The correspondence in connection with a recent leading article in this journal entitled "An Unhappy Speech" is now closed. Issue was quickly taken with the writer of that article by AMERICAN Carbolic who while admitting "A Catholic would agree with much that was published in" it, found it in general to be "quite offensive." He professed to find venom in it, where none was intended. It was a plain straight criticism of a reported speech of the Pope, but, if AMERICAN Carbolic considers what was written to be venomous, then it would seem to follow that. all criticism of the Pope must come under that head. This journal does not consider His Holiness to be any more above criticism than say the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the head of any other faith, and it has not hesitated in the past to comment adversely upon the sayings, or doings of the Archbishop when it has considered itself justified in so doing. Hitler's opinion of the Roman Catholic Church was quoted for the purpose of showing what are the real thoughts of this latest discovered defender of Chris-tendon, a man who was its avowed enemy until he had to cast round for some. excuse for his treacherous attack on Soviet Russia.
With the statement of American CATHOLIC—"As everyone knows, Britain is fighting first and foremost for survival, not for Christianity"—4here will be a certain agreement, but it needs to be remembered that the survival of Christianity itself, in view. of all Millions ling fear lest Hitlers unlikely success should introduce an era of appalling sin.
Yet AwERICAN CaTROLIC speaks óf splendid Li neutrality from a political standpoint. It is not with the Pope as a politician or a diplomat that the world is very much concerned at the moment, That he is pre-eminent in both those departments is readily admitted. But itis as the head of a Church, as the upholder of right that he is thought of. The ordinary man in the street, whose arguments are not of the Euclidean sort based upon dogmatic axioms, wants to know where the Pope stands. There is no question of bludgeoning him into becoming the henchman of Churchill or Hitler, but the world is justified in thinking that surely in this struggle His Holiness should give more of a lead than he is doing, or on the other hand refrain from statements which can be construed as favouring the professed enemy of religion. If neutrality is preferred, then it must be the completest possible, for anything which can be taken, even indirectly, as favouring the forces of darkness is a betrayal of the forces of light. Admit all that the Bolsheviks have done against the Christian faith; consider what Hitler himself has done. At the most the struggle between them involves neither an attack om, nor defence of Christianity. It is in fact no more than a conflict between two irreligious systems,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.