EDITORrnThomas FlemingrnMANAGING EDITORrnTheodore PappasrnSENIOR EDITOR, BOOKSrnChilton Williamson, Jr.rnASSISTANT EDITORrnScott P. RichertrnART DIRECTORrnAnna Mycek-WodeckirnCONTRIBUTING EDITORSrnHarold O.]. Brown, KatherinernDalton, Samuel Francis,rnGeorge Garrett, Paul Gottfried,rnJ.O. Tate, Michael Washburn,rnClyde WilsonrnCORRESPONDING EDITORSrnBill Kauffman, William Milk,rnJacob Neusner, Momcilo SelicrnEDITORIAL SECRETARYrnLeann DobbsrnPUBLISHERrnThe Rockford InstituternPUBLICATION DIRECTORrnGuy C. ReffettrnPRODUCTION SECRETARYrnAnita CandyrnCIRCULATION MANAGERrnCindy LinkrnA publication of The Rockford Institute.rnEditorial and Advertising Offices:rn928 North Main Street, Rockford, IL 61103.rnEditorial Phone: (815)964-5054.rnAdvertising Phone: (815)964-5813.rnSubscription Department: P.O. Box 800,rnMount Morris, IL 61054. Call 1-800-877-5459,rnU.S.A. Newsstand Distribution by Eastern NewsrnDistributors, Inc., One Media Way, 12406 Rt. 250rnMilan, Ohio 44848-9705rnCopyright© 1997 by The Rockford Institute,rnAll rights reserved.rnChronicles (ISSN 0887-5731) is publishedrnmonthlv for $39.00 (foreign subscriptions add $12rnfor surface delivery, $48 for Air Mail) per year byrnThe Rockford Institute, 928 North Main Street,rnRockford, IL 61103-7061. Preferred periodicalrnpostage paid at Rockford, IL and additional mailingrnoffices. POSTMASTER: Send address changesrnto Chronicles. P.O. Box 800, Mount Morris,rnIL 61054.rnThe views expressed in Chronicles are tirernautliors’ alone and do not necessarily reflectrnthe views of The Rockford Institute or of itsrndirectors. Unsolicited manuscripts cannot bernreturned unless accompanied by a self-addressedrnstamped envelope.rnChroniclesrnVol.22, No, I ]anuan’I998rnPrinted in Hie United States of AmericarnPOLEMICS & EXCHANGESrnOn Pat BuchananrnPat Buchanan’s October article (“Mr.rnLincoln’s War”) allows us to glimpse thernconcern, the love, and the care of thosernAmericans savaged by the Civil War.rnMr. Buchanan provided important insightsrninto Abraham Lincoln’s differentrnpolitical stances before, during, and afterrnthe Civil War. The revisionist historyrnthat has been foisted upon our land is arnbetrayal of those who died or werernwounded in the war. Our history hasrnbeen ravaged by the machinationsrnof those lusting for power, greed, or vainglory.rnThanks to Mr. Buchanan, I now haverna review of the Civil War that gives mernsome measure of comfort and consolation,rnand for that I am gratefiil. And nowrnI must go to Gettysburg again, and, atrnthose tombs of the Civil War dead, bestirrnmyself with conflict, because for so longrntheir dedication—their ardor—has beenrnmisrepresented. Pat Buchanan’s love ofrnthe truth, “the love that survives therntomb,” has enabled me to understandrnthis tumultuous period of Americanrnhistory.rn— Virginia G. BrunnerrnSt. Louis, MOrnOn Naomi WolfrnKarina Rollins captured perfectly thernessence of spoiled-brat feminism withrnher cogent review of Naomi Wolfs bookrnPromiscuities: The Secret Struggle forrnWomanhood (“Naomi’s Secret,” October).rnMs. Wolf is a textbook example of thernpostmodern, upper-middle-class, educatedrnAmerican woman who has too muchrntime on her hands and who —havingrnacquired a measure of celebrity andrnmaterial success —now yearns for (nay,rndemands) recognition as a seriousrnthinker.rnThis type was best described by thernlate author Frederick Exley, who saidrnthat what annoyed him the most aboutrnGloria Steinem was “her haughty insistencernthat her problems must becomernmy problems.”rn-O.M.Ostlund,]r.rnState College, PArnOn Liberalism andrnCatholicismrnJames Hitchcock, in his review ofrnmy Heart of the World, Center of thernChurch (“City of Man, City of God,”rnSeptember), argues that the book is “thernsumming up of a controversy over a . . .rnspecifically Catholic . .. view of politics”rnwhich pits me against certain neoconservativernCatholics and, behind them, thernJesuit theologian John Courtney Murray.rnBut, as I say in its opening paragraph,rnthe book is rather about the communiorn(communion) ecclesiology of thernSecond Vatican Council, with its newrnunderstanding of the Church-world relation.rnHitchcock thus misses the fundamentalrnpurpose of the book: to clarify thernmeaning of liberation and liberalism inrnterms of the Council, as interpreted inrnthe pontificate of John Paul II and in thernwork of theologians such as H. U. VonrnBalthasar, J. Ratzinger, and H. de Lubac.rnPresuming that I agree “with thosernwho think the United States was from itsrninception the child of the antireligiousrnEnlightenment,” Hitchcock thinks itrnodd that I do “not examine the nation’srnfounding documents and their subsequentrninterpretation.” But this is not oddrnat all, since my purpose was to considerrnhow certain Catholic authors had appropriatedrnthe American founding. In fact,rnI grant that theism abounded in thernUnited States at the time of its founding.rnI assume that the founding is religious, inrnthe sense that Murray and his contemporaryrndisciples say it is, but I also criticizernthat sense of positive religiosity as still unacceptablyrnliberal given an authenticrnpostconciliar anthropology.rnMy argument presupposes a distinctionrnmade in Will Herberg’s classicrnProtestant Catholic Jew. America is atrnonce genuinely religious in its (subjective,rnexplicit) intention, and secularist inrnits (objective, albeit largely unconscious)rnphilosophy. I grant the genuinely religiousrnintention of America’s liberalrninstitutions, but I also maintain that thernlogic of these institutions inclines simultaneouslyrntoward secularism.rnHitchcock insists that the gulf betweenrnpeople’s beliefs and their actions isrnhardly unique to America. But this missesrnHerberg’s (and my) point: the pecu-rn4/CHRONICLESrnrnrn