"It is the Catholic view that heretics seize a truth and enlarge and distort it to the point where it becomes an error, rather as a cancer cell expands and devours healthy cells."
James Hitchcock says so, in a piece at InsideCatholic, wherein he tells us that he doesn't think much of the beliefs, positions, approaches, possible motives and tendencies of GK Chesterton, Hillaire Belloc and CS Lewis, of none of whom, he tells us, he has read very much.
I am not going to comment on that any more than I already have, except to say that I have not read as much of any of the three as I wish to.
But what about that definition of heresy?
Is that "the Catholic view"? rather than a possible Catholic view? that applies some of the time, to some heretics?
Much of what disguises itself as "Catholic thought," coming from the Ephemerists these days is a matter of incorrect emphasis, and the elevating of a minor virtue to absolute preeminence.
And yes, surely many of our more prominent historical heretics were men of good will who got hold of the wrong end of the stick.
But some heretical views are just... well, flat out untrue, aren't they? So that shedding a little more light on the parimeters of the heresy isn't always going to reveal more, and therefore necessarily reveal the Truth?
Some heretics, surely, grab hold of not a truth, but a lie.