Bulletin (Monroe, Ga.) 1958-1962, January 20, 1962, Image 4

Georgia Historic Newspapers

Bulletin, January 20, 1962, Image 4

About Bulletin (Monroe, Ga.) 1958-1962 | View Entire Issue (Jan. 20, 1962)

Page of 8

Prev Issue Next Issue

Text PDF JP2 (6.0 MB) Clip/Print Image

Page of 8

Prev Issue Next Issue

Return to Top

Newspaper Page TextPAGE 4—THE BULLETIN, January 20, 1962 RED CHINA PAYS THE PRICE The Backdrop Work of Peace Communist China has had to pay a price for its open defiance of Soviet Premier Ni kita Khrushchev at the 22nd Congress of the Soviet Com munist Party. That challenge to Moscow’s leadership of world com munism cost Red China the kind of all-out Rus sian support that presum ably could have won a seat for Mao Tse-tung’s gov ernment in the United Na tions. The motion to seat Red Chi na was defeated by a vote of 48 to 37 with 19 nations ab staining. The defeat was so de cisive in the opinion of most United Nations observers, that Red China’s chances of becom ing a member have been set back for several years. NO PRESSURE The Soviet Union, having clamored for years for the ad mission of the Chinese Reds and having offered the ad mission resolution, went through the motions of sup porting its communist neigh bor. Soviet Delegate Valerian A. Zorin delivered his stock speech blaming the United States for the long impasse over Chinese representation. But, so> far as the American delegation could discover, the Soviet Union delegate neglect-, ed to put the pressure on the uncommitted Asian and Afri can nations that it was ex pected he would try to exert. Had he done so, it is general- JOHN C. O'BRIEN ly agreed, there would not have been as many votes against the • Soviet resolution or as many abstentions. For these nations are reluctant to vote with the West when Mos cow has made it clear that it expects their support. Whether or not the Soviet' Union was not deeply inter ested in the success of the ad mission resolution is not known. In any event, it is agreed, Soviet support of its pwn proposal was half-heart ed. There are many reasons, of course, why Moscow should have lost its enthusiasm for seating its principal rival for the undisputed leadership of world communism. The open criticism of Soviet strategy at the 22nd Party Congress was a grievous af front to the Soviet Premier. Heretofore, differences had been hotly debated within the communist family but this was the first time the dispute had been brought into the open for all the world to hear. MINIMIZE RIFT Even now Moscow spokes men attempt to minimize the seriousness of the rift between Moscow and Peking. Only a few days ago Soviet Ambas sador Mikhail Menshikov warned that the West would be indulging in “wishful thinking” if it believed that the bonds of friendship be tween the two main commun ist camps were weakening. Yet, the fact is that in re cent years Peking has become a determined rival for the al legiance of native communist movements in many of the un- committeed countries. And in some of these they have achieved a measure of success, although Moscow still retains the greater number of adher ents. What chiefly worries Mos cow is the effort of the Red Chinese to infiltrate and even tually take control of indigen ous nationalist movements di rected at colonialism and western imperialism. Chinese agents seek to convince native nationalists that they can achieve their aims only by armed revolution and immedi ate establishment of Chinese- style communist regimes. To follow the Soviet line that communism can win on its merits without resort to force, the Chinese Reds maintain, is sheer folly. In less than a decade, the Soviet Union has discovered, Peking had developed a prop aganda machine second only to its own. In 1960, for example, Radio Peking increased its output to foreign audiences by 34 per cent. At the same time, Peking steadily increased its contacts with the uncommitted nations in Southeast Asia, Africa and South America. No fewer than 113 African delegations visited mainland China during 1960. In the same year, 20 Chinese Red delegations were sent to Latin America, while Latin American delegations to Pe king increased from 47 in 1958 to 168 in 1960. The number of delegations from Asian non- communist nations visiting mainland China rose from 109 in 1958 to 131 in 1960. SBB8 ^ SN ' \gORLD COUNCIL f9M / DORIS REVERE PETERS eWorld ndwerd YOUTH Fears 'Awful Mistake' In Attending First Wedding Dear Doris: I am 16 and my cousin who is 20 has invited me to her wedding. It will be the first wedding I have ever attend ed. My mother can’t go with me and I’m afraid I’ll make some awful mistake. Is there anything special I should do? Cindy Yes, relax and enjoy your self. Use the same manners at a wedding that you use at any social activity. However here are a few tips which may help put you at ease. Make sure you get to the church early. Five or ten min utes ahead of time will do. When you are greeted by an usher tell him you are a cousin of the bride so he can escort you to the proper side of the aisle. You should have no trou ble following a nuptial Mass. If there is just the marriage ceremony but no Mass, watch the other guests and follow suit. At the reception you will “go through” a receiving line where you meet members of both families. It’s necessary to say only a few words such as “it is a lovely wedding” or “isn’t the bride beautiful?” Act natural and have fun. Don’t fret, this will be easy as weddings are happy and joyful occasions; and the bride is the center of attention any way. others as meaning a lot more than it really does. And I’m sure you don’t want anyone to get the wrong impression. Fourteen is too young for boys and girls to engage in any display of affection, de liberate or otherwise. And it’s a good thing to learn now that any public display of affec tion is out at any age — 14 or 24. THE OLD CONTROVERSY IN A LOWER KEY? CLOCKS —SLAVE DRIVERS It Seems to Me The NCWC study cites the famous Oregon School case de cision (Pierce vs. Society of Sisters) as rebutting the plea for a single, compulsory school system. And in refuting the charge of “divisiveness,” the study quotes not a Catho lic voice but the Arneri- c a n Jewish Committee. The back ers of the Oregon law which the S u preme Court had ruled unconstitu tional had asserted that the state should not tolerate re ligious schools because they di vide the community into cliques and cults that are taught a narrow view of life. The American Jewish Com mittee brief replied that reli gious schools actually serve to eliminate divisive prejudices. SITTING IN JUDGMENT Then the brief went on to say that the description of moral and religious teaching as “narrow” is quite incorrect. It denied that parents who are anxious for the future welfare and happiness of their chil dren and who dedicate them to moral, ethical and religious principles are “narrow.” The Jewish Committee as serted that the advocates of state monopoly of education were sitting in judgment on their fellow-citizens whose ideals differed from theirs. “How does such a mental at titude differ from that which prevailed when governments sought to enforce uniformity of religious beliefs and pun- REV. JOHN B. SHEERIN, C.S.P. ished nonconformists as crim inals?” In the new year there will be a resumption of the con troversy over aid to Catholic’ schools. Last year this contro versy did considerable harm to the Church. The emotional quality of much of our support for such aid did not remove the suspiciion of many non- Catholics that the Church was concerned about protecting its own selfish interests and un concerned about the common good. Behind our pleas for “reilgious liberty” and “dis tributive justice,” they imag ined they could discern a grab for money and power. My hope is that this legal study will set a new tone in our public relations with our fellow citizens. It should serve to remind us that we should keep our eyes fixed on the very core of the whole contro versy — the legal validity of Federal aid to church schools under the Constitution. The NCWC study of the con stitutionality of Federal aid to religious schools is a master piece of legal scholarship. It concentrates attention on the crux of the whole question of aid to such schools: “Is Fede ral aid forbidden by the Con stitution?” THE RELEVANT ISSUE Many Catholic writers on the subject in recent months have gone far afield. They have lamented the moral in justice of “double taxation” of Catholic parents or they have extolled the quality of Cath olic education or cited its con tribution to the strengthening of public morality and patri otic loyalty. All these are im portant factors but not quite relevant to the central issue— the interpretation of he Con stitution. Underlying the unfaltering judicial wisdom of the study is an admirable respect for the foes of Federal aid to religious schools. The preface to the study modestly expresses the hope that the document “will at least have provided a basis for a continuing public dia logue respecting the prob lems.” Its irenic tone will certainly invite non-Catholics to read it carefully and courteously. Its argumentation sparkles with logic, but it is a “sweet reason ableness” that does not at tempt to demolish the opposi tion w'i t h sledge-hammer blows but to persuade it by means of a genial and respect ful presentation of the case. For instance, take the charge of “divisiveness” that is so of ten laid against Catholic schools. Foes of Catholic schools often claim that the Federal government or state should have a monopoly of education and should ban pa rochial schools on the ground that they cause a “divisive ness’ that is harmful to the public welfare. We may be tempted to judge such a charge insincere and impute bad motives to those who assert it. But there are reputable Americans who do advocate a state monopoly of education and they deserve a hearing. Reinhold Niebuhr some months ago said: “A re ligiously pluralistic and semi- secular society cannot afford to imperil the unity of a peo ple through a pluralistic school system.” CATHOLIC TV AND RADIO KINDLE INTEREST Sharing Our Treasure To spread Christ’s Faith it is necessary to bring a know ledge of the Catholic religion to those outside the fold. Us ually this can be done through personal contact and loaning Catholic lit- e r a ture. Where ei ther is not possible, you might get C a i h o 1 i c truth into their homes by telling non - (Catho lics about Catholic television and radio programs. The fruit fulness of this method is shown in the conversion of Frank A. Oliver, director of WHEN-TV, Syracuse, his par ents and two sisters. “I was reared a Wesleyan REV. JOHN A. O'BRIEN Me(hodist in Elmira, New York,” related Frank, “thought I was somewhat irregular in attending church. While all the members of our family had a personal faith in Christ, we felt remote from Him. We didn’t have Him really pres ent in church. Communion was but a yearly symbolic remind er. There was no divine Sac rifice, no confession at which to receive forgiveness. “The doctrine was private interpretation of Scripture and could claim no certainty be cause of the wide differences in interpretation. The Catholic Church was a mystery to us because Catholic acquaintanc es failed to talk about their religion. They seemed to s re gard it as a topic that was tabooed. In spite of their sil ence and apathy, however, God found ways to reach us. First through Bishop Sheen’s TV series and later through Catholic radio programs. “These awakened our inter est and prompted us to send for Knights of Columbus lit erature which was offered gra tis in advertisements. These deepened our interest . and made us determined to learn everything possible about the Catholic religion. We called at St. Francis de Sales Rectory in Geneva and took a complete course, of instruction from Monsignor Edward K. Ball, a scholarly and devoted priest. “Directing his appeal to our intellects, Monsignor laid be fore us Christ’s words to His Apostles: ‘All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make (Continued on Page 5) Five days of the week I am a slave to clocks. Each morn ing the alarm jangles its ty rannical summons, shattering sleep loudly and rudely. If I were the headmaster of a school for alarm clocks, they would all be p; kept in af ter hours ev ery day, and be made to write over and over on the black- board, “Yell- in g is a mark of bad manners.” Clockmakers, it would seem, have a grude against people. If any such things as a courte ous alarm has been invented I have been unable to find it. The very word “alarm” is a giveaway. Alarm is right. A whisper will wake me; there is no need to screech. But af ter going to store after store, time after time, asking for a clock that speaks like a gen tleman instead of shouting like a boor, I have given up. The clerks take clock after clock from the shelves. They set off the alarms, and tell me, with commercial smiles, “See, that’s soft. You can hard ly hear it.” What they mean is, you can hardly hear it in the tumult of a department store, bulging with people. But take the clock home, and in the stillness of your bedroom, it sounds like a riot in a pot and pan factory. Come the time of going to final judgment, why should I be seized with fear and tremb ling? I will stand with chin up while my counsellor says, “May it please the court, this man got out of bed five days a week for umpteen years with out once smashing the hellish contrivance that jolted him out of sleep with its diabolical uproar.” Then I will march into Heaven to the plaudits of angels. They’d be a poor sort of angel if they didn’t cheer me for my supernatural pa tience. And even at that they won’t know the half of it. The bang ing of the alarm in the morn ings is only the beginning of my daily enslavement. I must yank on my trousers, step into my shoes, seize my shirt and tie, and dash to the bathroom to shave in minutes. Running down the. stairway, I glance at a clock in the living room to make sure I am on sched ule. In church I steal a look at my watch. Then home to breakfast, with an eye on the kitchen clock. Then into my car at a certain precise minute. Down town I go, fighting time the whole way. Into the office, with a sidelong glance at the clock on the wall. To my typewriter, working against deadlines. To lunch when the slavedriver hands point to 11:45. Out of the res taurant and back to my desk at an appointed time. Into the parking lot at the quitting hour, into my car and away for home, knowing that a few minutes this way or that JOSEPH BREIG means the difference between fairly open going, and jam packing traffic. Five days of that, and then my “day off.” Pardon my sneer. The milk man comes. The bread man comes. The mail man comes. The paper boy arrives to collect his due. The door bell rings and rings. The phone jangles. Neighbors come in and out. children roam through the house. The ginger ale man comes. The delivery van stops with packages. And then it’s time for the Saturday chores. Off to the grocery store. Off to the meat market. Off to the service station to get gasoline, and maybe to have the car greased and oil changed. Or to find out why the blower fan on the heater won’t work. Or to have snow tires put on, or taken off. Or to get the grime washed from the family auto. Pile in the groceries. Stop at the hardware store. Stop at the drug store. Stop at the shoe repair shop. Get this. Get that. Get the other thing. Drive around looking for parking space. Finally, go home. Arrive, and realize that you’ve forgotten something. Back in the car and away to the shopping area again. Twice, three times, four times, depending upon how forgetful you are, and your family is. Fighting. time all the. way,- be cause probably there’s a base ball game, or football game, or golf match you’d like to catch on television. Between times, mow the grass. Or rake the leaves. Or fix this or that around the house. Put wash ers in faucets. Replace burned- out electrical bulbs—only you forgot to buy any when you were in the hardware store. Clocks—slave-drivers. There is one day, and one only, when you are not servant, but mas ter; when you can be human. Sunday. Anybody who wants to turn it into a business-as- usual day must be mad. DISPLAY OF AFFECTION Dear Doris: Is it right or wrong to let a boy put his arm around you while you are sitting between square dances? I am 14 years old. Kathy There is nothing wrong about a boy putting his arm around you between dances. , You sometimes see this when couples on the dance floor are waiting for the next dance. They are enjoying the dance, enjoying one another’s compa ny and just naturally having fun. But — there is apt to be a difference between this and letting a boy put his arm around you while you are sit ting on the side lines. Such an action in this situation could be mistaken by the boy and TALK TO SISTER Dear Doris: For the past couple of years I have felt that I have a voca tion to the sisterhood. But I still want to finish high school in my own town. Should I wait until my senior year? And should I say something to a priest? There is a sister I like very much and I was going to say something to her but I was scared that she would think I was doing it for my grades. Also I am the youngest in the family and my mother wants me to stay with her. Please give me some ad vice. B. S. Talk to your friend, the Sis ter. She will understand your intentions and also your prob lems and she can recommend a priest to give you the spirit ual guidance and advice you need. The priest will probably suggest you finish high school at home and I’m sure he will advise the time and way to tell your mother of your inten tions. Your mother knows she can’t keep you at home for- eevr no matter what vocation you choose. Sometimes we un derestimate our parents when it comes to “breaking the news” as you mentioned. It is our parents who provide the love and training and home environment that helps to fos ter a vocation in 11 h e first place. If you remember this it will mean not so much fear at breaking the news but happi ness at sharing your joy. D oris Revere Peters answers letters through her column, not by mail. Please do not ask for, a personal reply. Young readers are invited to write to her in care of The Bulletin. THE CROSS By Barbara C. Jencks “I cannot escape it . .. nothing'can tear us from this gibbet on which we were born, which has grown side by side with our bodies and stretched itself with the stretching of our limbs. Pie are hardly conscious of it in our youth but as the body develops and grows the flesh becomes heavv and drags on the nails. What a time it takes for us to realize that we are born crucified.” —Francois Mauriac * * * Suffering repels most of us. We flee it. But with Mauriac we cry out: “The cross, I cannot escape it.” It casts its shadow across every path. Yet it is our salvation . . . “as long as your miserable little weakness keeps you close you will make it.” It is there in youth with its stings of the flesh, its limitations, the first bitter disillusionmen.t It is there in old age when “the days are so long and the years so short.” It is at the right of us and the left of us, it is in the body and in the soul. There are certain members of society we especially associate with suffering . . . the sick, the imprisoned, the old, the lonely, the bereaved, the maimed. Yet each of us suffers in our own way. At different periods in our lives, the cross falls harder upon us than others. We suffer within and without and especially in our fellowmen. To live is truly to suffer. Yet our attitude toward this suffering is what makes us. Suffering can embitter or en noble. One spiritual writer says that our suffering gives us solidarity with suffering mankind and it also is the most pleasing gift we could offer to Christ Who suffered for us. Recently, I received a letter from a reader friend who has been bedridden for 10 years. Invalids, of course, suffer more than physical pains. They suffer loneliness, despair, frustrations. She wrote of how she spent her days saying: “You ask me about my daily schedule, well I give each day of my suffering to a soul in need. Monday, I give to the souls for whom I am duty bound to pray, my parents. Tuesday, I offer for the most forsaken soul. Wednesday, I offer for the soul suffering the most. Thursday, for the soul suffering the longest; Friday for the soul next to die; Sat urday, for the soul most pleasing to the Blessed Mother; and Sunday, the soul itiost pleasing to the Blessed Trinity. I also offer a day for a missionary whose name was given to me. I offer a day for a missionary in Indonesia, another for one in Japan. “I also lie here and say the stations of the Cross on a specially indulgenced crucifix. Each hfternoon, I say two rosaries. I offer up all my loneliness and heartaches to Our Lord in union with His in the Garden of Gethsemane and the sufferings I bear in union with His on the Cross for me. (Continued on Page 5) By David Q. Liplak Q. I'm curious about the theological ramifications of the recently proposed theory that man first appeared in Af rica, not Asia, and that he was "sired by an earlier species similar to man in every re spect except size of brain and tooth and form of jaw." I'm referring to the newly publish ed book "African Genesis," and an article about the subject that appeared in "Life" maga zine a short while ago. The author of the article says that "man did not father the wea pon but in a way was father ed by it." And that "it was the very process of making and using tools and weapons that brought about the big human brain." Could these things be true? A. Whether the human race came into being in Africa or in Asia is per se neither a theo retical nor a Scriptural ques tion. There is no precise map of the Garden of Eden in the Bible. Rather, the subject be longs properly to the sciences of anthropology, prehistory and their allied studies. "UNTIL very r e c e n 11 y,” writes Remy Collin in ‘Evolu tion,’ part of the new ‘Twen tieth Century Encyclopedia of Catholicism’ series, “it had been long held that Asia, and especially south-east Asia, was the cradle of primitive man. Lately various indications, such as the discovery in Africa of a stone industry of pre- Challean type (the pebble in dustry of Aldoway in Kenya) more primitive than that asso- caited with the Sinanthropi, seems to show that Africa may well have been the birth-place of the primitive members of the species Homo sapiens . . .” WHETHER weapons father ed or were fathered by primi tive man is largely a matter of terminology. It is not incon ceivable that an ape, for ex ample, could pick up a fallen branch and swing it lethally, or a stone, and catapult it. But for any being to sit down, de sign and fashion a war-club (or tools like chisels and wedg es) demands intelligence. If, therefore, it could ever be demonstrated beyond doubt that Dart’s ‘Australopithecus’ really did manufacture weap- (Continued on Page 5) © (% SaUrtto 4IS STH 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. Subscription included in membership in Catholic Laymen’s Association. Second class mail privileges authorized at Monroe, Ga. Send notice of change of address to P. G. Box 320, Monroe, Ga. REV. FRANCIS J. DONOHUE REV. R. DONALD KIERNAN Editor Savannah Edition Editor Atlanta Edition JOHN MARKWALTER Managing Editor REV. LAWRENCE LUCREE, REV. JOHN FITZPATRICK, Associate Editors, Savannah Edition. Vol. 42 Saturday, January 20, 1962 No. 17 ASSOCIATION OFFICERS GEORGE GINGELL, Columbus President MRS. DAN HARRIS, Macon Vice-President TOM GRIFFIN, Atlanta Vice-Pi’esident 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