Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

PAGE 4—THE BULLETIN, August 8, 1959 NDEA's Loyalty Oath Requirement JOSEPH BREIG The Court And The People The decision in the case of to go. They did not want Mc- the movie, “Lady Chatterley’s Carthy in the sense that he spe- Lover,” brings into sharp focus a grave difference of opinion between the present U. S. Su preme Court, on the one hand, and on the other hand a large propor tion of the American people, in cluding many judges, law yers, civic and patriotic or ganizations, a: state lawmakers. The difference goes to the deepest roots of American so ciety, and involves its ultimate survival. The heart of the difference is this: the American people do not accept intellectual anarchy. They hate and fear it. They know that if it prevails, they will have to live with it and its consequences. But the Supreme Court in ef fect says that the Constitution establishes and protects intel lectual anarchy. MANY COMMENTATORS, in recent years, have puzzled publicly over the era of Sen. Joseph McCarthy, which divid ed Americans bitterly. The explanation of that an guished time, however, is plain enough. For decades, commu nists had been taking raw and cynical advantage of American freedom to labor for its destruction, and for the ruination of everything most precious to Americans — of ail the fundamental decencies which make possible our na tional happiness and neighbor liness. All through those decades, government, both national and state, appeared helpless to do anything effective to protect the nation against the Red conspir acy, which aimed essentially at the subversion and debauchery of the American mind. This - helplessness stemmed basically from a “liberalism” which shrugged its shoulders over truth and untruth, and therefore was incapable of curb ing the communist merchants of falsehood. THERE GREW AMONG the American people a frustrated fury against this Pilate-like at titude of hand-washing. Sen. McCarthy acquired a large and angry following be cause people had nowhere else cificaily was the answer to their desperate need. What they wanted was action — and Mc Carthy offered it. Unfortunate ly, what he provided was form less agitation without wisdom, prudence or clear objectives. In tne end, the people felt them selves let down again. Today, Americans once more feel themselves deprived of government leadership in a most serious matter — the wel fare of tomorrow’s citizens. The Supreme Court has rul ed, in the Chatterley case, that government has no power, un der the Constitution, to protect the people against the advocacy of ideas, no matter how dan gerous, subversive, immoral, de generate. “Acts” alone may be forbidden or restricted; ideas may not. IN THE OPINION written by Justice Potter Stewart, the court held that all ideas, how ever poisonous or destructive, are protected by the Constitu tion in the sense that govern ment is restrained from curbing their advocacy or propagation. The Constitution, the court said, “protects advocacy of the opinion that adultery may sometimes be proper, no less than advocacy of socialism or the single tax.” The American people will know instinctively what this de cision means. What can it mean except that anybody is free to produce movies aimed at teach ing every abomination to American youth, in the form of ideas presented as admirable? THE COURT is in its marble hall: but American boys and girls are in movie theaters or outdoor movies. And now the law cannot forbid showing of films that advocate the idea of fornication, adultery, cruelty, contempt for authority, and ev ery other moral insanity. To bring this matter right down to earth, how is any legis lature to outlaw films which for example) teach that it is right and proper to massacre Jews, or to lynch Negroes, or to rape children, or to assassinate public officials, or to break the heads of school teachers? The Lady Chatterley decision is precisely as serious as that. And the deadly fault of it—as in the ill-famed Champaign, 111., school ruling—lies in its sweep ing, across-the-board, no-excep tions language. Theology For The Layman (By F. J. Sheed) GOD BECAME MAN The supreme truth about the Saviour, for which the Chosen People were wholly unprepared, was that He was God, To effect the redemption of the world, God became man. The inner meaning of God’s plan, what made it redemptive, we shall not discuss yet. When we have seen what He did, we shall be in a posi tion to grasp how it met the situation created by Adam’s first sin, and worsened by all the sins with which men hasten ed to follow Adam’s. We must concentrate our attention upon what actually happened. God became man. Not the Trinity, but the Second Person of the Trinity, the Son, the Word. Re-read the opening ver ses of St. John’s Gospel . . . “The Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by Him . . .And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” Here we find the fact—that it was the Second Person who became man. And we find the reason—“all things were made by Him.” Glance back at Number 17 of this series where Appropriation is discussed. Creation as a work of omnipotence, bringing some thing into existence of nothing, is appropriated to God the Fa ther. But the order of the uni verse, as a work of wisdom, is appropriated to the Son. The order had been wrecked, and a new order must be made; it was for the Son to make it. To make it, He became man. Read the first chapter of St. Matthew and the first two of St. Luke. A virgin, Mary, con ceived a son; at the time she was betrothed, and soon after was married, to Joseph, a carpenter. The child thus conceived was God the Son. The Second Person of the Trinity, already and eter nally existent in His own nature, now took human nature in Mary’s womb. His conception was virginal; (Continued on Page 5) THE STORY LADY Maureen Wenk Hcmigan Question Box By David Q. Lipiak Q. All Christians are bound io their country, aren't they? Could you explain patriotism and the duties it entails? Is there anything on this subject in the New Testament? A. Patriotism (the word de rives from the Greek for “fa therland” or “country”) means a filial love and reverence for one’s own country. It involves the idea of accepting with one’s whole heart and soul the patri mony or heritage of a particular land, because of the good one has received and continues to receive from that land. As such, patriotism is a virtue ultimately founded on the Natural Law. PATRIOTISM MUST be dis guised from nationalism in the political or economic sense, and also from mere devotion to the leaders of one’s land. "ONE'S OWN COUNTRY," the object of patriotism, does not necessarily signify one’s fa therland (i.e., the place of one’s birth or inheritance). Otherwise, immigrants who love and are ready to die for the country of their free choice could never be referred to as patriotic — which is absurdity. Nor must one’s own country be that in which he actually makes his dwelling. Thus no one expects that those, who for pressing reasons must remain in a foreign land, be pa triots of such a foreign land, even though they may admire and respect the country in which they are detained. Perhaps one’s own country could be best described in terms of the land of one’s heritage. What does this mean in the concrete? One writer, Father John Sheerin, has offered this solution to the meaning of the phrase: "OUR COUNTRY means our heritage. In a lesser degree, our geographical heritage that stretches ‘from the rock-bound coasts of Maine to the sunny shores of California.’ But much (Continued on Page 5) THE SLEEPY HEAD ROOSTER Once there was a little boy named Peter, who lived in the city with his father and mother. More than anything else Peter wished they could all move away to the country. Peter wanted to live on a farm. Every day when he went out to play he would pretend that his garage was a big barn and that his bicycle was a pony and his red wagon a tractor. He would walk to his back yard and make believe that he was bringing the cows home, then he would throw handsfull of sand under his swings and pretend he was feed ing the chickens. When Peter had a birthday with a big birthday cake and a chance to make a wish and blow out the candles, he closed his eyes tight and wished as hard as he could and blew as hard as he could blow until every candle was gone. “What did you wish for?” all the children started to ask. “I wished for a real farm,” said Peter, “So that I would not have to make believe any more.” That night, after Peter had gone to bed his mother and fa ther talked about Peter’s wish. “Perhaps we can live on a farm,” said his father. “Today I saw a lovely farm for sale, and it was not too far away. It had a big barn and I think it might be fun to have lots of animals and to make Peter’s wish come true.” And so they all moved to the ■farm, and Peter was so happy, and his mother and father were just as excited as he was. “Remember,” said his father, “we must all get up very early in the morning to do all the work there is on a farm. I think we had better buy a rooster and then we will all be sure to be on time, for he will crow every morning when the sun comes up, and we will know it is time to start.” Everyone agreed that was a fine idea. They drove to a rooster farm and bought the nicest looking rooster they could find. They decided to name him Early Bird, and they fixed a lovely home for him in their barn. After they had said Good Night to Early Bird, they all went to bed and waited for him to wake them up to start their chores in the morning. But a very strange thing happened. Early Bird forgot to wake up when the sun came up! He for got to wake up on time the first morning and he forgot to wake up on time the second morning. And what do you suppose hap pened on the third morning? He forgot to wake up on time again. Early Bird was just a sleepy head! “Whatever will we do?” asked mother. “I’m sure I never heard of a rooster that was such a sleepy head before. He just doesn’t want to get up until the people in the city get up, and that will never do if we are going to live on a farm in the country.” Then she said again, “What ever will we do?” FATHER'S IDEA “I know,” said his father, “We will sell Early Bird and buy another rooster. Then perhaps we will all be able to wake up when the sun comes up, like people are supposed to do when they live on a farm.” “Oh no,” said Peter. “That would never do. I love Early Bird, even if he doesn’t like to wake up with the sun. And Ealry Bird loves me. We just couldn’t sell him. I have a much better idea.” “What is it?” asked his moth- er, “Just what do you think we should do?” “It’s easy,” said Peter. “Why don’t we move back to the city? Then we can take Early Bird with us and he can live in our garage. He won’t have to wake up until the people that live in the city wake up, and he will like that much better than being a country rooster.” Everyone thought Peter had a How on Do You Facts o Rate* Faith By Brian Cronin 1. The only Catholic priest ever t? serve in Congress was Father Gabriel Richard who, in lll23, was elected to repre sent: (a) New York? (b) Maryland? (c) Michigan? (d) Massachusetts? 2. Who was the renowned bishop of Hippo?: (a) St. Paul? (b) St. Augustine? (c) St. Thomas? (d) St. Philip? 3. Where did the Holy Ghost descend on the Apostles?: (a) On Mount Calvary? (b) In the Cenacle? (c) On Mount Sinai? (d) On Mount Olive? 4. The imprimatur imprint — meaning that a book has per mission to be published — is signed by: (a) The National Organization for Decent Literature? (b) The censor? (c) The ordinary of the diocese? (d) The Legion of Decency? 5. The Feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin is celebrated on: (a) March 25th? (b) August 15th? (c) Feb ruary 2nd? (d) December 8th? 6. Triduum is another name for: (a) The Trinity? (b) A three- day prayer? (c) A triple candle? (d) The Pope’s triple crown? 7. Who was the first to discover that the body of Jesus was missing from the sepulcher?: (a) St. Joseph of Arimathea? (b) Mary Cleophas? (c) Mary Salome? (d) Mary Magdalene? 8. Who was the French Jesuit piiest now remembered as the Patron Saint of Christian Youth because of his good life?: (a) St. John Berchmans? (b) Blessed Martin de Porres? (c) St. Aloysius of Gonzaga? (d) St. Ignatius of Loyola? Give yourself 10 marks for each correct answer below. Rating: 80-Excellent; 70-Very Good; 60-Good; 50-Fair Answers: 1 (c); 2 (b); 3 (b); 4 (c); 5 (a); 6 (b); 7(d); 8(c). SHARING OUR TREASURE Minister's Son Becomes A Priest By REV. JOHN A. O’BRIEN, Ph. D. (University of Notre Dame) Have you ever heard of a minister’s son becoming not only a convert but also a priest? Probably not. But is has happen ed, as Father Lloyd Douglas Brown of St. Stephen’s parish, Cayuga, Onta rio, C a n a da, bears witness. It shows the power of God’s grace and the c o n v i n c ing char acter of the Church’s c r e d e n tials, when these are examined with an open mind and in a spirit of humility and prayer. “My father was a Baptist minister,” related Father Brown, “and my brother, Rev. W. G. Brown, is the Dean of a Protes tant seminary in Toronto. I was raised on books like Maria Monk, which was full of mis representations and slanders of the Catholic Church. Hence I grew up with the customary Protestant prejudices against it. “I was sent to a private school conducted by High Church Epis copalians and was impressed by the beauty of their services. I joined the Episcopal Church and was ordained to the ministry in which I served 12 years. I be longed to the Anglo-Catholic branch which is similar in many ways to the Catholic Church. “I said daily Mass, or so 1 thought, heard confessions, and followed the Roman Ritual. I began to examine the teachings and practice of the Catholic re ligion and soon developed what Protestants call “Roman fever.” The Autobiography of SI. The- rese of Liseux stirred me deep ly and Cardinal Newman’s Apol ogia and The Faifh of Millions helped convince me of the need for a living interpreter of Sacred Scripture. “As I looked around and saw hundreds of different sects all interpreting Scripture different ly, and even members of those sects claiming the right to inter pret it in still different ways, I realized that this could not be God’s plan. Christ stressed the need for unity of faith and cloth ed His Church with the Author ity necessary to preserve such unity. ‘“As the Father has sent me,’ said Jesus to the Apostles, ‘I also send you . . . Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations . . . ’and ‘ . . . behold, I arn with you all days, even unto the consummation of the world.’ Insisting upon the duty of the faithful to accept the Gos pel because of the authority which lies behind it, Jesus said: ‘He who hears you, hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me.’ “Such is the teaching author ity conferred by Christ upon His fine idea, (they didn’t really like to wake up quite so early either) and so they took Early Bird, the Sleepy Head Rooster, and they all moved right back to the city. Every morning Early Bird woke up and crowed at just the right time, and they said that, he was the happiest rooster that ever lived in town! Church. There is no shred of evidence that each individual is empowered to interpret Scrip ture in a manner different from Christ’s Church. Otherwise the unity of the Church, the ‘one fold and one shepherd,’ upon which Christ insisted, would be destroyed. “Kneeling before the altar of St. Mary’s Church in Memphis, Tennessee, I begged our dear Lord to give me a sign. If I was to resign my parish, I asked that Father W. Cool, O. F. M., the pastor, would come down to my pew and invite me into the rectory. This he did. I resigned my parish and made a week’s retreat at the Franciscan Friars of the Atonement, Graymoor, New York. “I was received into the Church by Father L. Castonguay and, upon completing my theo logical studies under the Jesuits, was ordained by Archbishop Charboneau of Montreal on De cember 17, 1949. Great was my joy in knowing that I was now a true priest of Jesus Christ in the Church which He Himself founded. “Through God’s grace I have been privileged to share my holy Faith with about 150 others, and I pray that I may lead many others into Christ’s fold. That’s one of the greatest joys that can come to priests and laity—shar ing our precious treasure with others.” Father O’Brien will be grate ful to readers who know of any one who has won two or more converts if they will send the names and addresses of such per sons to him at Notre Dame Uni versity, Notre Dame, Indiana. Priest Dies After 8 Years Of Labor Under Reds (Radio, N.C.W.C. News Service) HONG KONG, — A 39-year- old Chinese priest serving a life sentence at hard labor near the Tibet border has died, it was learned here. Father Joseph Taam, parish Priest of the Maryknoll Fa thers’ mission in Kongmoon (Sunwui), South China, died af ter eight years of harsh prison life under the communists. News of his death was fur nished by the post office at the labor camp, which returned some of his mail to the senders. Father Taam spent the last three years of his life at hard labor in Tsinghai province, near the Tibetan border. Or dained in 1946 at the regional seminary of Aberdeen in Hong Kong, Father Taam’s first as signment was at the cathedral parish of Bishop Adolph J. Paschang, M.M., of Martins- burg, Mo., expelled Ordinary of Kongmoon who is now resid ing in Hong Kong. Father Taam was later as signed to the parish church in Sunyi, China, where he was ar rested by the Reds in 1951, and imprisoned. He was released in 1952, but reimprisoned after two months’ freedom. In 1956 he was given a life sentence at hard labor in Tsinghai. THE BACKDROP The provision of the National Defense Education Act which requires educational institutions to exact a loyalty and allegiance affadavit from students apply ing for loans has stirred up w i d e s pread resen tment among edu cators. This section of the Act, which makes available stu dent loan funds to col leges willing to put up one dol lar for every nine provided by the Federal government, stip ulates that any student apply ing for such a loan must sign an affadavit declaring that he does not believe in, belong to, or support any organization which believes in or teaches the overthrow of the United States government by force of any illegal method. RELUCTANT PARTICIPATION The section received very lit tle attention when the act was passed. It was inserted by the committee which reported the bill without discussion, because the National Science Founda tion Act contained a similar provision. Hundreds of colleges have de cided to participate in the stu dent loan program, many of them reluctantly because of disapproval of the loyalty oath, but nine have refused. Aware of the criticism of the educators, recently two Demo cratic Senators — John F. Ken nedy, of Massachusetts, and Joseph S. Clark, of Pennsylvan ia JOHN C. O’BRIEN ia •—- introduced an amendment to the National Defense Educa tion Act which would repeal the provision requiring the loyalty affadavit. The amendment is being widely supported by college and university officials who feel it is unfair to require students to take such an oath when other recipients of Federal funds, such as old-age benefits and crop loans, are not required to do so. Typical of the reaction of ed ucators to the loyalty oath pro vision is a statement by the Rev. Michael P. Walsh, S.J., president of Boston College and member of the Commission on Legislation of the Association of American Colleges, represent ing 775 colleges and universi ties. “The Commission’s own con sidered judgment,” Father Walsh reported, “is that the disclaimer affadavit required is counter to the spirit of the Act, and would, in fact, militate against ‘discovery and develop ment of new principles, new techniques, and new know ledge’, creating apprehension and timorousness on college and university campuses.” Father Walsh, speaking for the commission, pointed out that “insistence upon the dis claimer affadavit represents lack of confidence in the youth of the country and their future as well as the educational pro cess itself. It says to those upon whose education our very sur vival as a Nation depends, that we do not trust them and are not even sure that their educa tion will contribute to our se curity.” The Jesuit educator declared that “the patriotism, loyalty and integrity of the students of our colleges and universities are a matter of public knowledge, and their positive allegiance a matter of pride and confidence.” 'IMPOSSIBLE BURDEN' The requirement ot the loyal ty oath, Father Walsh noted, would in no way serve as a bar to the award of student loans to disloyal students. For a com munist would not hesitate to take a false oath in order to obtain a loan for the financing of his education. Other educators who are sup porting the Kennedy-Clark amendment include Nathan M. Pusey, president of Harvard University; A. Whitney Gris wold, president of Yale Univer sity; Louis Benezet, president of Colorado College, and W. II. Da vies, president of Wisconsin State College. Aside from the distrust of the loyalty of American youth im plied in the requirement of a loyalty oath, Senator Kennedy has pointed out that it imposes an “impossible burden” upon our educational institutions. He notes that the loyalty oath provision places upon the col leges the responsibility of de ciding what proof is necessary to determine whether or not a student believes in overthrow of the United States. And, since different concepts of . *what would constitute disloyalty ex ist among the colleges and uni versities, the Senator maintains there could be no uniform ad ministration of the loyalty.oath provision. Father Wharton’* View from the Ilectorj GIN AND SIN A hillbilly came to town carrying a jug of liquor in one hand and a shotgun in the other. He stopped a man on the street, saying to him, “Here, friend, take a drink outa my jug.” The man protested, saying he never drank. The hillbilly leveled his shot gun at the stranger and com manded: “Drink!” The stranger drank, shudder ed. shook, shivered and coughed. “Gosh, that’s awful stuff you’ve got there.” “Ain’t it, though?” replied the hillbilly. “Now you hold the gun to me while I take a swig.” It’s not only this nectar of the hills, moonshine, that causes folks to shudder and cough. I’ve seen men of distinction shake from head to toe after downing large swigs of quality factory- made firewater. Most don’t drink because they like the taste of the stuff. The cause of teetotalism, as Sam Butler called it, would advance by strides if flavor counted. It’s more the kick it gives, the feel ing of well-being it induces. Drinkers drink, too, because of social pressure. Might as well ask for your milk in a baby’s bottle if you turn down a Mar tini at a gathering of red-blood ed Americans. You can’t be a man of much distinction if you’re dressed up in tie and tails with a pepsi-cola in hand. This is no pitch for total abstinence. The only time I’m blue-nosed is when the tempera ture dips below zero. Not that I would discourage anyone from sticking to coke or papaya juice; one of life’s greatest problems is solved if a person doesn’t drink. But universal sobriety is enough to settle for now. We’re passing out no pledge cards today because the Church has never taught that alcohol is wrong in itself. Our Divine Savior Himself took wine at the Paschal suppers. At Cana, He not only approved of the use of wine—He even changed water into the beverage. Wine was made one of the essential ele ments of the greatest sacrament: the Holy Eucharist. In the Old Testament, there is a statement in the Book of Ecclesiasticus that sounds like an ad for Man-Oh-Man Wine: “Wine was created from the be ginning to make man joyful, not to make him drunk. Wine drunken with moderation is the joy of the soul and the heart.” There’s the pitch. Wine-s-and especially high-powered wine like liquor—is supposed to be taken in moderation. Too many drink liquor as if it were water. “The best thing to quench your thirst,” they say, “is a nice cold glass of straight bourbon.” If we could change the national crav ing for alcohol to a yen for spinach, we’d be a race of super men in no time. Especially at cocktail parties is this overindulgence evident. The late, great Robert Bemdile-y once said: “Drinking makes such fools of people, and people are such, fools to begin with, that it’s compounding a felony.” The cocktail hour is felony hour in many places. How many serious, mature men would dance on tables, try to sing songs they don’t know, and put on women’s hats if they knew what they were doing? If they did these things at 10 a. m., they’d be locked up. A few drinks, for that matter, can change Mr. Milquetoast into a cussing, vulgar and aggressive Captain Bligh. Even beer, mild as it’s supposed to be, is enough to work this personality change in many people. Some moderns just can’t face up to the tremendous challenge of living, laughing and having a good time without some alcoholic strength. They need liquor to relax as much as a car needs gasoline to move about. Which wouldn’t be so bad if they didn’t pour it in by the gallon like the gas in the car. I am not talking about alco holism, the third most common disease in our country and a problem for five million Ameri cans. My appeal is to the three million other problem drinkers, and the other millions who are simply abusing a gift of God by frequent intemperance. Scandal ous intemperance, I might add. Temperance is the cardinal virtue needed to make that fifth last a long time. Complete drunkenness is a mortal sin. That means when a person is “knocked out.” And also when he does a lot of things he'd never do in his right mind: blasphemy, wild driving, or violent displays of anger, for instance. Even incomplete drunkenness, which is characterized by thick speech and a lot of silly pranks, is a venial sin. We can chuckle at the jokes about the inebriates. But it’s really no laughing mat ter. Complete or incomplete, cartscs treTO. dents, waste of money, breakups of families or even death from overindulgence. A recent magazine article complained that there’s too much drinking among college students. Why pick on the next generation? The $400 million spent on advertising every year by the liquor industry has pro duced results. The millions of bottle-fed adults are a poor ex ample to younger ones. The story is told of two travel lers who became lost in the Alps. Suddenly, as they wandered through the snow, they saw a hugh St. Bernard dog approach ing, sent by the monks with a small container of brandy to re vive lost and half-frozen wan derers. “Here comes man’s best friend!” said one traveller. “Yes, and look at the big dog with it,” replied the other. At the risk of sounding like a spoilsport, I say liquor is not man’s best friend. The monk ; no longer put brandy in the kegs, for that matter, because scien tists say liquor makes a frozen man sicker. The dogs now have tea in the little containers. Lots of people would he sick less often if they would occa sionally “take tea and see” that the way of tempi ranee and moderation is the better way. Stye HttUditt 416 8TH ST., AUGUSTA, GA. Published fortnightly by the Catholic Laymen’s Association of Georgia, Inc., with the Approbation of the Most Reverend Arch bishop-Bishop of Savannah, The Most Reverend Bishop of Atlanta and the Right Reverend Abbot Ordinary of Belmont. Subscription price $3.00 per year. Second class mail privileges authorized at Monroe, Georgia. Send notice of change of address to P. O. Box 320, Monroe, Georgia. REV. FRANCIS J. DONOHUE REV. R. DONALD KlilRNAN Editor Savannah Edition Editor Atlanta Edition JOHN MARKWALTER Managing Editor Vol. 40 Saturday, August 8, 1959 No. 5 ASSOCIATION OFFICERS FOR 1958-1959 GEORGE GINGELL, Columbus _ President MRS. DAN HARRIS, Macon ... Vice-President TOM GRIFFIN, Atlanta Vice-President NICK CAMERIO, Macon Secretary JOHN T. BUCKLEY, Augusta _ . _ ... . Treasurer ALVIN M. McAULIFFE, Augusta .... _ Auditor JOHN MARKWALTER, Augusta . . Executive Secretary MISS CECILE FERRY, Augusta Financial Secretary