G.K. Chesterton is one of my favorite authors. On a lot of subjects, his way of looking at things really astonishes me. He can still show things in a fresh perspective, though his books are about a hundred years old. In his later writings, he quite strongly scoffs at Protestants at times. This is disturbing, as I haven't quite figured why. I probably would find information about his conversion in some of his books, but frankly there's a lot to read. And with none of his books available where I live, it's also troublesome to get them -- call me old-fashioned, but I only read books on paper. I'd like to get an overview of the reasons G.K. left the Anglican church for the Catholic, possibly along with some further reading recommendations. This question was partly inspired by Why didn't C.S. Lewis convert to Catholicism? I've wondered about G.K.'s conversion for some time. I haven't dared ask about it here before, as I've been afraid it would be off-topic.

In Orthodoxy, G.K. Chesterton describes heresies as virtues gone wild and then attempts to connect a few dots to historical examples. > When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. Was this an original idea he had. Most people think of heresies as something incorrect or lacking, but adopting GKC's mindset that the heretical thing isn't what's lacking, it's everything else that is lacking seems to me both a good way to dialogue and a good way to understand orthodoxy in light of classical heresies. Is this simply one of many of his original musings or does the idea have roots in Christian thought?

In *Mere Christianity*, in the chapter on Christian Marriage, CS Lewis says, > "As Chesterton pointed out, those who are in love have a natural > inclination to bind themselves by promises. Love songs all over the > world are full of vows of eternal constancy. The Christian law [of marital fidelity] is not forcing upon the passion of love something which s foreign to that passion's own nature......" I'm looking for the place where Chesterton says this.

GK Chesterton (famous Catholic apologist) writes in his popular book Orthodoxy: > Nay (the matter grows too difficult for human speech), but let the atheists themselves choose a god. They will find only one divinity who ever uttered their isolation; only one religion in which God seemed for an instant to be an atheist. GK Chesterton seems to be saying that Jesus was an atheist, at least for a moment. Is this actually orthodox, i.e. consistent with what most Christians thought in most times and places? Before reading Orthodoxy I'd never heard of such an idea.

As a school assignment I'm supposed to compare two authors on the topic of morality. Specifically the question is: how ought a person to relate to Christianity / how should Christianity affect one's life? I was really hoping that Chesterton could be one of my authors, but I'm struggling to find a place where he writes about that topic. Here's where I've read of him so far: - For fiction, I've read some Father Brown and The Man Who Was Thursday. - For nonfiction, I've read some of Orthodoxy, most of What's Wrong w/ the World, and most of Everlasting Man. I was especially hoping that Everlasting Man would give me good fodder, but it seems like he's making more of a historical / anthropological argument instead of a moral one. Anyway, I'm sort of at my wits end here, and would love input. tldr; Does anyone have a suggestion for a good Chesterton book/essay that talks about morality?

[G.K. Chesterton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton) (*b. 1874, d. 1936*), a major figure in the [Catholic literary revival](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_literary_revival) , who wrote the classic Catholic apologetics book [Orthodoxy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodoxy_(book)) in 1908 along with [Father Brown stories and books](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Brown) shortly after (1910-), but did not enter full communion with the Catholic Church until 30 July 1922 (with first Communion and Confirmation on 24 September, taking the confirmation name after St. Francis of Assisi). He was baptized as a baby in the Church of England. Similarly, another major Catholic thinker [Mortimer Adler](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortimer_J._Adler) (*b. 1902, d. 2001*), a non-observant American Jewish philosopher who discovered Aquinas in his 20s and "was a frequent contributor to Catholic philosophical and educational journals, as well as a frequent speaker at Catholic institutions", only converted in 1998 after becoming an Episcopalian first in 1984. From [*Wikipedia*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortimer_J._Adler#Religion_and_theology) : > Despite not being a Catholic for most of his life, Adler can be considered a Catholic philosopher on account of his lifelong participation in the Neo-Thomist movement and his almost equally long membership of the American Catholic Philosophical Association. [*Wikipedia*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortimer_J._Adler#Religion_and_theology) provides Mortimer Adler's reason for not converting earlier: > According to his friend [Deal Hudson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deal_Hudson) , Adler "had been attracted to Catholicism for many years" and "wanted to be a Roman Catholic, but issues like abortion and the resistance of his family and friends" kept him away. Many thought he was baptized as an Episcopalian rather than a Catholic solely because of his "wonderful – and ardently Episcopal – wife" Caroline. Hudson suggests it is no coincidence that it was only after her death in 1998 that he took the final step. (*see* [The Great Philosopher Who Became Catholic](https://www.catholicity.com/commentary/hudson/06330.html)) **But why did Chesterton wait so long?** Compared to Adler, he was a lot closer already, having born in the Church of England. As @KenGraham points out: > "The operations of Grace are known unto God alone. The Holy Spirit can offer graces to a soul, but when, how and why they become acceptable to a soul is completely known unto a God and the individual soul." This question may not have an answer, but if Chesterton disclosed his reason, this question may have an answer that is more objective than our conjecture / opinion, as in Adler's case (see above) or in C.S. Lewis's case (see his spiritual autobiography book [Surprised by Joy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surprised_by_Joy) and the EWTN article on [The Conversion Story of C.S. Lewis](https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/conversion-story-of-c-s-lewis-9821)) . ### Resources that can point to the answer: - A new 2011 biography [G.K. Chesteron: A Biography](https://www.amazon.ca/G-Chesterton-Biography-Ian-Ker/dp/0199601283) by "the world's authority on John Henry Newman" [Dr. Ian Ker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Ker) , especially Chapter 11 (America and Conversion) Section 6, covering the letters, events, and recollections in the months preceding the 30 July 1922 conversion and the immediate reactions afterwards. - His own 1926 book [The Catholic Church and Conversion](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/184442.The_Catholic_Church_And_Conversion) (pdf copy [here](https://hismercy.ca/content/ebooks/The%20Catholic%20Church%20and%20Conversion.pdf)) , especially about the 3 stages in "Chapter III : The Real Obstacles", quoted by Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong blog article [Catholic Conversion: Classic Analyses (Chesterton, Belloc, Pelikan)](https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2017/08/catholic-conversion-classic-analyses-chesterton-belloc-pelikan.html) . - An essay "My Six Conversions" published in a 1935 collection *The Well and the Shallows* which we can read in the [Gutenberg Australia edition](https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks13/1301661h.html) . Very short summary in a [blog article here](https://cburrell.wordpress.com/2009/02/03/chesterton-the-well-and-the-shallows/) : > ... If, says Chesterton, he had not already been a Catholic (which he had been since 1922), here are six reasons why he would have converted. They are variable: he points to the apparent aimlessness and rootlessness of the Church of England, to the collapse of the modernist theory of progress in light of contemporary political developments, to the growing social acceptability of birth control, to state interference in English religion, to the irrationality of materialist philosophy, and, in an opaque final essay, to something pertaining to Spanish politics — the Spanish Civil War? ... - A 2002 short paper [G.K. Chesterton: The Theology of Philip Yancey's Favorite Writer](https://faithalone.org/journal/2002ii/townsend.pdf) from the [Journal of the GRACE Evangelical Society](https://faithalone.org/journal.html) surveying Chesterton's theology and in particular Chesterton's view of Protestant soteriology (and the dearth of references in his voluminous writings about saving faith) which may have contributed to his conversion to Rome. - A book [Father Brown on Chesterton](https://www.gutenberg.ca/ebooks/oconnor-chesterton/oconnor-chesterton-00-h.html) by Catholic priest [Fr. John O'Connor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_O%27Connor_(priest)) published in 1937, shortly after Chesterton's passing, containing a lot of personal details of his interaction with Chesterton. Chapter 23 has quotes from Chesterton to various newspapers about his conversion. - Possible contributing reason: from Christianity Today's Christian History [article on G.K. Chesterton](https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/people/musiciansartistsandwriters/g-k-chesterton.html) : > In 1922 Chesterton left Canterbury for Rome. Catholicism, he asserted, was the only church that "dared to go down with me into the depths of myself." He would have converted earlier, he told the hordes of shocked Protestants, but was "much too frightened of that tremendous Reality on the altar." - A new book (2019) [My Name is Lazarus: 34 Stories of Converts Whose Path to Rome Was Paved by G. K. Chesterton](https://www.scribd.com/book/447075627/My-Name-is-Lazarus-34-Stories-of-Converts-Whose-Path-to-Rome-Was-Paved-by-G-K-Chesterton) which includes an essay on G. K. Chesterton's own conversion "The Chief Event of My Life" put together by the book's editor: > Editor’s note: Chesterton refers to his conversion as “the chief event of my life” in the preface to *The Everlasting Man*. The present essay, however, is a composite that I put together drawing from his *Autobiography*, *Orthodoxy*, *The Catholic Church and Conversion*, *The Thing*, *The Well and the Shallows*, the essay *“Why I am a Catholic,”* and a few other uncollected sources. I used this same text for the basis of an “interview” with Chesterton by Marcus Grodi for a special edition of *The Journey Home* on the Eternal Word Television Network. - A poem Chesterton wrote on the day of his conversion into the Catholic church: > THE CONVERT
> By G.K. Chesterton
> > After one moment when I bowed my head
> And the whole world turned over and came upright,
> And I came out where the old road shone white,
> I walked the ways and heard what all men said,
> Forests of tongues, like autumn leaves unshed,
> Being not unlovable but strange and light;
> Old riddles and new creeds, not in despite
> But softly, as men smile about the dead.
> > The sages have a hundred maps to give
> That trace their crawling cosmos like a tree,
> They rattle reason out through many a sieve
> That stores the dust and lets the gold go free:
> And all these things are less than dust to me
> Because my name is Lazarus and I live.
> > Written the day he was received into
> the Catholic Church, July 30, 1922 This question is inspired by [Ignatius Theophorus's](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/1748/ignatius-theophorus) comment in another question [Why did G.K. Chesterton convert to Catholicism?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2760/) which already had 2 good answers

G. K. Chesterton's political ideology, distributism, is (as far as I'm aware) based on Catholic teaching, from tradition, to teaching by Popes, and by the Bible. What is that basis?

In "Orthodoxy" G.K. Chesterton compares in multiple places the difference in attitude between people who kill themselves and people who let themselves be killed for Jesus' sake. > The Christian attitude to the martyr and the suicide was not what is so often affirmed in modern morals. It was not a matter of degree. It was not that a line must be drawn somewhere, and that the self-slayer in exaltation fell within the line, the self-slayer in sadness just beyond it. The Christian feeling evidently was not merely that the suicide was carrying martyrdom too far. The Christian feeling was furiously for one and furiously against the other: these two things that looked so much alike were at opposite ends of heaven and hell. One man flung away his life; he was so good that his dry bones could heal cities in pestilence. Another man flung away life; he was so bad that his bones would pollute his brethren's. I am not saying this fierceness was right; but why was it so fierce? I don't believe that Christians will necessarily disallow suicides to be buried with everyone else these days. Has anything in Christian doctrine changed or is has the "fierceness" that Christians once hated suicide disappeared with modern understanding of psychology? Does this affect Chesterton's argument, is it yet another example he uses that's lost on the modern reader? _Expecting answers from a Chestertonian viewpoint if you can muster up one, otherwise something from Anglican / Catholic doctrine_

> Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved. - [Orthodoxy, by Gilbert K. Chesterton; The Maniac Page 1](https://www.pagebypagebooks.com/Gilbert_K_Chesterton/Orthodoxy/The_Maniac_p1.html) What is GKC's proof of original sin, and what is unique about it that similar logic can't be used to prove any other belief?

I came across this beautiful poem by GK Chesterton: [***A Little Litany***](https://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/CHESLITN.HTM) . But it has been very difficult for me to interpret. Especially the following lines: > To see in pictured walls his storied world
Return upon him as a > tale is told. What does this mean 'pictured walls his storied world' This whole stanza, especially 'twilight of twiformed cherubium' > Or young on your strong knees and lifted up
Wisdom cried out, > whose voice is in the street,
And more than twilight of twiformed > cherubim
Made of his throne indeed a mercy-seat. And in this what is the 'mystic rose'? >And kissed upon your mouth the mystic rose. Can someone explain these things? Thank you.

In which year G. K. Chesterton wrote the letter with the message? > Dear Sirs: > > I am. > > Sincerely Yours, > > G. K. Chesterton This letter was an answer to the question: "What is wrong with the world?".

In G.K. Chesteron's essay "The Red Angel ," found in the collection *Tremendous Trifles *, he remarks: > One small child in the dark can invent more hells than Swedenborg. What is Chesterton referring to here? How many hells did Swedenborg think there were?

In anticipation of watching the new [Ragamuffin](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2412568/) movie, I'm watching [an interview with Rich Mullins](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwuN03zyJ04&feature=em-subs_digest-wl) . Here's the [transcript](http://www.kidbrothers.net/interviews/heart-to-heart.html) . During the interview, he is seeking to explain what it means by "centering yourself on 'Love everybody'" in contrast to a certain rigidity when it comes to holiness. At 22:30, Mullins quotes [G. K. Chesterton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton) , who says, "When we bind our hearts, we free our hands." I had never heard this quote before, and I'm not 100% sure I get what is being said. Where does this quote come from, and what did Chesterton mean by it?

In the G.K. Chesterton's _The Ball and the Cross_ there's a point where it's obvious that Chesterton doesn't think Evan McIan's initial philosophy, if taken to its fullness, would bring about peace on Earth. What exactly was it about his philosophy that left him open to temptation (in his dream) and how did his viewpoint change. Furthermore, what was it about seeing the old man that made him want to stop fighting? I ask this as a Catholic who feels compelled to smash things occasionally, but somehow feels it's not the right thing to do!

I just started reading G.K. Chesterson's *Orthodoxy* and came across this quote: > In this remarkable situation it is plainly not now possible (with any > hope of a universal appeal) to start, as our fathers did, with the > fact of sin. This very fact which was to them (and is to me) as plain > as a pikestaff, is the very fact that has been specially diluted or > denied. But though moderns deny the existence of sin, I do not think > that they have yet denied the existence of a lunatic asylum. In context, he seems to be talking about a movement ***within Christianity***, not an atheistic movement, that denies the very existence of sin. Certainly I've heard atheists make the claim that sin is a man-made concept, and that it's "relative" - what one person considers sin may be perfectly OK for someone else, for example. But within the bounds of official Christian doctrine and understanding, the concept seems incomprehensible to me. Why would someone bother self-identifying as a Christian if they didn't need Christ's atonement for their sins? What would be the point? My own incredulity aside, there are enough beliefs within Christianity that it wouldn't surprise me to find teachings that deny the very existence of sin, but I've never really paid attention to such things, or bothered to learn about them. Now my curiosity is piqued. Was there such a movement at the time of the writing of the book, and how widespread was it? And further, is there still such a belief within recognized traditions (even those considered cults by more orthodox Christianity) that are known for teaching the idea that sin doesn't exist?