Newspaper Page Text
PAGE~4—THE BULLETIN, September 3, 1960
"..With Freedom and Justice for All"
In a recent edition of the Atlanta Con
stitution, publisher Ralph McGill sets forth
what he believes to be a “part of the com
plexity of the political problem” occasioned
-by the nomination of a Catholic for the
Presidency of the United States, namely,
-/‘parochial or church supported schools.”
Obviously, since the problem arises in
connection with a Catholic candidate for
public office, Mr. McGill really means
“Catholic schools.”
He goes on to say that “For many
thoughtful persons” this is a problem
“wholly outside the area of prejudice.”
With this we are in wholehearted agree
ment, particularly since the problem
seems to be shared by Mr. McGill, and
anyone familiar with his daily column
knows that religious prejudice is not part
of his make-up.
But with all due respect to the Atlanta
publisher, we must insist that the prob
lem of Catholic schools has no more foun
dation in fact than the conflict which he
sees between them and the public schools.
The problem stems from a misunder
standing of the raison d'etre of the Catho
lic schools and the “growing clamor” of
their supporters.
Catholic schools do not exist merely
because Americans enjoy freedom of
choice. They exist because Americans en
joy freedom of conscience. They do not
exist simply so that Catholic children may
have “extra” religious instruction not re
ceived in public schools. They exist so that
Catholic children may have adequate
•eligious instruction.
Catholic schools exist because the eon-
cience of the Catholic parent tells him
hat an educational program which neg-
scts an essential part of the human per-
nnality or a basic area of human know-
■dge and experience is an incomplete
.rogram. They exist because Catholic par
ents are humble enough to admit that they
are no more able to teach their children
all they need to know about their religion
than they are to teach them all they need
to know about mathematics, history or lit
erature. Catholic schools exist because
Catholic parents know that they, not the
state, must render an account of their
stewardship over the souls as well aTthe"
bodies of their children. In a word, Cath
olic schools exist because the Catholic
conscience echoes the scriptural admoni
tion, “Not by bread alone does man live,
but by every word that proceeds from the
mouth of God.”
No, Catholic schools do not exist mere
ly as the result of the exercise of free
choice, or capricious whim, or the mere
desire to be different. Nothing short of the
demands of the deepest conscientious con
viction could prompt the great sacrifices
necessary to maintain them.
We readily agree with Mr. McGill that
if parents merely desire more individual
attention for their children or a more spe
cialized training program, then they must
be willing to pay for it. But we emphatic
ally deny that Americans must “pay” for
exercising their freedom of conscience.
This brings us to the “growing clamor’
alluded to by Mr. McGill. Neither the
Catholic Church nor Catholic parents ini
tiated the cry for “Federal aid to educa
tion.” But the fact is that such aid is being
proposed — for public schools_only. This
aid would be furnished from the taxes
which all parents pay, but it would be
extended only to the children of some.
However, Mr. McGill seemingly thinks
that the parochial schools are in conflict
with or pose some sort of threat to the pub
lic schools since he closes his observations
with the remark that “public education
. . . must not be hurt by private schools.”
The “growing clamor” is the voice of
Catholic parents asking “How can it be
right for a government which guarantees
the free exercise of religion to penalize
us for exercising ours? “How can it be just
for the government to take our taxes to
educate someone else’s children while total
ly ignoring the educational needs of our
own?” It is the voice of parents who
know that it is they, not the city, or the
county, or the state who pay the taxes, and
who rightly reason that it is they, not the
city, county, or state who should receive
the benefits paid for by those taxes.
In short, there is no “problem” of
parochial or church related schools. Their
existence is only a living monument to
American Freedom of Conscience, and the
“growing clamor” of their supporters is
only for simple justice, nothing more.
Teacher-Student Ratio Challenged
THE BACKDROP
.VII
-
One of the most widely ac
cepted assumptions in the. field
hf? education, that teaching is
P’ ^Cost affective when classes are
un -
^rsoing seri
es re-evalu-
-ion.
In the jar-
.‘oh’ of the
.eaching pro
fession the re-
1 a t i o n be-
tweeh the size
of the class and the teacher is
‘known as the “teacher-student
ratio.” It is usually assumed
that the all-important ratio must
be maintained at any cost: one
teacher to 35 pupils at the ele
mentary level, one teacher to
25 pupils for high schools and
one teacher to 13 students for
colleges.
BETTER TEACHERS NEEDED
In view of the proclaimed
shortage of teachers and of
classrooms, the teacher-student
ratio is a matter of prime im
portance. If the present formu
la is correct, then the future
educational requirements of the
country can be met only by
vastly increased expenditures
for additional teachers and new
school buildings. If, however, a
teachdr can effectively instruct
larger classes, the so-called
“crisis” in education may be
relieved, in large measure, with
out a substantial increase in the
teaching force or in classroom
facilities.
At the recent annual Gover
nors’ Conference in Glacier Na-
By JOHN C. O’BRIEN
tional Park, the validity of the
accepted teacher-student ratio
was challenged by two promi
nent educators.
Alvin C. Eurich, vice presi
dent and director of The Fund
for the Advancement of Educa
tion, told the governors that the
“first shibboleth that requires
critical examination is the fix
ed teacher-student ratio.”
Dr. Lloyd S. Mitchell, chair
man of the Experimental Study
of the Utilization of the Staff
in the Secondary School, also
questioned the universal validi
ty of the accepted ratio and sug
gested that teaching talent was
being wasted on duties that
could be performed as effective
ly by less skilled personnel.
In , his address to. the gover
nors, Dr. Eurich maintained that
half a century of experimental
work does not support the ac
cepted teacher-student ratio. In
fact, he said, research places the
burden of proof on the propon
ents of smaller classes. Students
do as well, he said, on examina
tions and in many cases better,
if taught in larger classes by
superior teachers.
Instead of more teachers and
more classrooms to accommo
date smaller classes, Eurich sug
gested that what is needed are
better qualified teachers. A su
perior teacher, using such mod
ern facilities as television and
motion pictures, he said, can
impart instruction to a large
class more effectively than the
average teacher working with a
small group.
The use of television, Eurich
told the governors, has changed
ideas about the teacher-student
ratio. He said that in 600 school
districts throughout the country
courses are now being offered
over television. He quoted the
superintendent of schools of
Dade County, Florida, to the ef
fect that that county had sav
ed $3,000,000 in school construc
tion in three years by using
television in the classroom.
The chief advantage of this
type of instruction, the educator
pointed out, is that the talents
of a single, specially gifted
teacher, can be made available
to a larger number of students
than otherwise would be pos
sible.
Another way to utilize teach
ing talent more effectively, Dr.
Mitchell informed the gover
nors, is to relieve them of such
chores as supervising corridors,
cafeterias and study rooms and
maintaining school records.
Non-professional aides, he sug
gested, could perform such du
ties, and instructional assistants
could relieve teachers of such
work as correcting themes and
preparing laboratory demon
strations.
The answer to the school
problem, both educators agreed,
is not necessarily bigger school
budgets, a message that will fall
pleasantly upon the ears of tax
payers who now find that the
greater part of their county tax
es are being channeled into the
maintenance of the school sys
tem.
JOTTINGS
With Christ We Can Bear All Things
By BARBARA C. JENCKS
"With frequent — if possible
daily — Communion, I need
never feel an exile, never feel
cut off, never friendless and
alone. Though I may travel
a broad,
though I may
never enjoy
the happiness
of a home,
though strang
ers be my
compa n i o n s
all life through, I have Thee to
share my sufferings and sor
rows."
—Dom Hubert Von (feller
WE CRY “peace, peace but
there is no-peace.” Modern man
feverishly steeks "peace for his
world and peace for himself.
Life becomes- more discouraging
with each' daily headline. We
are surrounded by more mateJ-
‘
al bounty and less spiritual se
curity than at any time in the
history of man. We block our
ears against the beating of the
primitive Congo drum and to
the persuasive power of the
Madison Avenue hucksters.
Both symbolize the threats fac
ing modern man. We read of
undreamed scientific discover
ies, of new planet life, new mis
sile launchings and radar bal
loons. New areas of science are
operimg, yet no discovery has
brought peace to the heart and
soul of , man. We still cry .out in
the darkness of a night even
though a new radar missile has
been launched into the heavens.
We still feel physical pain and
spiritual need even though all
k(nds of luxuries are within
easy reach, thanks to credit
cards and charge accounts.
When will man realize that his
answer is the same today as it
was in the yesterdays of a
thousand years, and will be the
same in the tomorrows which
reach to the end of the world?
• MODERN MAN must be of
heroic substance to bear the
fears and threats of this day.
Warfare that threatens annihili-
ation seems very near. Yet a
more important battle is always
raging in the human soul: Who
am I? Where am I going? What
does life mean? These ques
tions are asked far more than:
What makes an atom? What
launches a lunar? What’s on the
moon? With a new planet life
being discovered, we still have
with us the age-old greeds lusts
as witnessed in headlines of
murder, delinquency. No new
food, drink, clothing;, car, home
will erase insistent fears and
(Continued on Page
- •
JOSEPH BREIG
CUT OFF
This is the second of my
series on education and religion.
I think I understand very well
the arguments and feelings of
those on both sides in any
discussion of
and religious
schools.
I am a prod
uct of a rather
u n u s ual ex
perience in al
ternating be
tween the two.
From the first
through the
sixth grades, I was in. a public
school in the then small town
of Vandergrift, Pennsylvania.
The seventh and eighth grades
were spent in a boarding school
not far away, St. Vincent’s, con
ducted by the Benedictine Fa
thers. Then followed four years
in Vandergrift High School.
Finally, I attended the Uni
versity of Notre Dame.
IN EACH CASE, the teaching
and example were excellent.
The faculties were devoted to
their work and their students. I
wish I had been as industrious
as those who labored to educate
me.
Religion was not excluded
from my public schools, as some
would have it excluded now,
and as I suppose it is in some
cases.
Classes were opened with
prayer and a Bible reading, and
the atmosphere was one of
unanimous agreement about
God’s existence, the moral code,
and the importance of religion.
To say that my public schools
were unreligious would be false.
OUR
There were some awkward
problems, though. The few
Jewish and Catholic students
were ill at ease because the
little religious exercises were
obviously Protestant. The bac
calaureate was largely a Protes
tant service, with a sermon by
a Protestant minister.
I UNDERSTAND FULLY the
attitude of those Jewish groups
which go to court to get rulings
against public-school religious
activities, including Nativity
scenes at Christmas, and the
like. They are trying to guard
the Jewish faith of their chil
dren.
I mention these matters to
preface a point I want to make.
I consider it of immense and al
most self-evident importance. It
is this: religious people, whether
Protestant, Jewish or Catholic,
should not fall into the folly of
supposing that the solution to
such small problems is the ex
clusion of religion altogether
from public schools.
When we do that, we play
into the hands of the irreligious
and the atheistic. We make the
mistake of driving religion out
of education in the name of re
ligion. We cut off our own noses,
and the noses of our children.
WE HURT our country and all
mankind. Because we do not
agree on everything about re
ligion, we religious people en
danger the whole religion and
moral heritage which underlies
civilization, and is the only ulti
mately stable foundation, for
any nation.
What seems clear to me is
that we ought to stop disputing,
NOSES
or at least take time out from
disputing, in order to put our
heads together for a religious,
not an irreligious, solution of
our problems.
Catholics and Protestants suf
fer if a Jewish child becomes
secularistic, or pagan, or indif
ferent about religion. Jews and
Catholics are hurt if it happens
to a Protestant youngster, and
Protestant and Jews if the
drifter is a Catholic.
Indeed, the whole nation suf
fers, and so does the human
community all around the world.
Communist atheism and coldly
self-seeking secularism are al
ways waiting to fill the gaps
left by loss of religion.
COMMON SENSE, than, would
seem to suggest that religious
people, who are in the great ma
jority, should work together to
make both the public schools
and the Religious schools every
thing that they might be.
Religious schools cannot serve
a nation as they should if
they are over-harassed by
financial stringency. Public
schools will be what clear-
thinking religious people wish
them to be if the spiritual
and moral are not given due
place.
This is true everywhere,
Americans surely desire that
each generation shall have the
religious background needed to
understand and cherish the
great religious principal of the
Declaration of Independence
and the Northwest Ordinance
—principles that have wrought
the marvel of the United States.
I will pursue this topic fur
ther next issue.
public schools
MAIL CARRIER EXPLAINS FAITH
SHARING OUR TREASURE
Reverend J. A. O'Brien, University of Noire Dame
Are you willing to explain
your Faith when questioned
about it? If not, you’re neglect
ing your duty and failing to use
a fruitful means of sharing
your precious treasure with
others. You don’t have to be a
theologian to fH
explain your
Faith or an
swer ques
tions. You can
secure the an
swers from|
books or from
your pastor. It I
was because |
Elwood Gilson of Sacramento,
California, answered questions
that he was able, with Gocl’s
grace, to help lead two families
into the fold and thus indirect
ly provide two priests for God’s
Church.
“I was a Sunday School teach
er,” related Sidney A. Hall of
Sacramento, “and a deacon in
the Baptist Church. I never
dreamed that I, a Bible-reading
and ardent Baptist, would one
day become a Catholic. Elwood
Gilson, a Catholic, and I were
mail carriers, and we often dis
cussed religion. I would often
stump him with Scriptural quo
tations which I thought prov
ed my religion.
“But Elwood would look up
the text, examine its context
and come back with an answer.
If he couldn’t figure it out him
self he would get the ■ answer
from a book or from his pastor.
So too it was when I asked
questions about the Catholic re
ligion which I thought was at
odds with the Bible.
“Elwood was a faithful read
er of Our Sunday Visitor, and
the would often supplement his
explanations of the Catholic
Faith by giving me copies of the
Visitor. I found that paper a
mine of information, and liked
the simple friendly manner in
which the articles were written,
This was going on for five years
and I found my interest con
stantly increasing. Indeed I was
gradually convinced that the
Catholic religion was the true
one.
“Elwood persuaded me to at
tend a week’s mission with him
at St. Francis Church, and that
helped me a lot. In one of his
sermons the missionary startled
me by saying, ‘If you believe
the Catholic Church is the true
Church and remain out of it,
you’re turning your back upon
God and you cannot expect to
be saved/ That both shocked
and challenged me. It made me
see I’d have to do something
about this matter.
“I had Elwood take me to his
pastor, Father Gilbert Zlator,
O.F.M., and asked him what I
had to do to become a Catholic.
He gave me a book by David
Goldstein to read and told me
to come back when I had fin-
(Continued on Page 5)
POLITICKING
in the
Rectory
Rev. Robert N. Wharton
An Irish priest once delivered
a number of fiery sermons de
nouncing the British, and was
finally ordered by his bishop to
lay off at
once. He did
steer clear of
the subject for
a month, and
then one day
a n n o u n ced
that he was
going to tell
the story of
the Last Supper.
“Our Lord,” he reminded his
listeners, “told His disciples that
one of them would betray Him.
The venerable Peter asked, ‘Is it
I, Lord?’ Our Lord answered,
‘It is not.’ In turn, Thomas,
John, James, and the others
asked the same question and
received the same reply.
“Then Judas Iscariot arose
from his chair, looked shiftily
about the room, and asked gruf
fly, ‘Bli’ me, I say, Guv’nor, is it
I?”
I really doubt that Judas Is
cariot was English. If his name
had been Iscariotingham or
something like that, maybe.
Anyway, the moral of the story
is clear — politicking and
preaching don’t mix. We stand
for separation of politics and
pulpit.
But if politics have no place
in the pulpit, patriotism is right
at home there. We can’t favor
one candidate over another, one
party instead of others. But af
ter the candidate and his party
are in, we surely can take the
stump in their favor.
The fourth commandement,
which directs that we respect
and obey our parents, includes
the precept that we show loy
alty to civil authorities. The au
thorities, after all, represent the
country. And what is the coun
try but a community of human
souls — and bodies, too? The
nation is not a thing without
life, then, but a human group
that nourishes and sustains us.
I hope I’m not oozing too
much sentiment now. I write
this way because patriotism
(Joes not depend upon sentiment
or what we can get out of oth
ers. Love and respect for our
country and its leaders is based
on a down-to-earth duty coining
from God.
The great Apostle, St. Paul,
was not on the best of terms
with the government of Rome
since they put him in chains
and eventually killed him. Yet
he was bold enough to write to
the Romans: “There exists no
authority except from God, and
those who exist have been ap
pointed by God.” When we obey
just authorities, in other words,
we are obeying God Himself.
An unjust government can’t
demand our respect, of course.
But just because the “wrong”
party is in power, that doesn’t
necessarily mean the admini
stration is unlawful. Once the
leaders take a stand against
freedom, religion, motherhood
and such things — we all can
go underground and start blow
ing up bridges. But until then,
such behavior would be very
disturbing to the peace and
welfare of the citizens. Espe
cially of those who have to cross
bridges.
Our patriotic duty means,
then, obeying the laws of the
land. They may not be the most
enlightened statutes but they
are to be followed anyway. We
include those most easily brok
en laws, the traffic laws.
Patriotism also means paying
taxes. We’re going to pay taxes
if we buy anything at all, of
course. Everything is taxed now
except the air, and they might
get around to putting a levy on
that if they can figure out how
many breaths each individual
takes in an average minute.
Nevertheless, a good citizen
bears his burden of the cost of
running the country.
Another obligation we have is
to defend our country. Others
might be able to plead consci
entious objections to the bearing
of arms. But not good Catholics.
Our Church teaches that we
can rightfully repel force with
force.
Our obligation ceases, of
course, if the war is unjust from
our standpoint. But who can say
it’s unjust? Heaven help us if
every citizen starts to make his
own decisions about that. The
responsibility for the justice of
the cause lies with the leaders
alone.
One duty falling on every
one’s shoulders is that of taking
an interest in the affairs of the
nation. Democracy is at a low
ebb when most persons think
that Chiang Kai-shek is a Chi
nese dish, that Poland is just
the place where the sausage
comes from, and that Hungary
is what we are during the late
show. I
Especially in a democracy, we
should manifest interest in the
affairs of state. It may some
times seem that our interest
makes little difference with so
many voices to be heard. But
unless we live in the District of
Columbia, we all have the priv
ilege of voting. We can write to
our congressman. We can choose
our leaders for reasons other
than their pleasant smile or su
gary words.
A country such as ours
abounds in rights, and we lose
no time in demanding them
when we want. But if the rights
are many, the duties must be
equally numerous. Otherwise,
we will lose those rights.
This teaching of the Church,
that patriotism is a duty, is one
which should make us proud to
be Catholics and Americans. We
preach respect for authority and
love for country, and these are
the virtues that will keep the
nation strong.
So if this be politicking, then
you can call me the political
priest. But St. Paul, at least,
agrees with me.
Question
Box
(By David Q. Lipiak)
Q. A newspaper article on the
possibility of planetary human
life distinct from our own (the
article was based on a feature
in "America" magazine) seems
almost incredible to me. Is such
a possibility only imaginative
theorizing, or is it actually
probably? And is it true that
our Christian Faith places no
obstacles to such theorizing?
A. That rational life distinct
from our own may exist on
other planets is sheer specula
tion. But the hypothesis is by
no means absurd. On the con
trary, it is eminently reason
able, in view of the awesome
infinity, wisdom, omnipotence
and supreme goodness of God,
the Eternal Creator and Sus-
tainer of the universe.
THE LOGIC of this hypothe
sis become vaguely apparent
when one considers, for in
stance, that there are over one
billion galaxies in the known
universe (among which our own
Milky Way is insignificant), em-
(Continued on Page 5)
Sullrfitt
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 MARKWALTER
Managing Editor
Vol. 41 Saturday, September 3, 1960 No. 7
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