[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.] SIR,—May I point out
some inconsistencies in Mr. Ross Wallace's most recent letter'? To the question, " What of the Church's opinion of morality ? " he replies : " It is all in favour of it." Here he is confusing Christian morality with morality proper. The same applies to his condemna- tion of " vicious pleasure-seekers." I cannot understand who exactly he is attacking here, though I can appreciate that from some points of view they could be regarded as virtuous. Miss 'Gilbert-Lodge may well accuse Mr. Ross Wallace (or was it the religion he was defending ?) of being narrow-minded.
In addition, when Miss Gilbert-Lodge asks " What right has the Church to condemn anyone, to excommunicate a child born out of wedlock for instance," Mr. Ross Wallace triumphantly replies that it does not: That is true, but may be classified as an irrelevant objection. The Church does excommunicate ; what right has it to do this ?
Finally, Miss Gilbert-Lodge asks " How can there be a definite standard of right and wrong when no human being knows the ultimate object of living ? " Mr. Ross Wallace replies : " The ultimate object of living is to love, to serve, and to worship God." Does Mr. Ross Wallace know this ? I am afraid he can only believe it.—Yours truly,
Previous page
