall into worshiping the body. But it's, it does both, it could fall into hating marriage. It could fall into worshiping marriage. Somehow it stays at top. It could fall into only reason, only faith. But it stays at that peak. And I think that's a way that, you know, we kind of see through the paradox, we get to this excellence. Uh, and I think that's just a beautiful,
Speaker 0 00:35:10 There's an infinitive angles at which one may fall, only one at which one stands straight. And that's one of the most beautiful passes in the book. That the, the wild adventure of Orthodox mm-hmm. <affirmative>. And I'd read it, but I, I don't want to cry on camera. I can't, I can't read that without weeping. It's so beautiful. Uh, just what you said. Wow. But you said it mm-hmm. <affirmative> and I will say it. And we do it kind of in a, a, you know, clear clear. His, he's clear, but he says it such a poetic way. Yes. Yeah. It just, it's like music, you know?
Speaker 2 00:35:38 Mm-hmm. <affirmative>. That is really, uh, what, maybe just, uh, as, as we're getting close to concluding, uh, the episode, is there kind of one thing that you would say, say of, uh, a listener is thinking of picking up orthodoxy? Is there one thing you would say, uh, here's a reason to read it?
Speaker 0 00:35:54 Well, I I don't think you can be a fully formed Catholic without ha in, in the modern period without having read Orthodox and Everlasting Man. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, and I would also say the Lord of the Rings. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, those, I mean, of course that can't be taken to the total extreme either. Yes. But, uh, Justin was, was a brilliant Catholic apologist, uh, who brings you to the joy of the faith. But he says things about the sorrow that we have. Yes. In fact mm-hmm. <affirmative>, he's got a chapter on the abandonment of Christ on the Cross, which is Al Aar in, in one paragraph. He's got the whole theology of Holy Saturday there. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>. And the way he says it, uh, I mean, I I would say it's, the book is worth it just for two or three passages mm-hmm. <affirmative>, even though everything is worth reading. Yeah. Um, and it, it, it's, it's illuminating. It's encouraging, it's inspiring. That's good. And I, I, I think, I think that he should have eventually be canonized.
Speaker 2 00:37:10 Ah, wow. That's, uh, well, no, we will maybe have to have another, uh, podcast one day talking about that. All right. I do wanna ask you three quick questions. Sure. Before we leave, just to help our listeners get to know you a little bit, um, what's, what's a book you're reading?
Speaker 0 00:37:22 Pardon
Speaker 2 00:37:23 Me? What's a book you're reading now?
Speaker 0 00:37:24 A book I'm reading, I'm reading a 700 page biography of hundred. So, which is fascinating. Ah-ha
Speaker 2 00:37:30 <laugh>, that's,
Speaker 0 00:37:31 But it's in German, so I
Speaker 2 00:37:32 Okay. <laugh>. I
Speaker 0 00:37:33 Can't recommend that.
Speaker 2 00:37:34 Well, that's great. And, uh, what's a,
Speaker 0 00:37:35 I don't read too many books. And here's why. As Editor n Press, we get about 500 man ships a year. So, you know, I, I've got several every week. Yes. And I end up reading those things, you know, so if you want what I'm reading, you can look at our catalog online.
Speaker 2 00:37:52 <laugh>, is there a, what, what's maybe just one out of many, uh, daily practices. What's one spiritual practice you do every day that helps you, that you draw fruit from?
Speaker 0 00:38:02 Well, uh, our dating Ignatius Press is, is, is this, we, you know, uh, well, I, I live at the press and I am 30 feet from the chapel. So get up, shave, go to the chapel. Uh, we have mass, uh, with the Divine office lodges integrated with the mass. Yes. And then other things. But I, I have come to really love the, the office. I've always loved it, but the Psalms are so important. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, because there's a language in heaven that we don't know. I mean, heaven is so much beyond us, but we have a little glimpse of it. And all of God's word is inspired, but the Psalms are God's inspired prayer to himself. And so when you're praying the Psalms, uh, you, you are, you're praying in the way Jesus prayed. Yes. That's how he learned to pray. Mm-hmm. <affirmative> the way Mary prayed.
Speaker 0 00:38:59 Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, and I'll leave you, I, I should have done this earlier in my life. I'm 82 years old, two couple days ago, but I want to learn enough Hebrew to know some of the Psalms. So I started learning bit of Hebrew. I mean, at least read the letters and everything, you know, and online they got these great resources. But, so I get to this Psalm 63, which is said every other Sunday. And the first line, it's Elohim Akk. Elohim is a general generic word for God. It's kind of abstract means my God. Mm-hmm. <affirmative> God, my God. AK means you God, by God. You, and then the last word only used once in the whole Bible. <unk> I wait for you. Like someone waiting for the dawn. That is, you know, it's gonna come, but you're in the darkness and you're waiting for the light. So beautiful. I mean, the Psalms, the Psalms really are, are their inspired book, Michael <laugh>.
Speaker 2 00:39:59 That's beautiful. Well, thank you so much, uh, father for being on our show. And, uh, for those who are interested in learning more about, uh, GK Chesterton, uh, we do have two other podcast episodes. Oh, good. Uh, uh, with, uh, Joseph Pierce, one on Chesterton and Conversion, and another one on Chesterton's Everlasting Man. Uh, father Feo, as I mentioned, was the, uh, director and, um, an editor-in-chief of the Ignatius Press. And Ignatius Press has actually published many works of Chesterton. Yes. So, uh, so there definitely are, are are great resources there. Thank you. So thank you all, uh, very much. And thank you Father.
Speaker 0 00:40:36 Thank you, Michael.
Speaker 3 00:40:37 Thank you so much for joining us for this podcast. If you like this episode, please write and review it on your favorite podcast app to help others find the show. And if you want to take the next step, please consider joining our Annunciation Circle so we can continue to bring you more free content. We'll see you next time on the Catholic Theology Show.
