Failure of Omission
Bryant Burroughss review of Karl Keatings Catholicism and Fundamentalism (Dec.) was on target as far as it went. What Burroughs failed to mention but I do not fault him for it, for Keating also overlooked it is that there is a huge gulf separating Catholicism and fundamentalism in the area of social morality. How could the eagle-eyed Keating not notice the difference between the socio-economic pronouncements of New Right fundamentalists and the more profoundly Christian teachings embodied in the Holy Sees social encyclicals and the U.S. bishops pastoral letters?
The omission is evident in a similar book: Catholic and Christian by Alan Schreck. Why is it that defenders of orthodox Catholicism often turn a blind eye to the official social teachings of the Church? Is it possible that some of them are actually discreet sympathizers with the fundamentalist political agenda?
Fort Worth, Texas
After reading Bryant Burroughss review of Karl Keatings Catholicism and Fundamentalism (Dec.), as well as the book itself, I came to the conclusion that everyone gets incoherent when he starts ragging on anothers faith. First, Keating quickly passed over the distinctions between fundamentalism and evangelical Protestantism. This is a serious mistake, because the fundamentalist theology he questions is not unique to fundamentalism. Sola scriptura and private interpretation are tenets of evangelical theology. Yet to disprove this theology he relies upon the theological fragments included in anti-Catholic tracts. Keating would have faced a more formidable challenge if he had not picked the straw-man arguments of Jimmy Swaggart and Bart Brewer.
Secondly, Burroughss appeal to the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed to disprove the hermeneutical principles of sola scriptura and private interpretation is faulty. The fact that neither creed supports these viewpoints does not really mean a whole lot. Creeds, like New Testament epistles, were written for a particular pastoral need. The early church creeds focused on Christology and the Trinity, since that was the need of the time. Biblical authority and sufficiency have become more significant issues in the past 500 years.
Evergreen Students for Christ
Ed. Note: Yes, the creeds, like the New Testament epistles, were written for a particular pastoral need. But they were also written for all time. We find it ironic that you, presumably an evangelical Protestant, would appeal to what is in effect the principle of the development of doctrine in an attempt to de-emphasize the creeds. Of course, Catholics, who have a kind of trademark on the development of doctrine, would find this deployment of the principle highly eccentric at best. It is even more ironic that you would, in attempting to rescue sola scriptura, de-emphasize the Scriptures epistles.
While I certainly agree that Whittaker Chamberss Witness is a vital work that deserves reconsideration, I was disappointed with the essay on it by John Lukacs (Nov.). The main thing that disappointed me was the general tone or line taken by Lukacs, known as an intelligent historian who takes far-reaching perspectives on historical events. The entire aim of Lukacss essay apparently was to dismiss Chamberss work in some way or other, and he attempted a number of different ways to accomplish this. While he couldnt plausibly claim that Hiss was innocent and therefore a victim of anti-Communist hysteria, Lukacs went along this path as far as he could by claiming that (A) Hisss spying didnt do great damage, and (B) Hiss had probably already given up spying for the Soviets (Lukacs doesnt really know if this is true), and had Hiss stayed in government, perhaps he would have turned out to be a neoconservative (again, pure speculation on Lukacss part). There is an equal likelihood that Hiss would have turned out like Kim Philby, bragging about his exploits from his Moscow retirement home. Lukacs also takes the tack that the Cold War is already over, so that Chamberss efforts were redundant at best. Yet this ignores the debacle that resulted for the nations of Eastern Europe as a result of the Yalta Conference at which Hiss was a principal advisor to Franklin Roosevelt. The current events favoring freedom in Eastern Europe do not indicate the futility of the Cold War so much as they constitute the undoing of the effects of the Yalta Conference. Most Europeans are not so casual about the effects of Yalta as Lukacs.
There are at least three specifics worth questioning in Lukacss essay. One, if as Lukacs declares, Chambers had a conspiratorial sensibility that he inflicted on his interpretation of events, did Chambers not have good reason for it, having himself been an organizer of the conspiracy? It was the apparent murder of the former agent-turned-informer Walter Krivitsky that pushed Chambers and his family into hiding.
Second, with regard to Chamberss homosexuality, Lukacs asserts that Chambers and Hiss had a homosexual relationship. Allen Weinstein, in his well-researched book about the Chambers-Hiss case, Perjury, never claimed that this was true, even though he gave a full account of Chamberss homosexuality and its significance for the case. In fact, Weinstein quotes only one source who said this was true, namely, Richard Nixon. Does Lukacs have another source, or is he taking Nixons word for it, or is it his interpretation of events (to which he is obviously entitled as a historian)?
Third, Lukacs ends his essay with the Latin tag, the corruption of the best is the worst, an offensive claim with regard to Chambers that the evidence does not uphold. In what way did Chambers become the worst? Unlike McCarthy or Nixon, he did not use anti-Communism to vault a political career, nor did he even go on the lecture circuit. Lukacs apparently means to say that anti-Communism is bad in itself, even though he tells us that he himself was an anti-Communist once. At what point does anti-Communism become bad? Apparently at the point it becomes successful.
Finally, it seems to me that Chamberss true significance is to have put anti-Communism in a religious context. It is easy enough to read todays headlines and to assume that the issue between the West and the Communist nations is economic, political, or military, and not to see the conflict in terms of God and freedom. True, the issues are more complex now than in the 1950s, when Stalins empire was encroaching on Europe, and the West can hardly claim to live up to the standards it once proclaimed. But Chambers was a witness, and in declaring that the conflict was a religious test he did enough to vindicate one lifetimes work.
John C. Caiazza
JOHN LUKACS REPLIES:
John Caiazza writes that I went along the path as far as [I] could of claiming that Hiss was innocent and therefore a victim of anti-Communist hysteria. But I wrote that from the first moment in 1948 I had an instinctive feeling that Alger Hiss was guilty and that everything I read about Hiss since confirms this view. I also wrote that I had, and still have, nothing but sympathy for Whittaker Chambers. I also wrote that I did not and do not hold his homosexual relationship against him. (Incidentally, I learned about Chamberss homosexuality not from Weinstein but from Bill Buckley.) I find it disagreeable to quote myself. But I am compelled to do this because Caiazza does not seem to have read what I actually wrote. Instead, he read all kinds of potentialities into it, which is the lamentable habit of all kinds of ideologues, very much including our American conservatives.
Most Eastern Europeans are not so casual about the effects of Yalta as Lukacs, Caiazza writes. My article, and the entire Hiss-Chambers affair, had nothing to do with Yalta; but, again, I am compelled to say that I was a truly anti-Communist refugee from Hungary as early as 1946, and that I have written plenty of strong stuff about Yalta during the last 40 years. But I am an American, too; whether the Cold War is over or not, I have consistently believed that the equation of anti-Communism with American patriotism has been not only shortsighted but disastrous. Chambers unfortunately contributed to that by explaining just about everything in the 20th century as the result of the International Communist Conspiracy. It is because of the deplorable effects of such a single-minded thesis that I wrote corruptio optimi pessima, which does not at all mean that, as Caiazza writes, I described Chambers as the worst. To the very contrary, it is because Chambers was a good man that the self-indulgent corruption of his worldview was lamentable. Caiazza writes that the Hiss-Chambers case was a religious test. It was nothing of the kind. Hiss was a liar, while Chambers was not. Neither Hiss nor Chambers was particularly religious. Nor did (or does) the conflict between Communism and capitalism, or that between Russia and the United States, have anything to do with religion.
Whittaker Chambers the Prophet
Let me tell you why I have not renewed my subscription. While you are orthodox, your liberal-left political bent has gotten to be more than I can bear.
The last straw was the essay by John Lukacs, which was stridently critical of Whittaker Chambers. Lukacs seemed to be mindlessly mouthing the liberal party line, without having the least idea of what he was talking about. Chambers was one of the greatest prophets of this century, and for you to print a piece so critical of him, without editorial comment, leaves this Wanderer Catholic feeling quite alienated from you people.
Joseph Patrick Postel
Roger Hiss Was Framed
Please cancel my subscription. The final straw was the piece by John Lukacs on Whittaker Chambers and Alger Hiss (Nov.). I am not ready to swallow propaganda that contradicts the truth. Here is what I call false propaganda: As for Hiss, says Lukacs, my irritation also arose because the revelation of his former Communist activities led to an extreme preoccupation with domestic Communism, because it was the Hiss case that led to the rise of Richard Nixon, and because the Hiss phenomenon led to a political atmosphere in which ideological anti-Communism became an even greater obstacle to the conduct of an intelligent foreign policy than the influence of pro Communism in 1945 had been.
Lukacs blames the victim. He turns history backward and upside down. The Hiss frame-up was the result of virulent anti-Communism, not its cause. The conspiratorial worldview of Chambers is shared by Lukacs.
S. David Kaplan
Green is Difficult
I read with enthusiasm Stratford Caldecotts article On the Greenness of Catholicism & Its Further Greening, in the December issue. I particularly appreciated the connection he made between the Churchs relationship to birth control and its relationship to ecology. I have noticed that very often people are strongly advocating Humanae Vitae while ignoring ecology or vice versa. Caldecott made casual reference to Natural Family Planning as a means of birth control which the Church allows. I agree with the Churchs position on this subject and am happy that Caldecott wrote what he did about it. In addition to what he said, I think it is worth noting that natural methods of birth control are by no means easy or simple, and that natural birth control does not have a particularly good reputation for effectiveness. As an effort to avoid misunderstandings and possibly to shed light on the realities of natural birth control, I would like to recommend a book which deals exclusively with that subject in great detail: Your Fertility Signals by Merryl Winstein.
University City, Missouri
I was most disappointed with Larry Chases slander of Pope Pius XII in his letter to the Editor (Nov.). While such people as Golda Meir strongly praised the Pope for helping Jews during the dark days, you allowed Chase, a deist Jew (an oxymoron that only ignorance of Jewish history and the Old Testament would permit), to say the exact opposite.
Then, after a few calumnies about Our Lord and Our Lady (no, Mr. Chase, Jesus was definitely not an ethics teacher either He is the Son of God, as He said, or He was a deluded lunatic), Chase goes on to praise bishops for dabbling in social work, which arguably they should not be doing (remember, My Kingdom is not of this world?), and in effect says, oh well, at least Catholics run good hospitals. Really, this is too much! Does Chase seriously think people like Mother Teresa are only rather undereducated registered nurses?
Flin Flon, Manitoba
I hope to see more of the writings of the Berkeley carpenter Will Hoyt. The man is truly graced with insight and the ability to express himself with beauty.
I am writing in an attempt to clarify, or have clarified for me, the matter of Vladimir Solovievs conversion to Catholicism. In the brief review of Fr. Coplestons Philosophy in Russia (Dec.), it is stated that Soloviev toyed with conversion to Rome, but died in the Orthodox communion he loved so irrevocably.
In The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, however, it plainly states that, In 1896 he was received into the RC Church, but without abandoning his critical attitude. Donald Attwater, in his Translators Preface to Solovievs God, Man and the Church, elaborates: In 1896 Solovyev was received into the communion of the Roman Catholic Church by a priest of the Byzantine rite, Father Nicholas Tolstoy, at Moscow. And certainly the title of Msgr. Michael dHerbignys book Vladimir Soloviev: un Newman Russe would make little sense if Soloviev had not converted. But an equal number of sources claim the opposite. As I say, I am seeking a clarification.
William M. Klimon