Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

PAGE 4—THE BULLETIN, October 29, 19G0 IM GOD WE imPST Sometime ago a prominent Catholic magazine published an article maintaining that espionage activities on the part of the United States against Soviet Russia are fully justified in the face of the vast Red spy network, which some experts believe includes more than sixty percent of all Soviet personnel in the United States. Then the article closed with the observation that, while we are justified in relying on espion age to help us counter Communist moves, we might be well advised to place a great deal more faith in the official U. S. motto, “In God We Trust.” It would seem that Trust in God is also the only answer to the growing cam paign of religious bigotry connected with the coming Presidential election. Reason, example, and all the efforts of fair-minded men to stem a shameful • and rising tide seem to have failed. For many months, Catholic papers and periodicals have been recounting the. con stant practice of the Catholic Church in America, with regard to religious liberty, and publishing the unequivocal statements of the American Catholic Hierarchy, given over two centuries, upholding complete re ligious freedom for all Americans. The Catholic clergy have scrupulously avoided any action or statement which might be interpreted as an attempt to direct Cath olics to vote for or against either party or candidate. But, far from ameliorating a campaign attacking the intellectual honesty, integrity and patriotism of 40,000,000 Americans of the Catholic Faith, the statements of the Catholic Press and the example of the Catholic Church throughout the nation seems only to have spurred the bigots on to renewed and more violent attacks. Catholics all over the country have been urged to avoid fighting bigotry with bigotry, antagonism with antagonism, and to act instead as Christ, Himself acted, when unjustly accused. When Christ was accused of having a devil, he denied it and showed why such an accusation was false. Men of good will listened to his reason. Others did not, and when they again accused him falsely be fore Pilate He held His peace, and prayed for them from the Cross, “Father, forgive them.” We have shown by word and example that the charges brought against us are not true. Men of good-will have listened to us and believed our words, accepting our example as proof. We hope these men are in the majority. But the facts are clear. There are oth ers, all too many of them, whose minds are filled with ancient antagonisms and un enlightened bv Christ-like Charity. We must leave them to the workings of Divine Grace, placing our faith, not in the power of reasonable persuasion and the testimony of 200 years of American History, but in our National motto, “In God We Trust.” SEMANTIC CONFUSION IN U.N. THE BACKDROP One of the difficulties con fronting the statesmen as sembled in the United Nations General Assembly is the se mantic confusion about the meaning of words in general curr e n e c y. Ordinary terms, such as “neutral,” seem to mean one thing in the West, anoth er thing in other parts of the world. The five heads of state who introduced the resolution call ing for a meeting between President Eisenhower and Ni kita Khrushchev refer to themselves as the “neutralist” bloc. In the sense that “neutral ist” is understood bv President Eisenhower. British Prime Minister Harold MacMillan and otbpr western statesmen, a “neutralist” bloc would be a groun who side with neither the West nor the East in the cold war disnute. PLAY KHRTTBHCHEV'S GAME But the question arises by what titles can Indian Prime Minister Nehru, Ghana Pres ident Nkrumah, Carnal Abdel Nasser, president of the Unit ed Arab Republic; President Tito, of Yugoslavia and Presi dent Sukarno, of Indonesia lay claim to the designation “neu tralist.” Even if we assume that the five statesmen were sincere in their belief that another meet ing between Khrushchev and Mr. Eisenhower is imperative —a questionable assumption in the case of all but Nehru— they were, in fact, playing By JOHN C. O’BRIEN Khrushchev’s game in calling for one. The Soviet leader came to the United States with two ends in view: one, to embar rass the President by suggest ing another meeting on his terms — an apology for the U-2 incident — the other, dis ruption of the United Nations. Khrushchev knew the Pres ident would not agree to a meeting on such terms and that Mr. Eisenhower could turn a deaf ear to his sugges tion without embarrassment. Embarrassment would come only if the proposal came from outside the communist orbit. And Khrushchev had no dif ficulty finding so-called “neu tral” statesmen to serve his aims. How neutral, however, are the signatories to the resolu tion demanding the Khrush- chev-Eisenhower meeting? In his tirade before the Gen eral Assembly, Khrushchev made certain demands, all in tended to destroy, as Secretary of State Herter noted, the United Nations: 1) Removal of Secretary- General Dag Hammarskjold. 2) Abolition of the Secreta riat and substitution of a three-member presidium, rep resenting the West, the East and Africa and Asia. 3) Removal of the UN from the United States. 4) Sunport of communist leaning Patrice Lumumba in the Congo. 5) Admission of Red China into the UN. All of these demands were opposed by the United States and most of them by its allies in the West. But in the main, the five “neutralist” statesmen proclaimed support of the communist line. SUPPORT LUMUMBA Nehru refused to go along with the condemnation of Hammarskjold, reorganization of the Secretariat and removal of the UN from the United States. But he favored admis sion of Red China to the UN, and supported the claims of the Lumumba government. Nasser also withheld sup port for the reorganization of the UN, although he was crit ical of Hammarskjold. But he too called for admission of Red China and backed the Lu mumba claims in the Congo. Kwame Nkrumah, head of the Ghana government, almost went whole hog for the Khru shchev program. He balked at abolition of the UN secretariat but suggested the creation of three deputies, each repre senting one of three blocs into which the world is divided. He backed, however, the de mand for admission of China and the Lumumba govern ment. In fact he has been ac cused by the President of the Congo of offering in writing to help Lumumba establish himself in power with the aid of Ghana troops serving under the UN. If the letters are not genuine, Nkrumah did not un dertake to question their gen uineness. Indonesian President Sukar no went all the way with the Soviet premier, for reorganiza tion of the UN and for uphold ing the Lumumba claims. Marshal Tito, the other member of the quintet, insti gated the proposal for a Khrushchev-Eisenhower meet ing and called for UN support of the Congo’s communist- oriented claimant to the pre miership. JOTTINGS HE IS THE BOY" By BARBARA C. JENCKS “You arc all beautiful, O Mary, you are the glory, you are the joy, you are the honor of our people.” * * * * every oc- lltt^young « THERE is such vastness to our Marian treasury! What would we do without Our. Lady to call upon under a litany of titles M casion and need- child calls upon i ts mother in sorrows, sick ness, joys and sun- shine. We are never without a Mother whatever we do, what ever we become, wherever we go. We all have our favorite titles for Our Lady and our favorite Marian feasts and de votions. One of my favorite titles of Our Lady is “Star of the sea.” We have our favorite modonnas and our favorite stories. In this month of Our Lady, I would share a very special story with readers written by G. K. Chesterton with an Irish setting. Of course, the devo tion of the Irish to the Mother of the God and to the rosary is proverbial. The Irish speak of Our Lady as if she were their next door neighbor. There is that familiar close ness without any lack of rev erence. Read then this story from the vast Marian treasure and see if you aren’t moved by it, too. It is called “He is the Boy.” • "I HEARD this story in Donegal twelve years ago; but I know nothing of the origin of the story. It told how some one had met in the rocky wastes a beautiful peasant woman carrying a child, who, on being asked for her name answered simply: “I am the Mother of God, and this is Himself, and He is the boy you will all be wanting at the last.” I had never forgotten this phrase, which expresses the spirit of which I speak in a language which is a natural literatures; and I remember it suddenly long afterwards, when I fancied I had found something that expressed it also, not in literature but in sculpture. “I was looking about for an image of Our Lady which I wished to give to the new church in our neighborhood, and I was shown a variety of very beau tiful and often costly exam ples in one of the most famous and fashionable Catholic shops in London. It is the glory of the great cult of Mary that she has appeared to painters and sculptors under a variety of bodily types almost wider than the actual variety of all the women in the world. She has been the patroness of so many lands and cities that she has become the center of ev ery scheme of ornament or school of architecture; and her garments have been made of all the materials of the world. Here there was everything, from what some would call the conventional dolls of the Repository to what somfj would call .the harshest cari catures of the Primitives. But somehow I felt fastidious, for the first time in my life; and felt that one kind was too con ventional to be sincere and the other too primitive to be popular. But for some reason, all the types shown to me left me not indeed cold but vague, and I ended prosaically by following the proprietor to an upper floor, on some matter of mere business. “T h e upper room was a sort of lumber room, full of packages and things partially unpacked, and it seemed suddenly that She was sanding there, amid planks and shavings and saw dust, as She stood in the car penter’s shop in Nazareth. I said something, and the pro prietor answered rather cas ually: “Oh, that’s only just been unpacked; I’ve hardly looked at it. It’s from Ireland! • THE COLORS were tra ditional; but the colors were not conventional; a wave of (Continued on Page 5) Sam > %ojf- You Look Poorly, JOSEPH BREIG What School Is For I am completely confident that there is no nation or re gion on earth where the peo ple wish education to be eith er actively or passively antag onistic or indifferent to reli gion. The great popular de sire is ex- pressedin Americ a’s North west Ordinance — schools should for ever be en- couraged, because religion and morality are necessary for good gov ernment. Every scientific poll ever conducted testifies to what history and experience tell us: that human beings in the overwhelming plurality be lieve in God. They want their children to believe, too. Emphatically so. Indeed, they want their young sters to be religiously and morally wiser and better than they are. Surveys have repeatedly shown that even persons who proclaim themselves commu nists, in many cases, send their sons and daughters to church and to religious instructions. FROM THE DAWN of re corded time, the atheist has always been an oddity — so much so that folks generally take his godlessness with a liberal dose of salt. This skepticism about the atheist’s atheism is the result cf a sound instinct. The athe ism of a great many self- styled atheists is at deepest only skin deep. It is common enough to dis cover, while talking with an atheist, that what he declines to believe in is not God at all, but a ridiculous caricature of God in his own mind. In other cases, the atheist does not disbelieve; he is merely revolting against the failure of many believers to live up to the nobility which belief in God entails. For example, I think that many of the Russian maxists did not know enough about God to reject Him. They sim- oly rebelled against social in justices permitted by lip- believers. BE THAT AS IT MAY, I am sure that people every where would vote in the vast majority that youth shouli be literate in religion as well as in the other Rs of the edu cated person. I feel that we who are reli gious, whether Jew, Protes tant, Catholic, Moslem or whatever, have been distract ed and . tricked by outcries about “separation of church and state.” I think we ought to get back to the central problem of our time, which is that of seeing to it that coming gen erations are not left in ignor ance about religion and mor ality. Young people taught, train ed and oriented in theology and ethics would be proof against the demagogs who have ravished our civilization — the Hitlers and their kind. Emphatically, religion and morality are necessary for good government; and the world today is in truly terrible need of that. In this series of articles, therefore, I have urged that we put aside hairsplittings and sterile disputings about com parative trivialities, and look to mankind’s tomorrows. I have made two chief pro posals: Some way must be found to allow public schools to serve religious parents and religious children, without infringement on the conscience of anyone. The harassment of religious schools — calling them “divi sive” and “undemocratic” and all that sort of thing — ought to give way to friendliness to ward them. I do not know how public schools can cooperate in help ing parents to see that their children learn religion along with the other requisites of the cultured person. All I say is this: there must he some way in which this can be accomplished, and the wav can he found if our best minds address themselves with good will to the problem. Neither do I know precisely how the unequal financial burdens of parents with chil dren in religious schools can be eased to a reasonable ex tent. I merely hold that it can be done, and ought to be done, and will be done if America ingenuity and fair play are allowed to operate without the heckling of small minds. With this, I close my series on education and religion. Washington Letter By J. J. Gilbert WASHINGTON — The vis it of Nikita Khrushchev to the United Nations may have dealt a blow to diplomacy as the world has known it for three centuries. This is not because of Khrushchev’s antics in the us ually staid UN. It is because he wants to substitute sum mit meetings for so-called quiet diplomacy, and may have moved a step nearer his goal. Many have wondered why Khrushchev ever came to the UN. What could he have hop ed to achieve by this maneu ver? He suffered some revers es in the U. N. General As sembly balloting, but few will want to dismiss his trip as a waste of time. It is altogether possible that a principal objective of his coming was to frighten the West into another summit meeting. The UN offered him a large stage and big hack- drop for his effort. He dra matically threw down th<* gauntlet on this issue. He tqld the West: Have another sum mit meeting soon after the U. S, elections, or take the consequences in the Berlin crisis. This certainly sounded like a threat. Khrushchev has been trying to convince people that ^sum mit meetings are the thing. He claims that leaders of big powers coming together can quickly settle big issues. Old style diplomacy, where am bassadors or foreign ministers met beforehand in seclusion and settled precisely what the heads of state would agree to later at a publicized meeting, he calls a waste of time. Diplomacy as we know it to day goes back to the 17th cen tury. It calls for trained career diplomats, highly skilled and long experienced, to meet quietly and prepare the way for their leaders. The diplo mats overcome difficulties, iron out problems, draw up points of agreement. Then when the chiefs of state meet to formalize such agreements all goes smoothly. If the am bassadors fail to reach an agreement, there will be no meeting of the chiefs of state. If they should reach an agree ment, only to have a chief of state upset the apple cart at the publicized meeting, the world would know whom to blame. A principal concern in all this is to prevent embarrass ment — to nations and to their leaders. Summit meetings, on the other hand, seemed planned by the Reds as an occasion to embarrass the West. The com munists use such meetings as sounding boards for propa ganda and, as in the case of the Paris meeting, an occasion to insult and humiliate the head of another state. They have not achieved what Khru shchev says they will achieve. Nothing is agreed upon in ad vance; nothing is agreed upon at the meetings. But, with some of the so- called neutral nations pressing for a meeting of Eisenhower, and Khrushchev, and with Khrushchev having made such a threatening demand for an other summit meeting, it is to be expected that there will be unremitting pressure on the United States to take part in another such gathering. It would not take too many summit meetings for career diplomats to become rusty in their trade, and for the world to come to look upon “sum mitry” as the diplomacy of our day. TIP TO MOTORISTS Bear in mind that jumping traffic lights and easing by stop signs are both had habits —habits that are potentially dangerous. SLOW DOWN Be cautious at school cross ings — give our children their right-of-way to a long life. Tho Rev. Raises'.' 53. Whnrlon It was the day before First Friday and the children were waiting in long lines at the confessionals. As he neared the box, Elwood began to fid get and grow restless. His pal n o t i c e d it. “W h a t ’s wrong, El wood?” “I’m scared to death, Herman. I’m next and 1 don’t have anything to say. Lend me some of pay you back next week. Neither a borrower nor a lender be, Elwood. Especially of sins. It would be something if we could borrow and lend sins. It would be good to unload them on someone else — and if the sins are like every other loaned object, they probably would never be returned. The disadvantage would be that only someone like Elwood would want to borrow them. Our Savior Himself, thank heaven, took care of the whole problem. He instituted the priesthood, and every Catholic has the privilege and duty of unloading his sins on the priest. Sins are terribly personal. They’re the only thing, in fact, that we can really call our own. Good works we accom plish with God’s help. But your sins — they’re yours. One of the greatest moments of history, then, was when Christ said to His apostles, “Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” These words of the Savior are the answer to the ques tion of those outside the Church: “Why do you confess your sins to the priest?” Be cause Christ wants us to, that’s why. That’s why, moreover, the renowned convert, G. K. Chesterton, was drawn to the Faith. “I entered the Catholic Church,” he once said, “to get rid of my sins.” It was getting rid of her sins that brought peace and happiness to Helen Hayes, the “first Idav of the American theatre,” three years ago. She had been awav from the Church almost 30 years. On the day of her return, she walked around the block 20 times reciting the Rosary be fore she could summon enough courage to enter the confes sional. After it was over, however. Miss Hayes said. “It was as if the years had fallen away and I was a little child again, safe in a world I’d almost lost, re turned to it at last.” Every Catholic whose Faith is in good working condition feels somewhat the same jov after a good spiritual cleans ing on Saturday night. It’s not that grace has so much to do v/ith feelings. It’s just that of all the experiences of Faith, the one that gives the greatest “lift” is the forgiveness of sins. It’s not often wo should feel the urge to borrow sins. We all have enough of, them crying for recognition. If the weeks have rolled by and we just can’t think of anyth ins to say, a good examination of conscience is in order. Haste makes waste — of the nrecious graces we should be setting from confession. Mrs. Zilch is double-parked, facing the wrong way on a one-way street, so she zips in and out of church so fast the confes sional curtain is still fluttering as she starts the engine. Ee- amination — nil. Mr. Zilch receives the sac rament of Penance every Holy Saturday, whether he needs it or not. There’s enough time to examine several consci. nces in the long line, but he spends his time examining the crazy hat on tire lady across the aisle. Result: “Bless me, Fa ther, for I have sinned. My last confession was a year ago. I was impatient two times. That’s all.” A whole year and only two little sins of impa tience? Mrs. Zilch married a saint. There are, after all, - ten commandments— each cover ing a multitude of sins. There are the precepts of the Church, the capital sins, and various other virtues and vices that should be included in a good examination of conscience. If the examination is good, the actual confession will be equally good. And the peace and joy of a conscience cleansed will make the time and effort seem as nothing. uestion 1m By DAVID Q. LIPTAK G. Isn't the term "rosary" a generic one, there being several other rosaries be sides the Rosary of Our Lady? Isn't there, for in stance, a Rosary of the Sev en Dolors? A. The term “rosary” should properly be used only with reference to the Rosary Devo tion- (i.e., the Rosary of Our Lady) or to the beads com monly used for the Rosary Devotion. THE ROSARY DEVOTION, as defined by Pope Pius V, is “the psalter of Mary, in which the Blessed Mother of God is greeted one hundred and fifty (or fifty) times with the An gelic Salutation . . . together with the Our Father for every ten Hail Marys and also cer tain meditations that represent the entire life of Jesus.” FROM THIS definition it is evident that beads are not es sential to the Rosary. All the general Rosary indulgences, including the plenary indul gence for reciting the Rosary before the Blessed Sacrament, can be gained so long as the prescribed Paters and Aves are said with the required meditation. BUT IF BLESSED BEADS are used, many extraordinary snecial indulgences can be gained in addition to the gen eral Rosary indulgences listed in official prayer books. The kind and number of these spe cial indulgences depend upon the blessings imparted to the beads. These special indul gences are popularly known as the ABCD indulgences (i.e., Apostolic, Brigittine, Crosier and Dominican). Apostolic in dulgences are bestowed by the Holy Father; the others, by priests having the necessary various faculties. STRINGS OF BEADS resem bling Rosaries should rightly be referred to as “chaplets.” Such is the judgment of the Holy See on the matter. In the word s of Pone Leo YTTT again: ''THE TRUE FORM Of; the Rosary is to be preserved in reference to the beads by mak ing them up into five, ten or fifteen decades; likewise, that other beads, or whatsoever form are not to he known by the name of the Rosary.” FURTHER, it is the'mind of of the Church that no Rosary- iike devotions or beads be in troduced without explicit per mission. Approval has been given for a few such devo tions, including the Brigittine Chaplet, the Franciscan Chan- let of the Seven Joys and the Servile Chaplet of the Seven Dolors. 8Ipe HttUrtitt 41S 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. Ga. Send notice of change of address to P. O. Box 320, Monroe, Ga. REV. FRANCIS J. DONOHUE REV. R. DONALD KTERNAN Editor Savannah Edition Editor Atlanta Edition JOHN MARKWALTER Managing Editor Vol. 41 Saturday, October 29, 1960 No. 11 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 CEGILE FERRY, Augusta Financial Secretary