Faithfully Yours

To the Editor:

You devoted considerable space to what was labeled a review of my book, “Nearer, My God” (Book Review, April 12) but was really something more like a freestyle display of the reviewer’s complaints against Christianity. I would not impose on you for space required to list Martin Gardner’s problems, let alone seek to analyze them. But let me deal with a few of the points touched upon.

Gardner says that I have “made little effort to think through the implications of [my] beliefs.” What can he mean by this? The implications of my beliefs can’t go further than that some people go to heaven and some people go to hell. And if I have not thought through these implications--or the beliefs from which they derive--then neither has any Christian, layman or scholar or cleric, who recites the Nicean Creed. If that is the case--that all Christians are insouciant about the meaning of their faith--the consequences are absolutely enormous. You should consider giving over an entire issue of the Los Angeles Times to dramatize Gardner’s concerns.

“They”--that’s me and other Catholics--”believe that God continually reveals new truths to his church, and that popes are infallible when they announce new doctrines.” What is Gardner talking about? Catholics (and most other Christian congregations) believe that Revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. So what “new” truth is he talking about? When did a pope announce a “new” doctrine? The three papal declarations under the rubric of infallibility were reaffirmations of very old doctrines. The church’s role as exegete is continuing but has nothing to do with the enunciation of fresh doctrine.

Gardner goes on to say that in his opinion, assorted Christians do not believe in assorted Christian dogmas. He comes up with some names, but to repeat them would be to encourage scandal. Yet Norman Vincent Peale, whose name he gives, is dead, so we may speculate without intruding upon him: Did he believe in the risen Christ? I don’t know, but if he did not, what has that got to do with my book, “Nearer, My God”? If in that book I were taking aberrant positions, Gardner might have pleaded their eccentricity by citing traditional views with which they collide. . . . He has great difficulties with these matters. He describes me at one point as ultra-orthodox. But my views are mostly those given by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as promulgated only a few years ago by the Vatican. What’s the big deal about a Catholic supporting Catholicism, whose tenets are as defined by the magisterium? And even if the reviewer could come up with 100 names of men and women who call themselves Catholics but don’t believe in Catholic dogma, what is the point in the exercise, in a review of a book that is concededly orthodox? To prove that some people are hypocrites, ho hum? Would a book arguing the validity of the United States Constitution merit a half-acre of a reviewer’s space to point exultantly to people who do not believe in the Constitution?

“In light of all this doctrinal fuzziness, I have wondered for decades about where Buckley stood. . . . When I saw on sale his 39th book, ‘Nearer, My God,’ I bought it at once. Would I find out at long last, I hoped, exactly what sort of Catholic he was and is?” Forgive me, but I have to wonder about the real pain Gardner suffered from all these years of suspense. If he was thus tormented, he might have eased his pain by writing me. I could have satisfied his curiosity in a postcard.

Then comes a lot of Clarence Darrow versus William Jennings Bryan, how-could-Jonah-live-inside-the-whale stuff. My book treats the question of biblical confusion, paradox, interpretation. And I devote an entire chapter to the evolution of doctrine, leaning on the thought and analysis of John Henry Newman. I wonder if it ever occurred to the reviewer to ponder the meaning of faith? He approaches Christianity rather in the manner of TV’s Detective Columbo: “Oh, yeah, ma’am, there is just one more question that’s been kinda bothering me--you say Mary actually went up to heaven physically, her body intact, and wearing WHAT exactly? . . . just asking.” Did he expect me to disguise the manifest difficulties in religious faith? My book dealt with those difficulties. What proceeds from Christian faith is manifestly inaccessible to those who approach the subject as local government inspectors holding clipboards and looking for code violations.

And then, finally, the apodictic, wince-making manner. About my chapter telling Mary Valtorta’s version of the resurrection he writes: “I had never before heard of this bizarre work. I hope never to hear of it again. It is difficult for me to imagine anyone finding Valtorta’s account inspiring.” That there should be other points of view Gardner finds inexplicable. The same week in which his review appeared I received a letter which made the following commentary on that chapter:

“Never, and I do mean never, have I read an account of the crucifixion that so riveted my attention. I immediately circulated it to my wife, son, daughter and son-in-law, insisting that they read it with Good Friday in mind. Never have I read a confession of faith that rang more true, and, yes, humble than yours. It is clear you are not comfortable with what in the Protestant tradition we call ‘testimonies.’ Yet that is what your work is: a testimony whose humility is its strongest coinage.” This letter came not from a fellow illiterate but from Harry Stout, Jonathan Edwards professor of American Christianity at Yale University.

This is relevant to record given that Gardner, whose review appeared six months after my book was published, wonders how the book is being received. It is in an eighth printing, perhaps validating the attention the editor was so kind as to give it.

William F. Buckley Jr., New York

Martin Gardner replies:

Buckley’s letter surely confirms my contention that, in contrast to liberal Catholics, he remains securely ultra-orthodox. It would have been helpful if he had answered some of my questions, such as telling us his opinions about evolution, the reality of Adam and Eve, the cruelty of Jehovah and other nontrivial matters. I won’t bother to repeat them again to Buckley on a postcard because he is free to answer them in another letter.

I am puzzled by Buckley’s claim that his church never offers “fresh doctrines” but merely affirms old ones. As I said, such doctrines as the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s Assumption are nowhere in what Buckley calls the “Revelation” that “ended with the death of the last apostle.” They are not even in the writings of the early Fathers. They were later beliefs that gradually arose among lay persons until they were finally validated by a pope.

Obviously Buckley is not going to take seriously the views of such recent Catholics who have “thought out their faith” as Hans Kung and Father Greeley. From Buckley’s perspective these liberals are heretics who in earlier ages would have been excommunicated, perhaps burned at the stake. Buckley wonders if I ever pondered the notion of faith. I have. He will find my pondering detailed ad nauseum in my own confessional, “The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener.”

I’m not surprised that “Nearer, My God” has had eight printings. My book, with no advertising or promotion, had six printings, and of course I am nowhere close to Buckley in fame. Both our confessionals are small potatoes compared to the sales of any book by or about Billy Graham.

Let me add that in a way I admire true believers like Buckley and Chesterton more than I do Catholics like Kung who, after abandoning all the unique doctrines of their faith, lack the courage to walk out of their church.