Newspaper Page Text
j?AG.bj 4—'THE BULLETIN, Ma“cii 3, 1950
BULLETIN
EDITORIALS
LENT
“And now there remain Faith, Hope and Charity, these three,
but the greatest of these is Charity.” The words of St. Paul con
cerning the paramount importance of the virtue of Charity, read
in the Mass for Quinquagesima Sunday, set forth the true spirit
of the Holy Season of Lent.
This is a time of spiritual renewal, a time of special striving
to become more and more like to Christ, a time for great efforts
to grow in the Love of God and Neighbor.
Prayer, Penance, self-denial—all will be like so much “kicking
against the goad” or “beating the wind” unless they are directed
toward, and result in the acquisition of a greater degree of Divine
Charity.
For “if I speak with the tongues of men and of angels ... if
I should have prophecy . . . and all knowledge ... if I should have
all faith ... if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor,
and if I should deliver my body to be burned, AND HAVE NOT
CHARITY, IT PROFITETH ME NOTHING.”
Certainly then, the pious exercises of Lent, daily Mass and
Holy Communion, more frequent and earnest prayer and medita
tion, penances and mortification should be more than mere “Spirit
ual Calisthenics.” They should be means of spiritual growth. They
should be undertaken as a service of Love for Christ, the Re
deemer, with a real and conscious desire to become more and
more like to Him Who said, “By this shall all men know that you
are my disciples, that you love one another,” and who proved His
own infinite love for all of us by becoming “Obedient, even to the
death of the Cross.”
UNFAIR DISCRIMINATION
Maybe we’re just old-fashioned. We don’t see anything wrong
in waving the Flag or in pledging allegiance to the same. And we
just can’t dredge up any sympathy for college and university stu
dents who are more than willing to let the United States Govern
ment contribute toward their education, but who, for some strange
reasons, feel ashamed to make the public declaration that they
will “Bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of
America.”
Two wars in less than twenty years brought death to thousands
upon thousands of America’s young men, alike in many respects
to the college and university students of today. Strange, indeed,
how men, who were soon to lay down their lives defending their
country “against all enemies, foreign and domestic” could thrill
with pride as they raised their right hands to take the same Oath
which a few short years later would become a sign of “unfair
discrimination.”
JOSEPH BREIG
INSULT IN THE SENATE
There is no human right that
is under more relentless • seige
nowadays than the right of par
ents to see to it that their chil
dren are educated in religion
as well as in
the other Rs
of learning.
This is true
in America,
and it is true
in much of
the rest of
the world.
In some
places the attack is massive,
open and frontal, as behind the
iron and bamboo curtains, or
under the recently overthrown
communist government in Ker
ala State in India.
In . other places the persecu
tion — and persecution it is —
is like the nagging of a shrew
of a wife who hopes to have her
way by a process of endless ac
cusations. putting herself al
ways in the right, and her hus
band everlastingly in the
wrong.
This latter is the case in the
U. S.
THERE ARE certain people
who miss no opportunity—and
indeed create opportunities — to
make it appear that parents
who do not send their young
sters to tax-supported public
schools are second-class citizens,
and no patriots.
These citizens are denounced
as “divisive.”
They are represented, slyly, as
somehow un-American.
The implication is broadcast
that there is something disloyal
— if not nearly subversive —
about them.
Religious schools are subject
ed to a constant smear cam
paign, adroitly worded, and
cunningly planted in the public
prints.
Loftily-phrased propaganda
conveys the notion that relig
ious schools — and independent
schools of any kind — are at
best contemptible, and at worst
dangerous to national unity and
progress.
The theory seems to be that if
enough tar is brushed on, some
of it will stick.
SOME OF IT STICKS, all
right. This was demonstrated
recently in the U. S. Senate.
A bill was introduced to
spend $1,833,000,000 in two
years in federal aid to public
schools, in part for construction,
in part for teacher salaries.
Roughly, the idea was to pro
vide $20 a year, per pupil, in
federal aid to states, so that
schools in poorer states might
be brought toward the stand
ards of those in richer states.
But here’s the rub: children
in parish and other independent
schools were to be counted in
each state’s school population.
These same children would then
be counted out; no aid would go
to them; all aid would go to
public school pupils.
THE INSULTING INEQUITY
of this is obvious. Not only was
the bill a direct slap in the face
for religious parents; but the
largest proportion, by far, of in-
dependent-school pupils is in
the richer states.
Thus the “count ’em in, count
’em out” provision went direct
ly contrary to the stated pur
pose of the bill.
One man in the Senate raised
his voice in protest. Sen. Frank
J. Lausche of Ohio told his col
leagues that the bill would “rub
salt in the wounds” of parents
who send their children to re
ligious schools.
He tried to amend the bill to
count only public school pupils.
He was voted down. The Senate
then passed, 51-34, the “salt in
the wounds” bill.
PARENTS OF CHILDREN in
religious schools thus were con
temptuously brushed aside by a
large majority of senators, in
cluding Catholic presidential as
pirant John F. Kennedy of Mas
sachusetts.
The Senate then voted down
a bill to lend $150 million to in
dependent schools for construc
tion, although its sponsor, Sen.
Wayne Morse of Oregon, esti
mated that such schools save
U. S. taxpayers $1,185,000,000 a
year by educating children
without public expense.
Sen. Kennedy voted against
that bill, as did Sen. Lyndon
Johnson of Texas, another presi
dential hopeful. Sen. Hubert
Humphrey of Minnesota voted
for it. Sen. Stuart Symington of
Missouri, also mentioned for the
presidency, was absent and not
voting.
REALIZATION
Wars will end only when peo
ple of all nations are convinced
that even the winners are los
ers.
Set a good example by square
dealing—not by shouting.
Theology
For The
Layman
By F. J. Sheed
THE MYSTICAL BODY (2)
To the Ephesians, St. Paul
said (I. 22): “God made Christ
the head to which the whole
Church is joined, so that the
Church is his body.”
In other words Our Lord,
living in H i s
natural body
in heaven,
lives also in
another body
on earth. The
second body
is not a replica
of the first, it
is of a differ
ent order. But it is as truly en
titled to be called both a body,
and Christ’s body. In a body,
every element, every limb and
organ, every cell lives with
one same life, the life of him
whose body it is. So it is with
Christ’s natural Body, so it is
with His Mystical Body.
The two lives are different: in
the first Body it is natural life,
in the second supernatural life,
sanctifying grace. In the Church
every member has his own nat
ural life and must labor to cor
rect its defects; but the life of
grace, by which at last we shall
come to the vision of God in
heaven — that is simply Christ
living in us, sharing His own
life with us. “I live,” says St.
Paul, “now not I, but Christ
lives in me.”
We have cells in our own
body living with our life; we
must become cells in Christ’s
body, living with His. We must
be incorporated with Christ,
built into His Body. How? By
baptism. Born into the race of
Adam, we must be re-born into
Christ. “We were taken up into
Christ by baptism” says St. Paul
to the Romans (VI. 3); to the
Galations he says (III. 27) “All
you who have been baptized in
Christ’s name have put on the
person of Christ . . . you are all
one person in Christ.”
That then, is the Church; and
that is what it is to belong to the
Church. We are built into, in
that sense made one with, Our
Lord’s humanity. But that hu
manity is the humanity of God
the Son; so that we are united
with the Second Person and so
with the Blessed Trinity. We
now see new meaning in two
(Continued on Page 5)
Question
Box
By David Q. Liptak
Q. Why is the Eucharistic
Sacrifice called the "Mass"? I
have tried to find the answer
in several reference works, but
each author seems to have a
different solution. Is there any
one accepted answer?
A. Until relatively recent
times, there was some doubt as
to the precise origins of the
term Mass. It is now quite clear,
however, that the word comes
from rr.issa. a late Latin sub
stantive (not the past participle
of the verb rnitto) meaning a
dismissal; i.e., the breaking up
of a congregation or a public
meeting. In the light of modem
research, other theories once
proposed concerning the origin
of the term are generally re
garded as untenable. (Examples
of such theories are that “Mass”
derives from the Hebrew mis-
sah, meaning a tribute or offer
ing; or that it is based on the
Greek muesis, meaning a mys
tical initiation; or even that it
is an adaption of the Germanic
Mess, meaning a feast or gather
ing.)
IN THE BEGINNING, the
Christian missa (dismissal) was
a kind of solemn rite, especially
characterized by a blessing and
prayer — not, therefore, so sim
ple as the modern dismissal of
the Mass, the Ite Missa Est (i.e.,
“Go, it is the dismissal”). The
early Church missa (dismissal)
formed an important part of
practically every divine service,
including Vespers and Matins,
for instance, as well as the Eu
charistic Sacrifice itself. Be
cause the principal ceremony of
this missa (dismissal) was a
blessing imparted by the cele
brant, the missa itself came to
be associated with the conclud
ing blessing of divine services.
BY TRANSFERAL, then, mis
sa came to be the descriptive
term for the entire service
which preceded the missa (dis
missal). And subsequently (at
least by the fourth century),
(Continued on Page 5)
S V fe~A N 3 ft B
Little-Known Feels
M. J. MURRAY
? t o
for Catholics
E
CqwUjfct XfS*, R.CW.C, 9
Students Uphold Loyalty Oath
THE BACKDROP
SHARING OUR TREASURE
'Bring People To Mass/
Advises Convert Professor
By REV. JOHN A. O'BRIEN, Ph. D.
, , , . , , ■ , r .(University of Notre Dame) .
Have you ever invited a non-
Catholic friend to go with you
to Sunday Mass? It’s a simple
but effective way to kindle the
spark of interest in our holy
Faith, especially if you have
briefed h i m
beforehand on
the meaning
of the Mass
a n d provided
him with a
missal or pray-
book to follow
the Holy Sac
rifice intelli
gently. This is
conversion of Dr. Siegmund A.
E. Betz, professor of English at
Our Lady of Cincinnati College.
“I was reared,” related Dr.
Betz, in the United Brethren
Church and attended Sunday
School regularly. When I en
rolled at the University of Cin
cinnati, I became a lay preach
er. Deeply interested in music
and choir work, I took voice
lessons from the late Charles
Young, the choirmaster at St.
George’s Catholic Church near
our home.
“I soon found mvself singing
‘O Salutaris Hostia’ from the
choir balcony of the church that
never quite loosened its grin
on me. After taking mv doctor
ate at the University of Cincin
nati. I began mv teaching career
at Lindenwood College in St.
Charles, Missouri, where I join
ed the Anglican Church and
again became a lay preacher.
“I was a frequent visitor,
however, at the Catholic Church
in St. Charles, and on one oc
casion a curate there suggested
that I might like to follow the
same kindlv light that had led
Newman on. In 1956 I wel
comed the onportunitv to teach
at Our Lady of Cincinnati Col
lege and began to attend Sun
day Mass at St. George’s again.
Our family has lived for more
than 30 years near that church
and its influence upon me was
powerful even in my childhood.
“Its twin spires, topped by
golden domes, are visible for
miles, and I used to think of
them as the symbol of my own
community. More important,
ever since my first visit as a
child in that church, I knew
that great and holy things were
transacted in the fragrant
Gothic depths of that building.
Central in my conversion has
been devotion to the Real
Presence in the Blessed Sacra
ment.
“From the time of my first
onportunity to be present at
Catholic ceremonies, liturgical
worship has seemed to me the
natural, the inevitable, and the
simplest way of worshipping
God. The liturgy radiates the
presence of Our Lord, and cer
tainly one way to made con
verts would seem to me simnlv
to bring people inside the doors
of Catholic churches. That, at
anv rate, was the wav for me.
“I read Gibbon’s The Faith of
Our Fathers, Newman’s Apolo
gia and Karl Adam’s The Spirit
of Catholicism and made a spe
cial study of the Oxford move
ment which brought so manv
converts into the Church in
England. I perceived that onlv
the Catholic Church could trace
her origin to Christ and alone
could speak with divine autho
rity. She alone was empowered
to forgive sins and to consecrate
the bread and wine as Christ
did at the Last Supper.
“I received instructions from
Father Alfred Stritch and was
conditionally baptized on De
cember 21, 1958, at St. George’s.
Great indeed was my joy in
receiving Our Blessed Lord in
Holy Communion. I owe much
to the many friends who had
long been praying for me. Like
many a convert from Anglican
ism, I perceived in the Holy Fa
ther the indubitable successor
of St. Peter and knew that my
true home could only be in the
historic Mother Church of
Christianity, and yet I hesitated
so long. Thank God, my journey
is now over and I am home at
last!”
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
persons to him at Notre Dame
University, Notre Dame, Indiana.
BEST AT U. N. MODEL MEETING
Three seniors from Georgetown University, Washington,
D. C., a Jesuit-conducted school, were picked as the out
standing delegation at the University Model United Nations
in Montreal. They were selected from 70 delegations repre
senting 55 North American universities. Discussion at the
meeting included the question of the admission of Red
China to the U.N., the legal status of outer space, disarma
ment and the establishment of an international food bank.
Left to right are: James Cadden, Washington, D. C.; George
Giard, Dallas, Tex.; Walter Nicgorski, Milwaukee, Wis., and
EY. Joseph A. Sellinger, S.J., dean of the Georgetown college
. „ of arts and sciences. (NC Photosi — ~
The virtual unanimity of
opinion among university ad
ministrators and faculties that
students seeking loans under the
National Defense Education Act
should not be required to take
loyalty oaths
seems n o t to
extend to the
students them
selves.
The loyalty
oath require
ment has been
denounced
rather gener
ally by educators, including ad
ministrative officials of a few
Catholic universities and col
leges. The argument advanced
against the oath is that it is an
affront to college students to
single them out as a class who
must attest their loyalty in
order to become eligible for
loans financed mainly by the
Federal government. Other re
cipients of Federal subsidies,
critics of the oath point out, are
not required to affirm their
loyalty. That being the case, the
critics ask, why should not the
loyalty of students be taken for
granted?
STUDENT COMMITTEE
Other objectors to the oath
maintain that it is a threat to
academic freedom, and at best
will serve no useful purpose,
since no subversive would have
any qualms about taking it.
Curiously, a similar loyalty
requirement was written into
the National Science Founda
tion Act ten years ago without
provoking a ripple of protest
from the watchdogs of civil
liberties. That act required a
loyalty affirmation by graduate
science students seeking federal
aid.
By JOHN C. O’BRIEN
Nor did many students ob
ject to signing the affidavits.
The National Science Founda
tion reports that some 12,000
students signed the affidavits in
the past decade as a condition
of eligibility for government
aid.
Several colleges and univer
sities have refused to participate
in the National Defense Educa
tion Act loan program, in which
the Federal government makes
available nine dollars for each
one dollar loaned to a student
by a college or university.
No estimates of the number
of students who have refrained
from applying for loans because
of the loyalty oath are available.
But students on many campuses
have gone on record as rejecting
the critical views of the univer
sity administrators and teachers.
In fact, a National Student
Committee for the Loyalty Oath
has been formed, representing
students in over 30 colleges and
universities. The chairman of
the committee, Douglas Caddy,
a senior at Georgetown Univer
sity, reports that a “revolt”
against the views of the faculties
is taking place on the nation’s
campuses.
“The students,” he said re
cently, “are overwhelmingly in
favor of the oath, and they re
sent the contrary implications
made by some university ad
ministrations. We expect many
more student organizations to
come to the defense of the oath
in the next several weeks, now
that they realize what the con
troversy is about.”
In recent weeks student or
ganizations at the University of
Houston, Ohio State University
and Dunbarton College have in
dorsed the loyalty oath. A reso
lution passed by the Student
House of Representatives at the
University of Houston declared
that “it, as a body, is in favor
of retaining all and any loyalty
oaths as a requirement for ob
taining Federal and state grants
or loans.”
SOME OPPOSE OATH
The resolution added that
“any student or individual who
desires to obtain such loans
should be required 'to take an
oath that he or she is not a com
munist and does not advocate
the overthrow of our govern
ment.”
At Dunbarton, a college for
women in Washington, D. C., a
resolution upholding the loyalty
oath was adopted unanimously.
The student congress of Holy
Cross College has gone on re
cord 20 to 0 in favor of the oath.
Similarly, the executive com
mittee of the Midwest Federa
tion of College Young Republi
cans recently passed a resolu
tion defending the oath and
suggesting that the university
officials “could better spend
their time combating commu
nism than in attacking those
who are trying to stop its ad
vance.”
Not ail students organizations,
of course, defend the loyalty
oath. The Twelfth National Stu
dent Congress, for example, has
demanded repeal of the oath
provision, denouncing it as a
“threat to academic freedom.”
Among the lawmakers who
have tried to repeal the oath re
quirement is Senator John F.
Kennedy, a candidate for the
Democratic Presidential nomi
nation. A repealer bill intro
duced by him in the last session
of Congress was shelved by the
close vote of 49 to 42.
^ View
from (fee Rectory
A second-grader was attend
ing a Catholic school for the
first time. Across the aisle, he
saw another boy printing the
letters JMJ (Jesus, Mary, Jos
eph) across the top of his paper.
He was greatly puzzled, but he
wasn’t going to be outdone.
Across the top of his paper, he
printed his own favorite initials:
USMC.
This reminds me of my semi
nary confreres who put some
thing like this on all their ex
amination papers: JMJFPA.
They counted on the heavenly
influence of Francis, Philomena
and Anthony as well as that of
the Holy Family. It was equiv
alent to writing HELP on the
test paper.
There’s nothing wrong with
this pious practice, of course.
Just so we’re not devoted to too
many saints. Too many initials
on the paper might look strange.
And we have to realize that the
saints won’t help much if there
are not some solid answers
down below the initials.
The superabundance of saints
in the Church must puzzle
many persons standing outside.
Even some Catholics, I’m afraid,
miss the point.
Recently we received a letter
about saints. It was signed
“Just-Beginning-to-Think-Cath-
olic.” This was probably not the
writer’s real name, unless dad
and mom had quite a sense of
humor. Anyway, J.B.T.T. Cath
olic said this:
“Enclosed is a clipping re
garding Mother Seton’s saint
hood. Haven’t we enough
saints? Hard enough keeping
track. If some of this would
help solve some of the world’s
problems, it would be worth it.
Do Catholics have the edge on
producing saints?”
We sure do have lots of saints.
You can’t tell one Francis from
another without The Cathedral
Directory. But this doesn’t keep
us from being greedy for more.
Especially one so illustrating as
Mother Seton. She would be our
first American-born saint.
Several years ago, Mother Ca-
brini made it — and we were
delighted. She was an American
citizen, but her birth in Italy
kind of threw a lot of the credit
across the ocean to that land.
Mother Seton, on the other
hand, was born and reared in
the United States.
Anyone who’s not interested
in seeing Mother Seton canoniz
ed just doesn’t know her. The
courageous woman accepted so
cial disgrace in eighteenth-cen
tury New York by her conver
sion to Catholicism.
From that time on, Mother
Seton was a veritable power
house, Among many other
CROWDED HEAVEN
things, she was noted for her
generous acceptance of extreme
hardships. Before her death in
1821, she had founded the Sis
ters of Charity in this country
as well as three schools — the
beginning of our parochial
schools.
So we do look forward to see
ing Elizabeth Bayley Seton on
the lists of the saints. Sure,
there are many others. But
there was only one Mother Set
on, just as there was only one
Aquinas and one Jerome and
one Little Flower.
We never tire of honoring il
lustrious persons of our world.
Every patriotic citizen reveres
the memory of Washington and
Lincoln. The musician has
Beethoven for a model; the phi
losopher looks to Plato; lovers
of art consider Michaelangelo
the master; scholars find per
fection in Shakespeare’s works.
Should we neglect to honor new
heroes because we have too
many already?
The saints, anyway, far sur
pass other heroes. They were
the human beings who best ful
filled their purpose in life.
When we honor them, we are
glorifying God’s power so evi
dent in them. They reflect, in
other words, the perfections of
our Creator.
The Church presents many
saints to us for imitation. In
spiration and encouragement, if
you will. Everyone can find
someone up there with the vir
tue he needs, someone who had
similar problems when he was
on earth, someone who did the
Stolblttt
41G 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 KIERNAN
Editor Savannah Edition Editor Atlanta Edition
JOHN MARKWALTER
Managing Editor
Vol. 40 Saturday, March 5, 1960 No. 20
ASSOCIATION OFFICERS
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
same kind of work.
If we want zeal, we can turn
to Paul or Francis Xavier. For
simplicity, it’s Francis Assisi;
for brotherly love, Vincent de
Paul. The road to heaven is
a lot easier when we think
about Francis de Sales’ gentle
ness, Don Bosco’s cheerfulness
and Thomas More’s courage.
These heavenly VIPs are
more than decorations. They
can help us by their interces
sion. The communion of the
saints means just that. There’s
an intercommunion among
God’s friends here on earth, in
purgatory and in heaven.
Does the Church have an edge
on producing saints? Frankly,
yes. I know there are holy peo
ple in other religions. There are
many saintly souls all around us
in our Church. There are bad
ones among us, too.
The canonized saints, howev
er, weren’t merely holy. They
attained that heroic degree of
sanctity which almost takes our
breath away. As Father Conway
says in his Question Box:
“Sanctity is to ordinary good
ness what genius is to talent.”
We have only to check history
to see that no religion can
match these marvels of God’s
power — the saints. This is not
bragging. It’s not our work, but
Christ’s in His Church.
So, J.B.T.T. Catholic, shoot—
if you must—at this old head of
mine. But spare your Church’s
saints.
NEW ANGLE
The thing that makes a man’s
salary seem so small seems to
be the high cost of trying to
live.
FINGER MAN
There is little hope for the
fellow who blackens his friends
in an attempt to whitewash
himself.