PAGE 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
