SIR,-Bulletins from the Coulton front preceded nee out to the Alps. As in the case of past controversies, Dr. Coulton is busily engaged in attempting to alter the LerlDS originally agreed on.
In the course of a letter to the pub lishers I incidentally quoted a remark by a theologian who took rather a poor view of Dr. C.oulton's contribution to
the controverse. I had intended to write separately to Dr. Coulton, but feeling lazy, I merely sent him the only remaining copy of the letter to the publisher. I had forgotten that it contained the remark which has so incensed him.
Debating with Dr. Coulton is not exactly fun, but none the less, I hope and believe that you will have no
reason to regret the part that you played in luring me into this contraverse ; but though I accept your closure of the discussion in your columns between Dr. Coulton and myseff. I have the right to ask you to define ynur conception of the terms of the debate in which you asked me to meet Dr. Coulton. He is now' attempting to insist that the 'ilk of our book should be The Roman Question, and this in Spite of the fact that the title-page, as given in his own typescript reads as follows:
" Is the Catholic Church 'Anti-Social ? -a debate between G. G. Coulton, D.Litt., and Arnold Lunn."
In his first letter he writes:
" This thesis on the title-page was formulated by the Rev. J. C. Heenan, and it is upon this formula that the reading public is here asked to judge between a teecher of history at Cambridge and a champion speeially selected by THE CArHOLIC HERALD in virtue of his official position at the Roman Catholic University of N.D. (Indiana)"
Many times in the book I have had CO rebuke him for gross irrelevances, and it is this reason. no doubt, that makes him seek to change the terms of the debate and the title which he himself selected.
The three relevant quotations appear to he: .
1. &tract from a letter from Dr. Heenan to the Editor of THE CATHOLIC HERALD (November 10, 1943): " Let me make a suggestion. Why not de bore this matter in public? The only condition I make is that the chairman must be neither a Catholic nor a notor ious anri-Cathalic. .4 suitable basis for discussion might be the final sentence-and, presumably, the conclusion -0,1 Crux Ansata. " . . Any Pope is necessarily an ill-educated and foolish obstacle. a nucleus of bare resistance, heir to the tradition of Roman Catholicism in its last stage ,of poisonous decay, in the way to a better order
in the world." To make a concise title we might debate the proposition, " is the Catholic Church anti-social ?
2. Extract from a letter from Dr. Coulson to the Edit°, of THE CA1140Lls HERALD and published in our issue of February 18. 1944' " Fr. Heenan suggests for term,' of debate, '' is the Catholic Church anti-coda! ?" I am willing to acceot this as it stands, in order to give no excuse for backing out; but under protest that wherever the word Catholic is used in our debate It is to be understood in the sense of Roman Catholic, 3. Extract from a letter from Mr. Lunn tn the' Editor of THE CATHOLIC HERALD and published in our issue of April 211. 1944: " I have decided not to insist on the Infallibility debate, and to accept Dr. Coulion's last (of rrianY) rhallenge.s and to debate the social policy al the Church. It should be possible to maintain in this controversy the standard .of courteous and impersonal argument which reviewers noted as an attractive feature of the KnoxLunn and Inad-Lunn controversies, and it is now up to Dr. Coultnn to prove that a discussion in which he is involved need not necessarily develop into a slanging match," These ealracts make it perfectly clear that the subject agreed on far discussion Islas precisely, " Is the Catholic Church anti-social?" and this would seem to he the obvious title for a book arising from this correspondence.