The Intermountain Catholic. (Salt Lake City [Utah] ;) 1899-1920, 1905-05-20
"T0LLE! LEGE!"



form of title, by the words of the great st. Au
gustin which is also made to serve the convent
ence of caption for our dutiful reply.
At the outset, we desire to assure YOU of oul
willingness-though we find it a trife difhcut-tt
take you as seriously as you seem to take yourself
Ergo" As your communication is iii The form
of print. VIC will adopt the same convenient form
for the rejoinder you so frankly bcspeak.
You say: Il have put these points before you
simply and clearly and | ask you. do you agree
with the views here expressed Have | stated
aught of which you can not entirely approve! If |
am wrong in any way. [ shall thank you if you
will point out wherein | have erred. Do not hest
tate to write me; be frank with me, as | have been
frank with you."-Oncc more, ergo"
You are wrong, fatally wrong, both in manner
and in substance; wrong, ridiculously wrong, in
geperal-and i'll particular, as well.
First and foremost you were stupidity, >brutally
considering its probable effect upon your own de-
voted head wrong in perpetrating the noisomc,
raIodorous thing at all That it cmbqdies several
self-evident and pertinent truths, is hardly mit-
eating feature since these were patent to all who
cared to know, and have repeatedly found utter
ance under less obnoxious circumstances.
Secondly you are cgregiously in in grave
y presuming to suggest, by obvious implication,
that your preposteroysly pretentious-though not
altogether Neutrality-suspicious. be given the
right of way over all other Catholic publications
Not to take into consideration the possible-and
impossible-whims of the interested publishers
such course would imply grievous-yea, a very
grevious-wrong to the Catholic readers of the
land. Qou see, friend b.. how heroically deter
mined we are to take you seriously in very sooth)
SO much for the general aspects of the case
presented by your remNlkable communications
As TO the particular blunders and transgres-
sions embodied thcrcin-upon these we must touch
lightly lest trespass unwarrantably upon the
good will of our readers
Speaking of Catholic weeblies you remark, in
oracular diction at is doubtful whether they
the subscribers read them. Why?
Because they not interested in Them
Now dear sir, if YOU really care to inform
yourself on the subject which you rashly essay to
so gliby discuss would be pleased to afford
you an opportunity for so doing in the manner in
dicated by the following proposition: If you will
make known by personal applicaton=-in writing,
OF course-to us, that YOU dcsrous of commu-
nIcating with any reasonable number of the sub
scrlbers TO this paper with view to ascertaining
gust how interesting and entertaining they find
same and will agree to publish their replies in your
journal for the enlightenment of the public we Will
promptly furnish you with the names and addresses
of the number desired, in the order in which they
appear upon our books. If at least four out of
every five OF such subscribers do not express cor
dial appreciation of their paper we will confess
our error and will publicly announce the fact that
you are possessed of vastly greater acumen of in
tellect than now disposed to accord you in
our minds. So much for the essence of your fatu-
Gus contention.
And now let us, for moment, consider your
method of arriving at (to yourself) conclusive
Commenting upon your observations
1T Is doubtful whether they read them' you pro-
iced as follows: This IS a deporable state of af-
airs, but it illustrates my contention namely thai
catholics do not read Catholic papers," Not one
ota cf basis for the dogmatic lictul. thus pertly
save your own problcmatical and ten
atiye premises; and 1t is this sort of slovenly ar
'ument that you have the presumption to ask us TO
ndorse, either by positive declaration or indifer-
mt silence! Verify friend B., this is just triAe
90 udicrous not to excite ones risbiIities
On a par with the Immediately preceding is
our statement: since we have estab-
shed that they" the Catholics "read just as much
$ 1ion-Catholics:" with naught upon which to base
our assertion save your unsupported conjecturesl
ray carefully observe, Mr.. B., that we do not
uestlon the fact-whch, by the way, we honestly
oubt that any intelligent and far-minded per- G
on would be disposed to challenge-but we do pro-
'St against the circulation of such grossly defect
re reasoning for Catholic apologetics. Fortunate,
ldeed IS 1t that the editors of the condemned
athoEc weebies are far less obtuse to the de-
ands of modern thought Otherwise the cause of n 1
IN SO far it is dependent upon rea-
'nable demonstration, must be in a deplorable
light in very truth
This should suffice to afford you ample matter
II conscientious reflection as to the folly of pub
shng broadcast groundless assumptions in the c
Use of demonstrated fact b
There is, however just one more point of grave "
nport IN your communication, to which we would II
rect your attention and earnestly urge you to be
armed lest your false assumptions lead you into a
1evous error. You quote as an example of the Il
rmcrous literature which you would fondy sup II