MARSHAL FOCH'S RELIGION

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 246, 11 July 1919, Page 8

MARSHAL FOCH'S RELIGION

Sir-Mr. Elliot! armed with ■•videncc cuts a poorer fissure than Mr. Elliott boldly challenging, without one scrap of proof', the belief of the whole rorld. There was something heroic in Ins firs: attitude. It reminded one of laither at Worms, challenging the universal Church with his "Jeh kann niclit anders." But when ho shuffles into court with the evidence he now produces, lie reminds one of-Don Quixote. Against the general belief of France. England, and America, he nroduces mi obscure Canadian iilonel, whose statement, supposed to have been made in Vancouver, "is repeated by a Presbyterian journal in Halifax! ao date is given, and it is clear that Mr. Elliott himself attaches little weight to tho sole argument.which in his despair he could find. But I am doing him an injustice. He has another argument. _ Tho Afarslnl's name does not appear in the Catholic "Who's Who." This statement- must have sounded very-convincing to some of vour readers. They may judge of itt. value by the following:-ln Ihe vathi'lic "Who's' Who" the following names of prominent Catholics—lakcn at lMiido'"do not appear:—Prince Lichnowsk'; the German Ambassador, whose Catholic canscience nrolistoil ngniiwt the du.'ilicite of the Wilhelmstrasse In Villi; Padcrcwski. Premier of Poland; Marshal Petain, the heroic defender of \crdun; King Alfonso of Spain; Mr. Schwab and Mr. Hurley, Ihe energetic American Catholics, who weiv the leading factor? in America's maguFiiccnt share in (lie Allied victory; stranger still, Cardinal Mercier and King Albert of Belgium; and. strangest of all, Pope Benedict XV. Tho solution is a very simple one. But it throws a curious Ijght on' Mr. Elliott's controversial methods. ~s> failed to tell your readers that the. Catholic ' A\ ho[s Who" contains tho .names of the Ci.tholic laymen of tho British Empire oivly.

JLenco the 6econd argument topples to the ground, and" he is left wan Ins Canadiau colonel! Since writing my first letter, I have come upon fresh evidence as io Marshal Foch's religion. It is simply overwhelming. If Mr. Elliott cares to have it, I. am ready to forward it to him - with a translation appended. It is something to_-have wrung fr. him the admission that he is nut authority on Marshal Foch's religion opinions:- It leads one to entertain II hope that some day lie may allow tin he. is not an authority either on t| teachings of the Catholic Church. Yv In.lie reaches that'conclusion ho will' d cover that he has been forestalled im by 91); per cent, of his fellow-country oii( —I am, ?tc, ' B.J.G July 9. •■