Page 8, 1st September 1939

1st September 1939
Page 8
Page 8, 1st September 1939 — Plea for Plain Justice
Close

Report an error

Noticed an error on this page?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it.

Tags


Share


Related articles

Dr. Coulton And Mr. Lunn

Page 5 from 28th July 1939

Britain And Germany Arnold Lunn's Views

Page 6 from 14th July 1939

Dr. Coulton And Arnold Lunn

Page 8 from 18th August 1939

G. G. Coulton Repligs To Lunn's Challenge

Page 1 from 21st April 1944

Thus Armed, On December 7 I Pressed Mr. Lunn Again

Page 5 from 21st April 1944

Plea for Plain Justice

SIR,—I am sorry that Mr Lunn considers that I have been ungenerous in my attitude towards him.

He argues that I ought to have answered his questions after he had so frankly answered mine. My reply is that my questions were, I think, relevant to the main contention put forward in his first letter, and that his questions were not relevant to any contention that I had put forward.

On that account I preferred not to answer them. They were, in my opinion, questions not easy to answer briefly; and they would have involved me in a discussion of the exact nature of Papal Infallibility—a difficult technical subject in which I have no special competence.

I fear, too, that many of your readers feel that I have already wasted too much of your space in this discussion. Hence I do not like the idea of asking for more space—and a great deal of space would probably be required—to discuss a topic not relevant to the main question at issue.

If these reasons for my silence do not satisfy Mr Lunn, I will do my best to answer his questions.

Mr Lunn says, quite rightly, that I asked him two questions which, as I knew, he would not exactly enjoy answering. I hope he will believe me when I say that I enjoyed asking the questions as little as he enjoyed answering them; but it seemed to me that they had to be asked and answered in the interest of truth and of Catholicism itself.

May I say, in conclusion, that Mr Lunn seems to me to overrate my " fairness " to Dr. Coulton: I have asked all through for no more than a minimum of fair play towards Dr. Coulton. There was nothing particularly praiseworthy about that. I should like also to say that my private opinion regarding Dr. Coulton's " enmity " towards the Church and regarding his historical work generally Is very different from Mr Lunn's; but I have tried to keep my private opinions out of this discussion and to ask only for that plain justice which remains due to Dr. Coulton, even if he be the enemy of the Church and the prejudiced historian that Mr Lunn thinks him to he.

JOHN V. SIMCOX.




blog comments powered by Disqus