Martin Scicluna seems to have a guilty conscience and I think I know why. He deeply hurt his friend John Micallef as he treated him shabbily. Mr Scicluna’s intense dislike of John’s political and religious beliefs not only ruined his friendship with John, it also made him unable to be fair in his outlook on such issues.
This is shown by Mr Scicluna’s deeply flawed analysis of Chesterton. His reading of G.K.C. is selective, superficial and highly inaccurate. Chesterton’s formidable antagonists Bernard Shaw and H.G. Wells had a much higher opinion of G.K.C. than Mr Scicluna. Unfortunately, John is not alive to rebut the misleading and flawed references Mr Scicluna chose to make.
Unlike John Micallef, I am no expert but at my level of knowledge I will restrict myself to asking Mr Scicluna to read Chesterton without blinkers (encouraging him, in other words, to exercise the same open-mindedness he expects of others). For a start, he could read Chesterton’s The Catholic Church and Conversion, especially Chapter V.
As regards G.K.C.’s alleged anti-Semitism, there is ample evidence to the contrary. Chesterton has been accused of anti-Semitism because he attacked the far-reaching impact of wheeler dealing in high finance by people who were Jewish. In fact, Chesterton had numerous Jewish friends and was praised publicly by Jews during his life and after his death. When he died, Jews paid tribute to him as one of the first to speak out with directness and vigour against Hitlerism.
As for Chesterton’s alleged uncritical acceptance of Mussolini and fascism, this is anything but the truth. I encourage Mr Scicluna to read Chesterton’s newspaper “G.K.’s Weekly” to see that his views of Mussolini are much more subtly argued than Mr Scicluna seems to realise. Chesterton met Mussolini and had a civil if somewhat awkward conversation with him. To claim him as a supporter is absurd. He saw all of the faults of fascism that Mr Scicluna (with the benefit of hindsight) can see. But he also saw that Mussolini’s critics in the British press were not themselves the examples of freedom and democracy they claimed to be. If Mr Scicluna knew more about Chesterton, he might have said less about him.
Mr Scicluna compares theology with science, which is a fatal intellectual error (what philosophers call a category mistake) as they are fundamentally different disciplines. Besides, what is so positive about Marx and Nietzsche? One contributed to Communism and the other to Nazism. These twin barbarisms killed violently more millions in a relatively short span of time than any other ideology in human history. Give me Thomas Aquinas, Francis of Assisi, E.F. Schumacher, Oscar Romero, Mother Theresa and so many other Catholic stalwarts any time.
As regards economics and the family, Chesterton’s arguments and warnings are prophetic and need being revisited and assimilated if we want to combat the evils of plutocracy cloaked in the spurious appearance of democracy and liberty.
Finally, the most sincere tribute Mr Scicluna can give to John, instead of regretting the past, is to give a fair hearing to Chesterton by respecting the truth about Chesterton and trying to understand what he really wanted to say. Such a positive attitude should live up to the true sporting spirit and loyalty that underpins the ethos of St Edward’s College and the military academy of Sandhurst.
Klaus Vella Bardon
BALZAN