—May I make a final reply to Mr. Hall? He refers to my belated effort to refute him, but in fact my letter was submitted two or three weeks before it was published.

When Mr. Hall says that I ignore his "fundamental contention that the Church of Rome exists [and, implicitly, "has existed"] primarily as a political organisation and is unscrupulous in obtaining its desired ends" he is quite correct. There are some subjects which, because of their wide and general character, do not lend themselves easily to discussion within a restricted space. It seems that Mr. Hall does not appreciate the nature of historical statements, in particular the inductive character of historical generalisations. For its truth to be demonstrated, an historical generalisation like his "fundamental contention" quoted above requires support both by "subordinate" generalisations like "The Jesuits have always (or usually) done X" and by particular statements like "Pope (or Bishop) A did B". Historical generalisations about an organisation covering as many centuries and countries as the Catholic Church are not easily established. Thus even if all the statements Mr. Hall made about Pius XI were true—and they certainly are not—they would not by themselves prove his "fundamental contention" but only provide some support for it.

It was for these reasons—and because it seemed to me obvious that Mr. Hall was very fanatical and sweeping in argument—that I limited myself to refuting two of his concrete assertions:

With regard to the first matter, I am content to let those competent in such fields as political science to judge whether the passages I quoted (2/7/58) are a condemnation of the totalitarian character of Nazism and Fascism and I shall not argue this point further with Mr. Hall.

But Mr. Hall's reply on the second point is more interesting and revealing about his methods. He quotes Pius XI (characteristically he gives no reference) as hailing Mussolini as "a man sent by Divine Providence" and claims that this "more than justifies" his associating the Pope with Mussolini over the Spanish Civil War, even to the extent of maintaining, by implication, that the approach of some Spanish Catholics to Mussolini in 1933 was the same thing as approaching Pius XI! Now Paul Blanshard (American Freedom & Catholic Power, p. 245) also quotes Pius as saying this—though he, too, gives no reference—but he gives the date of this statement as December, 1926. So that even if Pius XI did express this opinion, it would be illegitimate to infer from it approval of an event taking place ten years later, let alone to say that this remark ten years earlier justifies anyone in asserting that the Vatican promoted the Spanish Civil War and that an approach by a Spanish group to either Mussolini or to Pius XI is the same thing. Even persons in close agreement retain their separate identity! Mr. Hall's shifting of ground on this point is quite fantastic and most illuminating.

Of course, there is no doubt that Franco did receive aid from Italy and Germany, as did the Republicans front Soviet Russia (see John R. Hubbard, "How Franco financed his war", Journal of Modern History, Dec., 1953) and that a group of Spanish Monarchists concluded an agreement with Mussolini (see William C. Askew, "Italian intervention in Spain: the agreements of March 31, 1934, with the Spanish Monarchist Parties" J. Mod Hist, June, 1952). However, this has nothing to do with Pius XI, who must surely be allowed to change his mind about Mussolini if he saw fit. Some of the opinions expressed in the 1920's about Mussolini by prominent British politicians and writers read rather oddly today. But behind Mr. Hall's strictures lies the assumption that democracy is the only lawful form of government, not only for States but for the Church as well. He may be right or wrong about this but it is not a position that is self-evidently correct. It requires some sort of justification.

In his third letter Mr. Hall says that Pius XI "attacked Mussolini's indoctrination of the children solely because he much preferred that they should have his own particular brand of political totalitarianism . . . pumped into them ..." How could Mr. Hall know this.' This is a statement about the Pope's motives and intentions and the only evidence for an assertion of this sort would be the Pope's revealing that this was his motive. As far as I know he never did this. Certainly Mr. Hall produces no such evidence.

It would be a good idea if in future Mr. Hall were to rely less on such writers as Blanshard (part of paragraph 6 in his letter of May 6 is an unacknowledged quotation from Blanshard, op. cit., p. 252), to make fewer assertions but to back them up with evidence, something which he rarely does; in short, to adopt scholarly methods more suitable in a discussion at a university level.