Newspaper Page Text
NOVEMBER 24. IMS
TOE BULLETIN OF THE CATHOLIC LAYMEN’S 'ASSOCIATION OF GEORGIA
THREE—A’
Foundation of Catholic-Protestant Harmony
Must Be Lucidity and Love, Says Editor in
Answer to Address Bishop Oxham
BY THE REV. JOHN COURTNEY MURRAY, S. J.
(Associate Editor of America)
(Written for N. C. W. C. News Service)
On October 28, Dr. G. Brom
ley Oxnam, 'Methodist Bishop ot
the New York area and president
of the Federal Council of the
Churches of Christ in America,
delivered an address in the Civic
Auditorium in St. Louis before
a mass meeting held to com
memorate “Reformation Sunday.”
A major section of the address
was’devoted to "Roman Catholic-
Protestant differences.”
Bishop Oxnam considered its
every word so important that lie
stated beforehand that he would
read it from his manuscript, “in
order to avoid any possibility of
variation from this text.” One
wonders at this elaborate precau
tion; actually, the text contains
nothing that has not been said
dozens of times.
In general, it is a statement,
first, of the Protestant view of
"tolerance,” and, secondly, of the
"concerns” felt by Protestant
4
Avoid Costly Repairs
resulting from
TERMITE DAMAGE
SCARCITY OF LUMBER
FOR REPAIR WORK
St. Leo College l*rep.
School
Accredited Uigh School
Conducted hy the Benedictine
Fathers
Ideal Location
St Leo Pasco County, Florida
BRUCE TERMINIX CO.
Atlanta. Ga.
ASK FOR FREE INSPECTION
hekeyS
goctor’s Prescriptt«n|
COUGH MEDICINE.
Penetrates Deeply
CHENEY’S pure, safe, reliable
ingredients penetrate deeply
... to the source of the cough
or cold. In use for four genera
tions, for young and old. Easy,
pleasant to take. 30c and 60c at
druggists. BUY CHENEY’S!
DOWNDRAFT WOOD
BURNING HEATER
★ ENJOY CONTINUOUS 24-HOUR CONTROLLED HEAT.
★ BUILD BUT ONE FIRE A SEASON—No Fires To
Build On Cold Mornings.
★ REMOVE ASHES OK AVERAGE OF ONLY 3 TIMES
MONTHLY.
Jnainl on the ulow-burnin? Downdraft
Ashley—it’* PATENTED, therefore if*
different This thermostatically controlled
wood burning heater uses small worthless
hardwood trees, or even scrap wood. Many
users write that they save 50% and more
on fuel costs, yet still enjoy more heat 24
hours a day. The Ashley has been used and
proven in all sections of the United States
—Now in our 15th year.
Ia>*k Soot JjC$$ Smoke; For Service-
Economy—Cleanliness Ashley a are truly
sensational. Six types and prices to select
from.
See your Ashley dealer today; there’s one
in most every town; or write us for name
of your nearest dealer.
Jimm
AUTOMATIC WOOD
STOVE COMPANY
COLUMBIA, S.C.
leaders over what a New York
Times headline called “Catholic
‘Politics’ As Aimed at Domination
of Slate.”
The statement is more tempe
rate than many that have been
made in public and in the Protes
tant press; in wisely Christian
-spirit Bishop Oxnam left aside
(lie customary epithets—“ecclcs-
tieal arrogance,” “clerical tyr-
any,” “spiritual imperialism,” “re
ligious totalitarianism,” and the
like.
NO ’BITTER RESPONSE’
At the conclusion of his re
marks, Bishop Oxnam says: “The
very statement of these concerns
is- apt to avoke bitter response.”
Not at all. An initial Catholic
reaction might indeed be a faint
exasperation, not unmingled with
amusement, that the line copied
from revolutionary France hy
Bismarck and Hitler—the indict
ment of so-called "political Catho
licism”—should still make popular
mass-meeting oratory in this sup
posedly enlightened decade. But
undoubtedly the a m u s e m c n t
would predominate; for the whole
St. Louis setting did not lack its
elements of irony.
Surely, over Protestants massed
lo protest on “Reformation Sun
day” there would have hovered
the spirits of the great Reformers
—Lulher and Melanethon. Zwin-
gli and Calvin, Wesley and Knox.
And one cannot help but fancy
them skittering off in dismay at
tlie statement of “Roman Catho
lic-Protest ant differences” called
forth by the occasion. In it there
is only the faintest echo of the
great religious protest they utter
ed. At the solemn utterance by
a Methodist bishop that “the Holy
Catholic Church, that is, the
church universal, is composed of
three great branches, the Eastern
Orthodox Churches, the Protes
tant Communions, and the Roman
Catholic Church,” the great Re
formers might possibly conclude
(hat the time had come for an
other reform.
In the second likely Catholic
reaction there would likewise be
no shadow of bitterness. It
would be rather nostalgic for the
old days, “when "differences be
tween Roman Catholics and Pro
testants” wei - something into
which one could get one’s teeth—
real issues that mattered very
much, like the doctrine of jus
tification, the authority of Scrip
ture and the manner of its inter
pretation. the Real Presence, the
Mass, the place of the Church in
tlie Christian life, whether the
Pope is Anti-Christ, and whether
Rome is the whore of Babylon or
the Beast of the Apocalypse.
Doubless, in the old days there
were many heads broken with
quite unnecessary violence, which
we now sincerely deplore; but al
least they were broken over real
and serious issues that had to do
with the essence of religion and
the true form of Christianity, with,
the meaning and content of di
vine revelation.
FALSE BASIS OF
CONTROVERSY
In their weariness, which can
no longer rise to the high chal
lenge of genuinely theological
controversy, or perhaps even
grasp in all their stimulating
sharpness the real differences be
tween the Roman Catholic Church
ai d the heirs of the Reformation.
Protestant polemists more fre
quently summon us to argument
on ground more easily reached,
because it is low, and false. Bishop
Oxnam again puts the contem
porary issue squarely up to us-
When arc you going to stop beat
ing your wife?” Or, in his own
words, when are Catholics going
to give up “what (Protestants) be
lieve to be an attempt on the part
of the Roman Catholic Church to
exercise political domination here,
similar to the contrb] exercised in-
many nations?”
Apparently, the leaders of Prot
estant communions, weary of
properly religious discussion, do
not grow weary of this topic. On
the other hand any Catholic-
worthy of his high intellectual tra
dition would welcome a rollicking
good theological discussion—say.
on the branch-theory of the
Church, or the ethical foundations
of religious liberty, or the unity
and distinctness of the religious
and political orders. The Catholic
might dislike to see this type of
discussion declined in favor of an
Invitation to squabble over Spanish
politics, or the fancied machina
tions of American bishops In the
State Department. But, at all
events, the invitation is not likely
to evoke a "bitter response.” Any
possible bitterness in the response
would be solely that of disappoint
ment.
Bishop Oxnam is a well-inten
tioned and' massively sincere
Christian man; and his high quali
ties of heart show in his St. -Louis
address. But his intellectual con
fusions also show, most unfor
tunately. The tenor of his indict
ment of “political Catholicism,”
and of his insistence that “a
church must be a church ... it
cannot be both church and state”
— as if we held otherwise —
hopelessly confuses theological
issues and social issues.
This is his central confusion,
from which derive all his minor
rnistakennesses. This needs to be
briefly explained.
The first part of his address is
an admirable plea for social peace,
and for a united Christian effort
"to translate the ethical' ideals of
religion into the realities of world
law and order, economic justice,
and racial brotherhood." Catho-
'lics will heartily second the plea.
Its factual starting point is in
deed somewhat dubious—the as
sumption that there is a growing
tension in Catholic-Protestant re
lationships. But at ail events, in a
world in which there are already
far too many tensions, the sum
mons to relax is timely. Let us
all heed it. And let there be, too,
full Catholic acclaim for the idea
of social peace which Bishop
Oxnam proposes.
BRANCH-TIIEORY OF CHURCH
The difficulty, however, is that
we. who are ordinarily accused of
wanting peace only on our own
terms, are asked by Bishop Oxnam-
lo make peace on Protestant
terms. In the second part of his
address, the Bishop proposes, as
the apparently necessary basis of
social peace between Catholics
and Protestants,, a set of theologi
cal propositions that are specifi
cally Protestant.
Chiefly, we are asked to accept
the branch-theory of the Church,
and to pledge ourselves to spe
cifically Protestant concepts of
religious liberty. Correlatively,
we are to give up out' cenlury-old
understanding of God’s will will!
regard to the unity of the Church,
and with regard to the relations
between religion and society.
Moreover, we arc thus to alter
our theology, not in the light of
convincing theological arguments,
but simply in the interests of
social peace—which, supposedly,
cannot be secured so long as we
cling to our ancient theology. This
is the clear tendency of the second
and third parts of Bishop Oxnan’s
address.
But this looks to us like an in
stance of that confusion of the re
ligious and social, the theological
and political, which Bishop Oxnam
quite rightly deplores. Pius XL
especially in his innumerable dis
cussions of Catholic Action, de
plored the same confusion much
more vehemently than ever Bishop
Oxnam.
Initially, of course, this line
raises a nice point in the matter
of religious liberty. The constitu
tion ol the Church, and the rela
tions between the Church and
civil society are matters involving
the Catholic conscience. The ques
tion therefore may be raised: How
far. if at all, may Protestant lead
ers and journalists create, and
bring to bear on the Catholic con
science. a set of social pressures
that tend to diminish Catholic
liberty to adhere to these tenets?
Obviously, Protestants arc fully
tree to bring forward all manner
of theological arguments to prove
that the Catholic conscience is de
ceived in adhering to these tenets.
The question, however, concerns
properly social pressures. These
are created by the incessant harp
ing on "political Catholicism” —•
Catholic ambitions for political
power. Catholic indenlification
with Fascism, Catholic opposition
to "true" religious liberty, etc., etc.
AN IMAGINARY ADVERSARY
The adversary envisaged by
Protestants in these attacks, is, of
course, imaginary; but the cffcei
of the attacks is very real—a- real
set of social pressures. Hostility,
distrust, suspicion—these emo
tional attitudes, systematically
fostered, organized, and exploited,
are social pressures. And in the
case they are brought to bear on
the Catholic conscience. Actually,
the Catholic conscience is not
greatly bothered by them; but the
In Moscow
Rev. George Antonio Labergc,
A. A., of Worcester, Mass., who
has arrived in Moscow, where lie
will succeed the Rev. Leopold
Braun, A. A. .as pastor of the
Church of St. Louis des Francais,
only Catholic Church in the
Soviet capital. Like Father Braun,
he is an Assumptionist priest, and
will live at the French Embassy,
lo which diplomatic mission the
church is attached. — (Reni-NC
Photos).
question of principle may be legi
timately raised, if only to suggest
again that the Protestant theory
of religious liberty is superficial,
and not devoid of that “oppor
tunism” which Protestants mis
takenly detect in Catholic theory.
Bishop Oxnam says with much
wisdom: “Understanding awaits
plain speech.” One thing, then,
must be said quite plainly, and in
Bishop Oxnam’s own spirit of
friendliness; we cannot accept any
suggestion that the way to world
peace is through world Protes
tantism. So to conceive the
problem is to misconceive it. In
other words, the theological issuer
of the constitution of the Church
must (and can) be kept quite dis
tinct from the social issue of har
monious cooperation toward a
common temporal good. By con
fusing them and hy offering us His
own theology as the basis for our
cooperation with him in the social
order, Bishop Oxnam has done his
own good cause a disservice.
He sa; s indeed that his sugges
tion “dries not mean that such men
cease lo be loyal to the Christian
faith as it is taught in their
church; but that they do not be
lieve in an exclusiveness that
keeps Christians from working and
worshipping with fellow Chris
tians.”
But this only deepens and
widens the confusion. It is one
thing that men should work to
gether in society; it is quite an
other tiling that Ihey should wor
ship together in church. The
former supposes their social unity
—a given fact; the latter sup
poses their unity in faith—by no
means a given fact, as between
Protestants and Catholics. •
Catholic doctrine regards any
withdrawal from cooperation with
Protestants in the work of human
society as a sin against the virtue
of charity, which obliges men to
collaborate for the common good.
But Catholic doctrine also regards
formal cooperation with Protes
tants in the worship of God as a
sin against the virtue of faith,
which obliges us to worship only
with those with whom we are one
in faith. Moreover, we do not
play off faith against charity or
charity against faith, by intruding
our civil unity into the sphere of
religion, or our religious divisions
into the sphere of civil society.
We have a very clear idea, as
Bishop Oxnam has not, of two
distinct obligations, neither of
which interferes with the other.
A FALSE INDICTMENT
Our charity “includes” us in
the work of social cooperation;
and if our faith “excludes” us
from Protestant worship, it is only
because Protestant worship “ex-
i hides” too many of our elements
of faith. In neither case has the
word exclusiveness, as an indict
ment. any meaning.
This matter of “exclusiveness”
needs to be further clarified.
Bishop Oxnam says: 'Thoughtful
men know that to deny Christian
status lo the clergy or laity of
any one of these groups (Protes
tant, Orthodox, or Roman Catho
lic) is to depart from the catholic
spirit and to enter schismatical
exclusiveness.” It is indeed an
article of our faith that the Catho
lic Church is tlie one Church of
Christ (or better, the Church of
Christ that is truly one, as Christ
Holy See Honors
Three Priests of
Diocese of Mobile
(Special to The Bulletin)
MOBILE, Ala.—The Most Rev.
Thomas J. Toolen, D. D., Bishop
of Mobile, has announced that
His Holiness Pope Pius XII has
honored three priests of the Mo
bile Diocese by elevating them lo
the rank of Domestic Prelate with
the rank and title of Right Rever
end Monsignor.
The three priests so honored
are the Rev. John B. Canepa, pas
tor of St. Mark’s Church, Birming
ham; the Rev. Leo M. Byrnes, Dio
cesan Superintendent of Schools,
and the Rev. William J. Cusiek,
D. D., pastor of St. Michael's
Church, Pensacola, Fla.
Father Cuslcx was born in Ma
con, Ga., April 5, 1898. He at
tended St. Bernard’s College,
Cullman, Ala., and the Collcgio
Urbano di Propaganda Fide in
Rome. He was ordained in the
Internal City at the Church of St.
Appollinare, August 8, 1920.
Returning to the Diocese of
Mobile, the same year, he served
on the missions out of the Cathed
ral in Mobile. In 1922 he was as
sistant pastor of St. Mary’s
Church, Mobile. In 1925 he went
to the Sacred Heart Church, An
niston, as pastor, where he re
mained until 1930 when he was
appointed pastor of St. Clement's
Church, Birmingham. Since 1939
he has been pastor of St. Michael’s
Church, Pensacola.
willed it to be one). But this ar
ticle does not make us refuse Hie
name of Christian to Protestants;
it does, however, make us refuse
the name of The Holy Catholic
Church” to Bishops Oxnam's
three-branches-in-one-church. This
article implies no judgment on the
status of any individual in the
sight of God; it does imply a judg
ment on ecclesiastical structure.
Again the word exclusiveness, and
all Ihc implications that Protes
tants customarily read into their
own use of it (it is not our coin
age), are irrelevant.
Another confusion shows up
when Protestants hear us assert
this article of our faith. We are
then challenged, not in the order
of truth, but in the order of virtue
We are not indicted lor mistaken
faith: “You are in error.” Rather,
we are indicted for a moral fault:
“You are in sin—prideful, separa
tist, schismatical.” And this con
fusion ol' the historical and doc
trinal truth of our profession of
faith with our personal or collec
tive virtue paralyzes all possi
bility of fruitful debate.
If, for instance, when Bishop
Oxnam proposes his branch-theory
of the Church, a Catholic were to
reply, not: "You are wrong,” but:
"You are unholy,” the Bishop
would quite rightly walk off the
platform. Bishop Oxnam's holi
ness is beyond question; it has
nothing to do with Ihe validity of
the branch-theory. And one can
not debate a confused issue.
THE ISSUES CONFUSED
This, then, is the essential fault
of Bishop’s Oxnam's address— its
sterility in the matter of giving to
Catholic-Protestant relationships
whatever measure of improvement
(hey may need. It confuses the
issues. The Bishop says: “The
polite niceties of inter-faith meet
ings avoid divisive problems and
therefore make little contribution
to unity.” However true that may
be, it is certainly true that the
very polite oratory of Protestant
mass-meetings confuses distinct
problems and therefore makes still
less a contribution to unity.
There would be no use in taking
up Bishop Oxnam’s particular dif
ficulties—Catholic boycotts, the
rights of Protestant missionaries,
Franco Spain, clericalism, Ameri
can representation at the Vatican,
and the rest—until his central con
fusions have been argued out to
clarity. He rightly suggests that
we “state our views in Christian
love"; a valid additional sugges
tion would be that we stale our
views with equally Christian lu
cidity. '
These two qualities of lucidity
and love might be carried into a
forum where their combined virtue
would really do something valu
able for Catholic-Protestant re
lationships. Perhaps if Catholic
priests and Protestant ministers
were to meet, frequently and on a
wide scale, in an atmosphere of
love and lucidity, whatever ten
sion there is in these relationships,
might be resolved into that
healthy, twofold relationship thatK
must obtain between them—a re
lationship of pacific controversy
on the theological plane, and a
relationship of harmonious co
operation on the social plane.