Letters: Jan. 2, 1961

City of God & Man

Sir:

The TIME cover story on John Courtney Murray, S.J., is another memorable contribution. Knowing Father Murray well, I am all the more appreciative for your choice of subject and the way that it was handled.

This has been a real service to the whole world of thought and spirit.

LOUIS FINKELSTEIN

Chancellor

The Jewish Theological Seminary of America

New York City

Sir:

Your article is a useful contribution to understanding, but I have three comments:

Is it not an abuse of language to call "Citizen Tom Paine a soldier-atheist"? He was an avowed deist who wrote The Age of Reason to combat French irreligion.*

Possibly St. Robert Bellarmine was "a human bridge." But he was far less "trampled upon" than himself a trampler. He was connected with the Inquisition which, among its other crimes, was responsible for the horrible burning of the heretic philosopher, Giordano Bruno. It is a terrible sort of separation of church and state that makes it possible for the church to turn over a heretic to be burned by the secular arm.

Neither Father Murray's nor Reinhold Niebuhr's way of distinguishing between public and private morality really meets the dilemma of the Christian, who has a responsibility for moral action even in the service of the state, and presumably might find in the Sermon on the Mount a greater authority than Father Murray's very flexible natural law. I do not write as one who can resolve the dilemma, but as one persuaded that neither Niebuhr nor Murray has explained it away.

NORMAN THOMAS

New York City

Sir:

I have read TIME since TIME began, and in my opinion, "City of God and Man" is one of its liveliest pieces up to now.

John Courtney Murray is constructively provocative. He will be challenged by both Roman Catholics and Protestants. By some he will be condemned. But he will be heard and should be.

He does not have a solution of the vast problem of "consensus," which he defines, and who does? But he does have a formula. Murray the Jesuit is sure there is today no dynamic philosophy for Americans to live by. No consensus. But he is equally sure that there must be again, as there was when our freedom was born and when the Founding Fathers began building this Republic, such a comprehensive dynamic, soul-possessing philosophy—an American consensus.

I, a Protestant, may not accept the particulars of his formula. I turn away from some of his personal loyalties. But this Roman Catholic does have a clear vision of unity, unity beyond present-day divisions, and his consensus includes the physicology of common agreement.

Above all, Dr. Murray makes the case for debate, debate toward disagreement, clear disagreement rather than current confusion. Shall we not agree that disagreement rather than confusion must be before understanding can be? Understanding could open a door into a new era for American freedom and achievement.

DANIEL A. POLING

Editor, Christian Herald Magazine

Seoul, Korea

Paradise? What Paradise?

Sir: