A Critique of Munz

Dr. Munz's letter in your issue of July 12 made disappointing reading. It was a painful surprise to sec a university lecturer arguing with so little regard for common logic and descending at times to straight-out sophistry.

Dr. Munz, with a fine disregard for the realities of the situation, argues as if the Rationalist historian studies the Gospels in a purely objective fashion and is, therefore, in a much better position to arrive at the truth than the Catholic or orthodox Christian, hamstrung by dogmatic preconceptions. That the Rationalist has his preconceptions too is clear from Dr. Munz's own statement that although he is not an expert on the subject of early Christianity, he prefers the opinions of Loisy, Klausner and Schweitzer to those of other scholars. Why, we ask, does he prefer the views of these scholars?

Surely because they are in harmony with his Rationalistic pre-conceptions. No historian, be he Christian or Rationalist, can study the Gospels in the cold objective fashion of one discussing, for example, the dates of an Egyptian dynasty. Christ is too challenging a figure for that. It is, therefore, a piece of dishonesty on the part of the Rationalist to adopt the pose of complete historical objectivity and refuse to argue with the Christian because the Christian refuses to admit that the Rationalist arguments are cogent.

In several places Dr. Munz makes bold assertion do duty for argument—a familiar fallacy known as begging the question. Thus, he asserts that the belief that the Christian faith and reason cannot contradict each other is unfounded—a proposition he will have some trouble in proving. Dr. Munz disdains to offer any proof.

Again he asserts that Loisy and Dollinger had good historical reasons for disagreeing with the Popes. Good reasons in the opinion of Dr. Munz. But at least in the case of Loisy he has admitted that he is not qualified to give a worthwhile opinion, since he is a "non-specialist" in that field.

In another passage Dr. Munz insinuates that Catholicism teaches that the end justifies the means. Insinuation is more effective than bold assertion and it has the advantage of leaving one with the option of declining to offer proof if the insinuation is challenged: "I never said that!" Here is the passage that the reader may judge for himself whether my charge is justified: "Frankly I do not like these propagandists ruses. They remind me too much of the maxim that the end justifies the means. No doubt your contributor considered himself well justified in his misrepresentations, because they were a means, in his eyes, towards supporting Catholicism."

Since Dr. Munz, on his own admission, knows so little of the beliefs of the Primitive Church he is certainly not entitled to assert that the doctrine of transubstantiation does not faithfully represent these beliefs.

—"Logician"