[
PAGE 4—THE BULLETIN, May 13, 1961
An Encouraging Decision
A sharply worded decision, handed
down recently by Superior Court Judge J.
Gilbert Prendergast in Baltimore could al
most be described as “music to the ears” of
all who have viewed with alarm the per
sistent efforts of a small, but voluble, clique
of atheists, agnostics, and professional agi
tators to drive any and every religious
influence from American public institu
tions.
In all too many cases they have suc
ceeded in driving Bible reading, prayer,
religious songs, religious symbols, and even
any reference to the religibus nature of
Christmas, Hanukkah and Easter from the
classes and the grounds of public schools.
In all too many cases they have im
posed the practical consequences of their
own beliefs, or lack of same, upon entire
segments of the American public, by judi
cial decree.
It is to be hoped that Judge Prender-
gast’s decision will be the beginning of the
reversal of a dangerous trend, by Courts
which seem to have forgotten the legiti
mate desires of the majority in their haste
to uphold the unreasonable demands of a
tiny but powerful minority.
The case dismissed by the Maryland
Judge began last October when a Mrs.
Madalyn Murray of Baltimore, a self-styled
atheist, withdrew her son from junior high
school in protest against the practice of
Bible reading or prayer at the opening of
the school day.
Mrs. Murray was not satisfied with the
ruling of the Baltimore School Board that
students could be excused from the exercis
es at the parents’ request, and challenged
the right of other children, who do believe
in God, to pray or to read from the Bible
in the public schools.
It is to the credit of Judge Prender
gast that he saw the plea for “constitution
al liberty” as a subterfuge, masking Mrs.
Murray’s real objective.
In dismissing the case he said, “It is
abundantly clear that petitioners’ real ob
jective is to drive every concept of reli
gion out of the public school system . . .
If petitioners were granted the relief
sought, then they, as non-believers, would
acquire a preference over the vast majority
of believers ... If God were removed from
the classroom, there would remain only
atheism . . . Thus the beliefs of virtually
all the pupils would be subordinated to
those of Madalyn Murray and her son.”
Americans of every religion will wel
come Judge Prendergast’s decision as a
hopeful and encouraging sign that the
courts of the land do not intend to allow
our religious freedom or the religious foun
dations of our society to be undermined
and destroyed by a most unlovely minority.
RUSSIA'S SPACE MAN
The
Did the Soviet Union actu
ally put a man in orbit, as
Premier Nikita Khrushchev
claims?
This is a question that has
been raised by Averall Harri-
man, former
Unite d
States Am
bassador to
Russia and
by two or
three mem
bers of Con
gress. Harri-
man stated
recently that jgg|j|jgg
he did not believe American
scientists ought to accept the
Soviet story about its cosmo
naut without scientific proof.
NO OFFICIAL QUESTION
But no official spokesman
for the government and no re
sponsible space scientist has
questioned the veracity of the
Soviet Premier. President
Kennedy promptly sent Pre
mier Khrushchev a warrnly-
worded message of congratu
lations. The director of the
siesmological laboratory at the
California Institute of Tech
nology, who is a member of thfe
President’s Science Advisory
Commission, told a convention
of newspaper editors recently
that “there is no doubt in the
minds of any knowledgeable
person in this field that the
Russians did what they said
they did.”
But there are knowledgeable
space scientists in the govern
ment who are not as convinc
ed as the California scientist
seems to be. They say that no
one in the government has any
scientific or intelligence evi
dence as to whether or not the
story is true, false or partly
both. All they know for certain
is that the Soviet Union had
the capability to orbit a ve
hicle of sufficient weight to
contain a man and that United
States tracking stations did
track a vehicle of some sort
in orbit, presumably launched
by the Soviet Union, on April
10.
The Russians had plenty of
JOHN C. O'BRIEN
reasons for inventing the
story about the orbiting cos
monaut. It is common know
ledge that they have been la
boring mightily to put a man
in orbit so as to capitalize on
the obvious propaganda advan
tage such an achievement
would give, them. They knew
the United States was working
.on its Mercury project. They
needed some kind of a propa
ganda victory to offset the
good impression the Kennedy
administration was making
among NATO and uncommit
ted ~ f countries until the failure
of the ill-starred invasion of
Cuba.
To have rigged a so-called
man-in-space exploit would
have been well within the cap
abilities of as shrewd and un-
principaled a propagandist as
the Soviet premier. He was
well aware that to lay a foun
dation for such a hoax all that
he needed to do was put a ve
hicle in orbit. The presence of
the vehicle in space was the
only element of the Soviet
claim that could be checked
by other countries. The report
ed return to earth (staged in
an area out of bounds for for
eign observers) could not be
checked by intelligence agents
of any foreign power.
The creation of a synthetic
cosmonaut and his elevation to
the rank of a national hero in
a well-staged, emotion-packed,
widely-publicized depionstra-
tion would be child’s play for
the Soviet propaganda ma
chine. With a controlled press
and radio and subservient
scientists, it would have been
just as easy to fool the Russian
people as those of other na
tions.
DISCREPANCIES
The skepticism that has been
expressed in this country
about the cosmonaut exploit is
based mainly on the discrep
ancies in the stories told by
the supposed cosmonaut about
his experiences in orbit and
in the reports in the Soviet
press and on the Soviet radio
about the return to earth.'
Major Yuri A. Gagarin told
about observing the strange
and startling brilliance of the
heavens and sighting coastlines
and other configurations of the
earth, including arable fields
green with crops. A Soviet
scientist in Italy said the ve
hicle which carried Gagarin
into space had no openings or
portholes. A later version said
the scenes described by Ga
garin were visible on tele
vision. Just how this was done
was not explained.
The question therefore aris
es, why, in view of the known
cupidity of the Soviet leaders,
the lack of any evidence to
support the Soviet claim and
the discrepancies in the Soviet
accounts of the exploit, the
government has not challenged
the Soviet story.
The answer is that United
States officials are afraid of
being mousetrapped. They fear
that the discrepancies were de
liberate. The Russians may
have planted them, hoping the
Untied States would raise a
question.
And if a question were rais
ed, United States officials su
spect the Russians may be in
a position to come forward
with the positive scientific
proof, as they did when the
United States tried to get away
with the story that the U-2 had
flown only a few miles into
Soviet air space. The Russians,
it will be remembered, produc
ed photographs and other
proof that the U-2 had flown
over the heart of Russia.
American scientists have ex
pressed the hope that the Sov
iet government will share
scientific information gained
on the reported man-in-space
exploit. It is possible they may
do this and thus remove all
doubt about Soviet claims. But
if they do not, it may be a long
time before we know whether
Yuri A. Gagarin was the first
man to orbit the earth or whe
ther Premier Khrushchev stag
ed the most gigantic hoax in
history.
LA DOLCE VITA
Sum and Substance
REV. JOHN B. SHEERIN, C.S.P.
A Cape Canaveral sermon is
one that never gets off the
ground because its load is too
heavy. La Dolce Vila is such a
sermon. This highly contro
versial movie opened in New
York t w
weeks ago.
It certainly
carries a
heavy load
of moral cri
ticism.
It con
demns the
h e d o n istic,
hypersexu a 1
life that, it cla
certain section of Roman so
ciety. It is unsparing and ruth
less in its revelation of the al
leged moral putreescence in
the Holy City. And yet, as far
as I was concerned, it “never
got off the ground.” It did not
hold my attention and I found
myself hard put to it to keep
from falling asleep when I saw
it at a private showing.
FUROR IN ITALY
The vulgarity of one or two
scenes is a question that will
be debated in the months to
come. But here I am discussing
only the producer’s art, the in
ability of the film to sustain
the viewer’s interest. It may
seem strange that there is any
question about the intrinsic in
terest of the film when you
realize that it has thrown Italy
into a furor.
Deputies in the Italian Par
liament have wrangled about
it, some demanding that it be
withdrawn from circulation,
others (notably the commu
nists) have heaped it high with
praise. Some Italian Catholics
have felt it was a good idea to
expose this festering sore in
Roman society, others have ob
jected that showing the film
would only publicize the rot
tenness, still others claimed the
film grossly exaggerated the
true facts,
Even producer Fellini’s con
freres in the movie industry
have blistered him with ad
verse criticism: Rosellini said
the film was the work of a
“provincial.” All of which
prompted Fellini to go on a
lecture tour to convince the
Italian public that his movie is
a valuable piece of social cri
ticism.
The New York critics agreed
it was a stark revelation of
moral corruption and as Bos
ley Crowther said in the New
York Times, “a withering com
mentary upon the tragedy of
the over-civilized.” Another
reviewer claimed the film
showed that a section of Ro
man society has reverted to the
paganism that laid low the Ro
man Empire 2,000 years ago.
Despite the controversy
touched off in Europe and de
spite the lavish praises of the
New York critics, I do not
think the American public will
find the move anything but
(Continued on Page 5)
Anniversary
FATIMA
May 13,1917
WE CAN ONLY TRY
s to Me
The Gallup poll reports that
an overwhelming majority of
Protestant Americans want in
dependent (parish and pri
vate) schools excluded from
federal aid to education.
Obviously,
Catholic
A m e r icans
are failing
in the effort
to get Amer
icans of oth
er religions
to under
stand and
s y m pathize
with their point
All we can do is keep on
trying.
As I have said, I am against
massive federal school aid.
I believe that once started,
it would end in nationalization
of education, and elimination
of local responsibility and con
trol.
Local control and responsi
bility are democratic and
American; nationalization isn’t.
I CANNOT UNDERSTAND
why people who bitterly op-
nose nationalization of busi
ness and industry seem half-
willing to open the door to
nationalization of schools.
Eventually, that means na
tionalization of minds. Then
nationalization of the other
things will be inevitable.
So — I say let’s not have
massive, across-the-board fed
eral intervention in education.
It’s too dangerous.
But, if it comes, I think in
dependent schools ought to
have some share in it. Not
enough share to run the risk
of nationalization; but share
enough to escape economic
strangulation.
Why do I think that inde
pendent schools — and in par
ticular religious schools — are
vastly more important than
most people seem to realize?
Because, both as an Amer
ican and as a religious be
liever, I fear religious illiter
acy, which is already frighten
ingly widespread.
RELIGIOUS IGNORANCE
can destroy both America and
religion. I don’t want to sum
mon up any bogies; but ignor
ance of religion cannot stand
against atheistic communism.
That such ignorance is a
serious threat to religion is ob
vious.
But it imperils America,
too. Only the person with reli
gious understanding can real
ly appreciate what makes
America America
America is America because
“we hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are
created equal, and are endow
ed by their Creator with cer
tain inalienable rights . . .
and that to secure these rights,
governments are instituted
among men, deriving their
just powers from the consent
of the governed.”
That is a religious concept.
It is what sets America apart
from communisms and other
totalitarianisms. Bill to the re
ligious illiterate it e means little
or nothing. Yet it is the soul
of America,
IT IS VERY ODD that a
JOSEPH BREIG
nation with such a soul should
have blundered into the edu
cational delemma in which
America finds itself.
The public school system
was instituted to eliminate il
literacy; to create a universal
ly educated people.
But now the public schools
must rigorously exclude that
vital branch of learning and
literacy called religion.
The public schools, there
fore — unless something is
done to free them from the
vise in which they are caught
— cannot serve America as
Americans need to be served in
the field of “we hold these
truths.”
I hope — and I believe the
good sense of the American
people gives me good reason
to hope — that sooner or later
the public schools will be set
free from the unreligious ham-
merlock.
I am afraid that won’t hap
pen, though, if the federal
government is maneuvered
into the position of favoring,
by financial pressure, religion
less education, and disfavoring
education which includes re
ligious literacy.
I THINK Protestants and
Jews ought to be as worried
about that as Catholics are.
A dereligionized America
would be as unlivable for
them as for anybody else. And
they love America just as
much as Catholics do.
What I particularly dread is
the establishment, as a princi
ple, of the idea that the fed
eral government must dis
criminate for ir-religion and
against religion. That is the
root danger facing us in the
matter of federal school aid.
That is what is profoundly
wrong and deadly dangerous
in current interpretation of the
Constitution — interpretations
which would gradually make
government an enemy of re
ligion and of religious literacy.
Does any religious American
of any denomination really
want to see such a thing come
to pass?
Jottings
"Your pain is the breaking of the shell that encloses your
understanding. Even as the stone of the fruit may break, that
its heart may stand in the sun, so must you know pain.
— The Prophet
• WHEN I WAS very young, as time measures both the
age of the heart and soul, I thought that suffering and pain
were the worst evils that could beset man. Most people in
the world fly before the Cross. Yet the mystery of suffering
works miracles in the soul. Suffering and pain may lay waste
the body, pierce the heart, unhinge the mind but offered
in union with the sufferings endured by an innocent Vic
tim for the love of us, each one personally brings a miracu
lous spring of grace into the soul. When we are young, we
shudder with repulsion at sickness, sadness, death, hurt, pain.
We grow up a bit and we still tremble before the shadow
of the Cross but we do not flee it, but neither do we embrace
it. The Crosses which come into our lives are blessings in
disguise if we can but control the trembling and calm the
frenzy. “Why is it that those writers who have suffered so
greatly have the greatest message for us?” asks a student.
Those who are touched with the cross in suffering incurable
diseases or death or sickness of loved ones, disappointments,
heartaches are so often the ones who are best able to com
municate to others in word or song or noble deed. Suffering
is perhaps the most necessary ingredient to sanctity.
* * *
® THE SICK, the old, the maimed, the bereaved, the
sad, lonely, heartbroken are not the people whom youth in
the vigor of life seek. Then something happens to them and
they are stopped in their pursuit of pleasure and gaiety and
are forced “to be still and know that I am God.” Sometimes
drastic changes take place in the souls of these young
pleasure seekers and the lives of the saints abound in such
stories — St. Francis, St. Ignatius, St. Camillus. There are
others who have the vision of suffering’s worth without
personal pain. Such was the case of Dr. Tom Dooley. Not
until after he had begun his work with the sick of Laos
was he personally stricken. It was true also with Father
Damien. Rare is the young person who can see with the
eyes of the soul and in a moment estimate the great value
of suffering and love the unlovely with all the reverence and
dedication and sweetness and tenderness that is extended
the powerful, rich and important of this world.
* * *
• IN MY CASE I had to experience personal suffering
myself before I came to appreciate its value. One has to be
stopped for a moment dancing among the roses of youth and
delights of the world by a thorn which is but a blessing in
disguise. Disappointments, personal suffering, seeing the suf
fering of others and the death of loved ones has brought
about a decisive change in my soul as it has done with others.
Christ suffered the awful agony of the Cross for me, why
can’t all my little bruises and scratches, splinters of the
(Continued on Page 5)
view.
di»
Hectory
•y TH« R«v, Safe®** K* Wharfes
“I do not see why men
should be so proud . . . in
sects have the more ancient
lineage.” This statement by a
gentleman named Don Mar
quis is very i:
d i s tressing.
Not that I
have any
thing against
bugs; it’s just
that I think
we should be
loyal to our
species. In
sects may do
us better in
length of their family tree, but
they can’t outclass us. My fam
ily, anyway, can trace its an
cestry back to — to — well, I
don’t know exactly whom, but
we’ve been descending for cen
turies.
This squabble about ances
try is ridiculous, to begin
with —• whether the bragging
is done by bugs or people. It
is said that the man who has
nothing to boast of but his
illustrious ancestors is like a
potato — the only good be
longing to him is underground.
There are lots of potatoes in
our society. They seem to
think that their family’s merits
will put them ahead in life
and plunk them in heaven as
well.
It’s true that heredity plays
a part in our makeup. The
fastest talker I’ve ever known
achieved his success by hered
ity; his father was a tobacco
auctioneer and his mother was
a woman. And your ancestors
can contribute very much to
ward your material success if
they leave you enough little
green pictures of jackson Lin
coln, and other well - known
Americans.
But, for the most part, high-
faultin’ ancestory contributes
little toward a successful life
and eternity! Most people end
up claiming ancestors who
were not really theirs — or
trying to hide the ones that
are theirs. One woman whose
grandfather was electrocuted
at Sing Sing tells everyone
that “Grandfather occupied
the chair of applied electricity
at one of our public institu
tions.”
So if your pillow is stained
with tears each night because
all your ancestors were hang
ed as horse thieves, don’t lose
heart, There’s one renowned
ancestor we can all claim:
Adam. And Eve, too, if you
want to make two sure beds
in the family album. It is an
article of our faith that all
men are descendants of Adam
and Eve. Aside from their
craving for apples, they did
all right, too; they are about
as illustrious as you can get.
Genesis, the first book of
the Bible, tells us that all have
come from one couple. Eve is
called the “mother of the liv
ing” and Adam is referred to
as the “father of the world,
who was created alone.” The
Acts of the Apostles quotes
St. Paul speaking to the Ath
enians (at a Communion
Breakfast, probably): “God
has made of one (man) all
mankind to dwell upon the
whole face of the earth.”
Our doctrine of original sin,
for that matter, is closely tied
up with this truth. In his
Epistle to the Romans, the
great Paul stressed our need
for a Redeemer because of the
fall of our first parents:
“Wherefore as by one man sin
entered into the world, and by
sin death; and so death passed
upon all men, in whom all
have sinned.”
The sciences agree with this
testimony of Scripture. His
torians say that Asia is the
cradle of the human race. All
languages, philology joins in to
claim, can be traced back to a
common tongue. And physiolo
gy shows that the variations of
the races are not essential —
the anatomical structure of all
men is the same.
Religion and science, there
fore, both join in to convince
us that all human beings are
descendants of common par
ents. It’s an important item to
realize, too. Racism and ex
treme nationalism and the
Nazi myth of a super-race are
all dealt a death-blow by this
fundamental truth of the unity
of the huma nrace. People can
seem terribly strange if they
have a different color of skin,
or speak a different language,
or have customs far removed
from ours.
Many have tried to get away
from this fact. Way back in
1655, de la Peyrere came up
with a theory that other peo
ple existed before Adam. But
nothing at all was proved, and
the author of the theory later
abandoned it and became a
sincere Catholic. Another idea
got nowhere, too: the theory
that God directly created oth
ers besides Adam. And the
ridiculous notion that we are
descendants of Abel while the
other races come from Cain
would mean nothing even if it
were true; we would still be
brothers because of Adam.
Some worry because they
know brothers shouldn’t mar
ry sisters. If Adam and Eve
v/ere the only people, they
reason, their children would
have to marry each other.
There’s no doubt that Mrs.
Cain and Mrs. Abel were sis
ters of the boys. But in. the
early days of the human race
this was a necessity and there
fore not morally wrong.
There’s no escaping this fact
of the unity of the human race
— unless we want to abandon
the solemn teachings of our
faith and the findings of sci
ence. There’s no escaping the
truth, either, that the unpleas
ant neighbor next door, the
fellow with the different skin
color, the starving peasant in
Asia — all of them are our
brothers with same great-
great-great-ects. - grandfather
we have.
Most important is this: we
don’t have to take second
place to insects at all. Our an
cestry goes back for who-
knows-how-many years. And
who’s running the world any
way: people or insects? May
be we’re not doing such a good
job running it. But I’d like to
see those ants and scorpions
and fireflies do any better.
Question
Box
By David Q. Liplak
Q. Is there any truth to the
report that Si. Philomena's
feast has been recently drop
ped from Church calendars
because there really is no
such saint?
A. It is factual that the name
of St. Philomena, who has
been popularly venerated on
August 11 in some localities,
has been ordered removed
from liturgical calendars. Im
plied in the order, which was
recently issued by the Sacred
Congregation of Rites, is a
prohibition against further de
votion to “St. Philomena.” The
Congregation did not officially
declare that this Philomena is
not a saint; but rather made it
clear that her historical exist
ence cannot be demonstrated
beyond reasonable doubt and
consequently her cult could no
longer be tolerated.
FOR THE past fifty years
most scholars of the question
have expressed serious doubts
as to the historical existence
of St. Philomena.
W hen her burial-place was
found in the catacombs of St.
Priscilla on May 24, 1802, it
was sealed by three tiles bear-
(Continued on Page 5)
Hulkltn
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, Ga. Send
notice of change of address to P. O. Box 320, Monroe, Ga.
REV. FRANCIS J. DONOHUE REV. R. DONALD KIERNAN
Editor Savannah Edition Editor Atlanta Edition
JOHN MARKWALTER
Managing Editor
Vol- 41 Saturday, May 13, 1961 No. 25
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 MARK WALTER, Augusta Executive Secretary
WSS LECILE FERRY, Augusta — Financial Secretary
