Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 4—THE BULLETIN, July 9, 1960
JOSEPH BREIG
Moscow Speaks — Reds Everywhere Obey
Red on His Map?
THE BACKDROP
If ever there was any doubt
that the communists everywhere
are directed from Moscow, it
should have been dispelled by
the communist-inspired protest
against President Eisenhower’s
visit to Japan
and the hostile
demonstration
against White
House Press
Secre tary
James C. Hag-
erty at Tokyo’s
I n ternational
Airport.
No more convincing proof of
Moscow’s domination of com
munists in other countries could
be cited than the speed and uni
formity with which they have
reacted to twists in Soviet pol
icy—from the cold war to the
“spirit of Camp David” and
back again to the cold war after
the U-2 incident and the col
lapse of the summit conference.
NIXON TOUR
Throughout 1958, the cold war
was in high gear. Communist
publications and spokesmen
throughout the world followed
the Moscow line of denunciation
of the United States as decadent,
capitalist, imperialist and ag
gressive.
When Vice President Nixon
made a tour of Latin America
that year, communist-inspired
mobs turned out to vilify him
and his wife. But when Presi
dent Eisenhower visited our
southern neighbors in February
of this year, after the switch to
the “peaceful co-existence” line,
scarcely a peep was heard from
the South American commu
nists.
During his tour, Nixon visited
six Latin American capitals.
Everywhere he was heckled by
communist-inspired demonstra-
By JOHN C. O’BRIEN
tors, and in Lima, Peru, and in
Caracas, Venezuela, he narrow
ly escaped bodily harm at the
hands of hate-spewing radicals.
In Lima, demonstrators threw
stones and fruit at his automo
bile. In Caracas, mobs cast
stones and sticks and attempted
to drag him from his car.
The change in the Moscow
line came during Nikita Khrush
chev’s visit to the United States
in September, 1959. It was then
that the “peaceful co-existence”
theme was trotted out. It was
then that a summit meeting in
Paris was scheduled for the fol
lowing May and a visit to the
Soviet Union by President Ei
senhower in June. Suddenly the
President was transformed from
a tool of the “war-mongering”
capitalists into a man of good
will and peaceful intentions.
Immediately, communist par
ties all over the world took up
the new refrain. Attacks upon
the United States and the Presi
dent ceased. And when Mr. Ei
senhower embarked in Decem
ber, 1959, on his 11-nation tour
in the Mediterranean and the
Middle East, orders went out to
communist parties to refrain
from hostile demonstrations.
In Rome, the communists,
who form one of the largest Red
parties outside the Soviet Union
and China, actually joined in the
tremendous welcome for the
President. Communist party
leaders and spokesmen for the
communist-led General Confed
eration of Labor hailed the
President as an ambassador of
good will. Even the noisy com
munists of Paris were on their
good behavior and his welcome
there went off without un
toward incident.
LIGHTNING CHANGE
In India, where a vociferous
ur
nap
ifff
i
from the
\Jn 1
| \ Itectfory
By The Rev. Robert H. Wharton «.
SUCCOTASH & SORROW
A very shy young man sat
next to a glamorous debutante
at a dinner party. In the middle
of the main course he seized a
bowl of succotash and poured it
over the debutante’s chic coif
fure.
The young
lady rose in-
dignantly.
“How dare
you?” she
blazed, pluck
ing corn and
peas out of
her h a i r.“
“How dare you tnrow succutasn
at me?”
The young man blanched.
“Good heavens,” he stammered.
“Was that succotash? I thought
it was spinach!”
It’s beyond me how the young
man could mistake succotash
for spinach. But this incident—
a true story, of course—just
goes to show that we all make
mistakes.
If you read the newspapers
carefully, you can catch some
hilarious typographical boners.
This item is my favorite:
“Among the first to enter the
airplane was Mrs. Clara Adams
of Tannersville, Pa., lone wom
an passenger. Slowly her nose
was turned around to face in a
southwesterly direction. Then,
like some strange beast, she
crawled along the grass.”
Poor Mrs. Adams of Tanners
ville. But this one of many bon
ers again demonstrates our hu
man propensity for error.
If we did not make mistakes
so / often, life would be quite
different. There would be no
jpeed for erasers on pencils. Ac
cident insurance companies
would go out of business. Pris
ons could be closed, or rather
opened up.
If we could make no mistakes,
however, the most important
thing is that priests could go
off to a ball game on Saturday
afternoon. There would be no
Sacrament of Penance, because
there would be no sins to be
forgiven.
This is all idle dreaming, of
course, because the world is full
of errors, blunders, oversights,
and misprints. Otherwise I
Would not have ascended the
pulpit, one bright and glorious
Christmas morning, to wish all
the parishioners “a very holy
and happy Easter.”
We can’t wish away sin,
either. Adam fell, and when he
came tumbling down he
dragged us with him. Not that
We blame our greatest-grand
father entirely. The only way
we can be guilty of sin is to
freely and deliberately choose
to commit it.
And if we have been unfortu
nate enough to fall into sin, the
only way we can get back into
God’s friendship is by contrition.
There is no one who can say
he is not guilty of some sin;
therefore, contrition is one of
the most important elements in
our life.
Contrition comes from a Latin
word meaning to grind or break
up. Our sorrow for sin is sup
posed to grind our hearts at the
thought of our offense. But this
shouldn’t lead us to believe that
sorrow can be merely emotional.
It must be truly internal.
It makes no difference how
many buckets of tears you shed
if your sorrow is not truly in
terior. In fact, you might have
a most sincere contrition and
still be unable to feel any re
gret. More important than the
tears is the intellectual realiza
tion of your fault and of the
goodness of the One offended.
True sorrow also extends to
all mortal sins. You can’t re
gret killing Tom and Dick while
rejoicing over your murder of
Harry. We can be sorry for one
venial sin and be forgiven, even
while we have no sorrow for
other venial sins. But with mor
tal sins, it’s all or nothing.
Certified contrition must be
based on a supernatural motive
as well. Uncle Carbuncle might
be very sorry his drunkenness
has caused him to make a fool
of himself. But that’s not the
sin-forgiving sorrow he needs.
Our sins may ruin our health,
lead us into disgrace or cause us
to lose money. But we must be
sorry because we have offended
God in order to be forgiven.
When we regret our sin be
cause we can feel the flames of
hell licking at our heels, that
contrition is imperfect. It’s
enough for forgiveness when we
receive the absolution of the
priest. But the more perfect was
is the way of perfect contrition.
If we’re sorry for our sins be
cause we have offended our
good God, then the contrition is
perfect. Whenever we have this
top-notch sorrow our sins are
washed away even before we
hear the absolving words of the
priest. This is the kind of sor
row we should strive for, of
course, because—well, because
it’s perfect, more worthy of
God.
The real test of contrition,
when you get down to it, is the
purpose of amendment. Perhaps
communist minority had often
made trouble for its own gov
ernment, the President received
what was described as the great
est and warmest welcome ever
given a foreigner. The Indian
communists were docilely obe
dient to their Kremlin masters.
Again, in February of this
year, the President made a four-
teen-day tour of South America,
visiting Brazil, Argentina, Chile
and Uraguay. Communists are
strong in all these countries,
particularly in Brazil and Ura
guay. But the President re
ceived warm receptions, marred
only by a few student groups
here and there bearing anti
imperialism signs. Half a mil
lion cheering Brazilians turned
out in Rio de Janeiro and in
San Paulo. During a three-mile
motorcade through Montevideo,
no communist demonstrations
occurred.
At that time, of course, Khru.
shchev still wanted to have the
summit meeting and he was pre
paring a tremendous welcome
for the President in Moscow.
The instructions then were that
communists were not under any
circumstances to embarrass the
American President.
But after the U-2 incident and
the collapse of the summit,
Khrushchev did an abrupt
about-face. The new policy be
came one of concerted effort to
humiliate the President on every
occasion and destroy the image
of a man of peace which Khru
shchev himself had helped to
build up. And with lightning
speed, the Japanese communists
set to work to organize Japanese
radicals and pacificists in a
violent protest against the
President’s scheduled visit to
Japan.
the tears won’t come, maybe
you feel some affection for the
sin you’re trying to avoid—but
if you sincerely intend to avoid
the sin because you realize it
offends God, you’re sorry.
God’s forgiveness of sin is
really a wonderful thing, some
thing we usually fail to appre
ciate because it’s so easy to get.
But it’s worthwhile to stir up
our faith and realize its value.
And to realize the value of the
key to forgiveness—contrition.
If you make the mistake of
pouring succotash over a young
lady’s head, you can always
pick the peas and corn out of
her hair. But if you have the
misfortune of falling into sin,
there’s no way to make up for
it except by a truly sincere and
supernatural sorrow.
Question
Box
(By David Q, Liplak)
Q. If the Bible appeared for
the very first time today, do
you think that any publisher
would accept it? I just heard
a radio commentator express
the opinion that no publisher
today would dare print the Bible
if it were a modern book, be
cause he would thereby alienate
every religious body in the
world. There wouldn't be a sin
gle religion or sect, he implied,
which wouldn't attack it on one
point or another. Taking this
opinion as an hypothesis pure
and simple, doesn't it merit
some serious condition?
A. That God might have wait
ed until 1960 before giving the
Bible to men is a preposterous
supposition in itself. Under such
an hypothesis, the last twenty
centuries would hav? been de
prived of one of the two princi
pal fonts of the revealed truths
necessary and helpful for spirit
ual perfection! and salvation.
Nonetheless, there is nothing
objectionable about considering
this supposition as sheer con
jecture, in a purely theoretical
“What if—,” context.
IN THIS latter sense, if the
Bible appeared for'the very first
time now, in the year 1960, it
surely would occasion open at
tack on the part of millions.
The whole of the New Testa
ment alone, for example, would
be summarily dismissed as so
much fiction by those who re
fuse to believe that Christ is
God, the Second Person of the
Blessed Trinity Incarnate.
FROM THE DOCTRINAL
viewpoint, specifically, scores of
modern-day non -Catholics
would undoubtedly take offense
because the Bible teaches 1)
that Christ really and truly rose
Continued on Page 5)
SHARING OUR TREASURE
"A Pamphlet Changed My
Life," Declares Convert
By REV. JOHN A. O'BRIEN, Ph. D.
r , , , ,, , , , , (University of Noire Dame) r
Have you ever given a pam
phlet to a non-Catholic friend?
If not, you are failing to use a
simple and effective method of
kindling a person’s interest in
the Faith and of leading him
into the fold.
Costing but a
trifle, a pam- l j
v e n i ently in |||
one’s pocket |||
or purse. Yet j
it has often
served as the |
spark which started a person on
his way into the Church. This
is illustrated in the conversion
of Gordon D. Gillette of Belle
vue, Washington.
“I was raised as an Episcopal
ian,” related Gordon, “but oc
casionally went to other Church
es and Sunday Schools. I at
tended a private high school
and during my junior year I
listened to the speakers at a
symposium on religion. One, a
chemist at a prominent uni
versity, defined God as simply
the sum of all the forces in the
universe. His talk impressed me
and I was led to believe that
religion was not really essential.
“I failed to realize that train
ing in chemistry doesn’t qualify
one' to speak with authority on
religion. My attitude toward the
Catholic Church was one of in
difference until, in college, the
bad example of a few Catholics
turned me strongly against it.
I concluded that as long as
Catholics paid their ‘confessional
fees’ they could live as they
pleased and still be forgiven.
“After graduating in aero
nautical engineering in 1949, I
came to work for the Boeing
Airplane Company in Seattle. In
a rooming house I met a Mor
mon who was taking Catholic
instructions. One Saturday night
we had a long discussion, and
he loaned me a pamphlet on the
Catholic religion. That pam*
phlet changed the whole course
of my life.
“I stayed up until three o’
clock reading and studying it.
It made me realize how wrong
were my ideas about the Cath
olic Faith. My friend invited me
to attend with him an Inquiry
Class at Blessed Sacrament
Church, conducted by Father
William Norton, O.P. I had al
ways thought of religion as
solely a matter of emotion, and
for the first time I realized that
it has a rational basis.
“Father’s lectures demon
strated the existence of a per
sonal God, the divinity of Christ
as manifested by His testimony
and miracles, particularly the
Resurrection, and the divine
foundation of the Church and
her authority to teach all na
tions, as shown in the Gospels.
I supplemented the lectures by
reading Sheehan’s Apologetics
and Catholic Doctrine and thus
' got a thorough grasp of the ra
tional bases of; religious belief
and of the Church’s teachings.
“I was baptized by Father
Norton and received our Eucha-
istic Lord in Holy Communion
in August 1950. My heart was
filled with love and rapture. I
married a Catholic and we’ve
been blessed with two children.
I helped to interest my mother
in the Faith and now she too is
a devout Catholic. Though I’ve
lived in two archdiocese and six
parishes, I’ve rarely heard any
mention from the pulpit about
the need and obligation of the
laity to try to share the Faith.
“I believe that is why so few
Catholics made any effort in
this matter. That’s why there is
but one convert for every 270
Catholics as contrasted with one
convert for every nine Witnesses
of Jehovah.
“Though possessing the reli
gion founded by Christ for the
salvation of all, we Catholics
are least active in seeking to
share it. If every Catholic pass
ed on a pamphlet each month,
explained his religion, interested
a friend and brought him to an
Inquiry Class we could, with
God’s help, win millions of con
verts each year.”
Ms End To Ban On Bible
Reading In Public Schools
PHILADELPHIA (NC) — An
aiiorney for the school district
of nearby Abington, Pa., has
called on a special Federal
court to lift an injunction
against Bible reading in public
schools there.
C. Brewster Rhoads told the
three-judge court that the in
junction against Bible reading,
which it imposed last Septem
ber, can now be lifted because
action by the State Legislature
has removed the controversial
aspects of the practice.
The court imposed its ban on
Bible reading last September at
the request of Mr. and Mrs. Ed
ward L. Schempp, a Unitarian
couple who charged that the
practice violated constitutional
guarantees of free exercise of
religion.
In December, the State Legis
lature adopted a low providing
that children may be excused
from attendance at the Bible
reading sessions if their parents
object.
In view of this action by the
State Legislature, Mr. Rhoads
argued, it would now be appro
priate for the court to lift its
injunction.
However, Henry W. Sawyer,
an attorney for the Schempps,
opposed lifting the ban.
Mr. Sawyer pointed out that,
following the September ruling
by the Federal Court here, the
Abington school district filed
notice of appeal to the U.S. Su
preme Court. He said this
meant the case is no, longer in
the hands of the Federal Court,
but must be decided now by the
Supreme Court.
Mr. and Mrs. Schempp are
siill opposing Bible reading in
Abington public schools, even
on the optional-attendance basis
approved by the State Legisla
ture.
They contend that reading the
Bible in public schools under
any conditions constitutes "dis
seminating the religious mes
sage of Christianity."
Tax Faith To Death
Theology
For The
Layman
(By F. J. Sheed)
Column 60
The Gifts Of The Holy Ghost
Actual Graces, we have noted,
do not cease when the soul re
ceives Sanctifying Grace. On
the contrary they become more
frequent, richer, more various.
For as their name implies they
are given us for action, and a
whole new world of action is
now ours. This brings us most
particularly to the Gifts of the
Holy Ghost. We receive these,
as we receive the Seven Virtues,
with Sanctifying Grace: they
are abiding qualities in the
graced soul. The most elemen
tary statement of their function
is that they enable us to catch
the wind of Actual Grace when
it blows, so that we respond to
it, move with it. Of all the
myriad ways in which the Holy
Ghost can move the souls of
men to fruitful action, there are
these seven ways, of such im
portance that the soul is given
special gifts to respond to His
guidance and impulse.
It is from Isaias (XI.2) that
we get the names of the Seven
Gifts: “The Spirit of the Lord
shall rest upon him: the Spirit
of Wisdom, and of Understand
ing, the Spirit of Counsel and
of Fortitude, the Spirit of
Knowledge and of Piety. And
he shall be filled with the Spirit
of the Fear of the Lord. He shall
not judge according to the sight
of the eyes, nor approve accord
ing to the hearing of the ears.”
Observe that the “he” and
“him” of whom Isaias is speak
ing is the Messiah to come, so
that in receiving these gifts also
we are receiving Christ’s life.
Each of them is worth long
and detailed study. Here we can
merely indicate what they are
for. We have seen that by the
Theological Virtue of Faith we
accept whatever God has reveal
ed for no other reason than that
He has revealed it; His Church
gives the truths to us and in a
sense they are now ours; but
they are not fully ours until we
grasp what they actually mean,
pierce through the words to the
reality they are meant to ex
press, go ever deeper in their
exploration. The Holy Ghost is
offering us His aid, without
which we could take no step,
and by the Gift of Understand
ing we respond to His aid. We
may think of Understanding as
giving eyes to Faith.
Two other Gifts are there for
the perfecting of what Faith has
already given to our intellect.
By Knowledge, we can develop
a judgement of situations as
created spiritual realities bear
upon them and illumine them,
we come to see everything in
the context of the soul, grace,
the sacraments, the next life. By
Wisdom we judge more pro
foundly still; as we respond to
it we are reaching a kind of
judgement of which it is not
merely fantastic to say that we
are beginning to see things as
God Himself sees them.
Still within the realm of see
ing and judging—but always
with a view to action—comes
the Gift of Counsel. By it we
are enabled to respond to the
special guidance offered us by
the Holy Ghost in the actual
living of our life, our spiritual
life especially—the things we
must do and the things we must
avoid here and now for our
soul’s eternal good. In a way
Counsel bears something of the
same relation to the Moral Vir
tue of Prudence that Under
standing bears to the Theologi
cal Virtue of Faith.
There remain Piety, Fortitude
and Fear of the Lord. As Coun
sel gives a kind of special edge
to the Moral Virtue of Prudence,
these last three bear roughly the
same relation to the other Moral
Virtues.
Piety is related to Justice in
one rather special way. By Jus
tice, we do our duty to God.
We may define . Piety as love
of one to whom we are already
bound by the duty of obedience,
so that by it we are doing our
duty to God not simply because
we owe it, probably without
even reminding ourselves that
we owe it, but because we love
God. Indeed in this Piety is the
most evident example of some
thing that belongs to all the
Gifts, for they all make love the
main element in the action of
the Virtue.
Fortitude is related, naturally,
to the Moral Virtue of the same
name; Fear of the Lord is seen
by theologians in special rela
tion to the Moral Virtue of
Temperance, but also to the
There is a right and good
meaning, an eminently Ameri
can meaning, in “separation of
church and state.”
There is also a bad meaning,
that ultimately serves the cause
of anti-r e 1 i-
gion, of athe
ism.
It is no ac-
c i d e n t that
the phrase is
a pet : expres
sion of com
munists, and
is used by
them to justify oppression
ligion in any form.
In the true and American
sense, “separation of church and
state” means that government
power may not be used to favor
one church over others.
It means also that no church
is permitted to use government
for its sectarian purposes to gain
preference over other churches.
In the wrong sense, “separa
tion” means that the power of
government is employed to dis
courage religion, and to dis
criminate against religious citi
zens.
IT IS NOW high time, it
seems to me, for all Americans
to begin to make the distinction
between the right kind, and the
wrong kind, of “separation of
church and state.”
We have a patriotic duty to
see through the sloganeering of
persons who use the phrase as a
cloak for working against one
particular religion, and in the
long run against the whole re
ligious heritage of the American
people.
For more than 10 years, there
has been a barrage of propa
ganda in this country which has
blinded many Americans to this
necessary distinction.
That propaganda I hold, has
been seriously harmful to our
country and promises to grow
ever more harmful.
Protestants, Jews and Catho
lics ought to be working as al
lies to preserve and strengthen
religion among the American
people.
Instead, understanding and
cooperation have been terribly
damaged by the use of “separa
tion” as a device for harassing
Catholics and hurting religion.
“O Lord, behold the love in
the heart of your beloved Son,
which no tongue can describe.”
Mass of the Sacred Heart
• TALK OF LOVE is every
where. Practice of love is sel
dom. Every human heart knows
love and needs love. Love is
perhaps the most misused word
in the human vodabulary. Every
one talks about it, singers wail
about it, but only a few know
what it means. To find the true
definition of love as it was in
tended, we must look to the
Sacred Heart of Jesus. The heart
is symbol of love. The human
heart of Jesus stands for love
both human and divine. All
legitimate loves must be lighted
from this spark. Diplomats meet
and discuss, armies are trained,
and atomic devices invented and
perfected. All these methods are
nothing without love. Love is
what is needed to bring peace
and goodwill among nations of
Theological Virtue of Hope. We
shall say a little more about
these two Gifts next issue.
I CONTEND THAT both
America and religion are hurt
when “separation” is distorted
into an iron dogma which bars
a pupil in a religious school
from, so much as a ride in a
school bus or a health examina
tion at public expense.
That kind of thinking, carried
to its logical extreme, would de
prive religious school children
of the protection of policemen in
crossing streets.
I do not see ho.w a fairminded
person can fail to see that the
denial of bus rides and health
examinations is in the same
category as the denial of police
and fire protection.
NOW THE QUESTION has
come to head in the matter of
federal aid to education.
Many Protestants and Jews
will be unable to see the point
of view I urge—and the reason
is that they send their children
to public schools.
But unless they are very
short-sighted, they should be
able to conceive the possibility
that the time may come when
they will want their children in
religious schools too.
Indeed, they ought to be able
to understand the position of
Catholics without themselves
feeling the financial pinch.
Elementary fair play and
equal justice before the law are
violated by the idea of federal
aid which excludes millions of
American youngsters.
ELEMENTARY CONCERN
for the future of religion, too,
should cause Protestants and
Jews to ask themselves whether
they really want the federal
government’s taxing power used
to discriminate against the re
ligious education of children.
I am not at all sure that I
favor federal aid at all. I know
that I am opposed to it unless
it is really indispensable—which
I doubt. If state and local gov
ernments cannot do the edu
cating job under the present tax
setup, the wiser thing would be
to insist that the federal govern
ment relinquish some tax sources
to local and state governments.
Certainly it will be tragic for
America if federal aid becomes
an engine of taxation moving
toward the crushing of religious
education—and ultimately of
religion.
the world, among races and re
ligions and families and work
ers. How can we have world
peace when there is so little
knowledge of love born of the
Sacred Heart of Jesus?
* * *
© ASK FOR A definition of
love from a child of our age. His
definition is sure to be limited
to feeling, desire, pleasure. It
would perhaps involve two peo
ple or it might extend to an ob
ject such as love for pizza or ice
cream. We use one of the most
sacred words with such reckless
and thoughtless.(abandon. Love
in its true definition is com
pletely selfless. It knows no
boundariesr-It has no limits. It
is not lust,! possessiveness, gain,
satisfaction, security, sensation,
sense attraction, a well formed
body, an attractive hairdo, a
pressure of the hand. Look to
the “Imitation of Christ” for a
definition of love: “Love is
swift*, sincere, pious, pleasant;
strong, patient, faithful, prudent,
long suffering, courageous and
never seeks itself. Love is cir-
Continued on Page 5)
Sty* Huiblttt
416 8TH ST., AUGUSTA, GA.
Published fortnightly by the Catholic Laymen’s Association of
Georgia, Inc., with the Approbation of the Most Reverend
Bishop of Savannah; and the Most Reverend Bishop of Atlanta.
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 MARKW ALTER
Managing Editor
Vol. 41 Saturday, July 9, 1960 No. 3
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 MARKW ALTER, Augusta Executive Secretary
MISS CECILE FERRY, Augusta Financial Secretary
Jottings...
(By BARBARA C. JENCKS)