Newspaper Page Text
FOUR
THE BULLETIN OF THE CATHOLIC LAYMEN’S ASSOCIATION OF GEORGIA
DECEMBER 22, 1956.
Bulletin
The Official Organ of the Catholic Laymen’s
Association of Georgia, Incorporated
JOHN MARKWALTER, Editor
416 Eighth Street. Augusta, Ga
ASSOCIATION OFFICERS FOR 1955-1956
JOHN M. BRENNAN, Savannah President
E. M. HEAGARTY, Waycross Honorary Vice-President
MRS. L. E. MOCK, Albany Vice-President
TOM GRIFFIN, Atlanta Vice-President
DAMON J. SWANN, Atlanta V. P„ Publicity
GEORGE GINGELL, Columbus V. P„ Activities
NICK CAMERIO, Macon Secretary
JOHN T. BUCKLEY, Augusta Treasurer
JOHN MARKWALTER, Augusta Executive Secretary
MISS CECILE FERRY, Augusta Financial Secretary'
ALVIN M. McAULIFFE, Augusta Auditor
Vol. 37 Saturday, December 22, 1956 No. 15
Entered as second class matter at the Post Office, Monroe, Georgia,
and accepted for mailing at special rate of postage provided by para
graph (e) of section 34.40, Postal Laws and Regulations.
Member of N.C.W.C. News Service, the Catholic Press Association
of the United States, the Georgia Press Association, and the National
Editorial Association.
Published fortnightly by the Catholic Laymen’s Association of Geor
gia, Inc., with the Approbation of the Most Reverend Archbishop-
Bishop of Savannah, the Most Reverend Bishop of Atlanta, and the
Right Reverend Abbot Ordinary of Belmont.
WHAT THE CHRIST CHILD WANTS
MORE THAN EVER THIS CHRISTMAS
By The Most Rev. Fulton J. Sheen, D.D., Ph.D.
(National Director, Society for the Propagation of the Faith)
If God could not make a sacrifice, then there would be something
ih human nature which would seem to surpass even the power of
God. Could a soldier dying on a battlefield, a father offering to save
the life of his child surpass a love which would seem to be lacking
in God? No! Since the beginning: of the world, Our Lord .was seen
as the “Lamb that was slain”—offered in sacrifice by Divine Intent.
Christmas is the day when the intent became actual, for on
that day, Mary gave to Our Lord a Body with v/hich He could
suffer for those He loved. She gave Him Hands and Feet to be
nailed to a Cross. She gave Him a Heart to be opened and
revealed in love by a spear. She gave Him Blood to be poured
out in sweet impatience when only eight days old, and again in
crimson drops in Gethsemane. She gave Him Flesh that would
hang against a darkened sky. She gave Him a human nature
that He might be like us in all things save sin.
, There was no Christmas tree at the crib. The Christ-Tree was
reserved for His Death, or. the Mass of His Sacrifice. The withered
Christnfas trees that are thrown on the street in January are a sym
bol of Him who was rejected on a tree.
Now you know why gifts are given at Christmas; because Mary
gave Him the gift of a Body; because He, in His Divine Person, gave
the gift of His life. It is this gift we want to give to Africa, India,
Japan. It can only be given through the missionaries.
Before a child is born, everyone asks: “What can I give him?”
When the child is born he rejects every gift that is not the gifts of
self. The planned gifts he cannot hold; the only thing he can hold
is the total, undivided attention of all who surround him. Everything
must bend to him—whispers when he sleeps, no drafts when he
bfeathes, covers when he rests, food at appointed intervals.
The Christ Child is jusi like ihaf. He wants us in our
compleieness, our whole body, our whole mind, our whole heart.
He wants less the gifts than the giver.
In the Host or Holy Communion too. He wants our body, our
blood, and our humanity; we must be absorbed in Him, even to
the putting on of His Mind so fhal as He is one with the Father,
so we are one in Him. Did we but recognize this truth that
the Divine Child is unceasing and unremitting in His demands,
we would burn with love to make Him known in pagan lands.
The Magi or Wise Men who were led to the crib of the Infant
Jesus were not Jews, but Gentiles. They were not of the chosen
people who enjoyed the Revelation of God. They were not members
of the Jewish “Quahal” or what we would call the Church. They
corresponded to the Japanese, Africans, Burmese, Hindus, Buddhists
and Moslems of our foreign mission lands who as yet know not
Christ.
But like the Magi these people are seeking Him. There are
good men among the heathens, men who in darkness grope to
ward the truth if haply they may find it. There are millions of
souls in Africa, Asia, Oceania who are so poor that they have
nothing to give but themselves. And that is everything that the
Infant Child wants.
Their question today is the same as that of the Magi: “Where is
He?” The shepherds were poor; the Magi, were rich. Their offering to
the Divine Babe was three-fold—gold because He is King,, incense
because He is. a Priest, and myrrh because He is a Saviour.
Think of it, myrrh! Myrrh was for His death and burial. Nicode-
mus would bring Myrrh to Calvary, but these men brought it to
Bethlehem. They saw the Cross in the crib, Golgotha in the stable,
and the Sorrowful Mother at both.
Don't you fhink ihat it is time for us to return the gifts?
Our Lord still wants the people of the East in His Church. Good
Catholic sacrifice to the Holy Father at this season a gift of
myrrh—a little sacrifice that the Buddhists and Hindus and
Moslems may find Christ.
The Middle East And Hungary
THIS WORLD OF OURS
(By Richard Pailee)
I have received over the past
two weeks at least 20 letters
from various parts of the country
taking me to task, politely and
less politely, for not dealing in
this column with appropriate
severity with
the Soviet rape
of Hungary and
apparent
ly equating in
some way the
action in Egypt
and that in Bu
dapest.
Since some of
my p r e v i o us
pronouncements
to a bit of confusion, it may be
appropriate to set down as clearly
as possible what seem to be some
of the factors involved in the two
situations, whose coincidence in
time has complicated our judg
ment.
Now it must appear to anyone
that Hungary and Egypt are not
only totally different cases, but
that the motivations, events and.
purposes are diametrically dis
tinct. If at any time I have given
the impression of equating one
with the other, let this serve as
a clarification and if need be an
apology.
NOT THE SAME
Nor on the other hand do I
think that we can condemn the ac
tion in one case and condone it in
the other. In plain fact even the
condemnation in the case of
Egypt along the lines taken by
the United States government, is
not the same kind of condemna
tion as that against the Soviets
in Hungary.
In Egypt two major powers saw
fit to take a limited action on the
basis of infinite provocation and
a nasty local situation that was a
threat to their vital interests. I
am convinced that this action was
unfortunate, in that it was impru
dent and complicated hopelessly
.the cause of the western Alliance.
In Hungary, on the other hand,
there was no question of
prudence. Here we had brutal,
naked, vicious and criminal in
tervention for the purpose of
cowing through systematic mur
der an innocent people. It was an
outrage so shocking that by com
parison the Egyptian adventure
was a gentlemanly rebuke.
I am personally convinced that
w hat our Government did
through the United Nations was
correct. We have the choice: act
ing alone, as did France and Bri
tain, or acting through the UN im
perfect as its machinery un
doubtedly is. The President has
chosen to act through the duly
established international agencies
and he is, of course, quite right.
The major criticism of the United
Kingdom and France is that they
acted outside that organization
and therefore sacrificed its sup
port.
A MAJOR CRITICISM
Another major criticism is that
the Franco-British action unques
tionably distracted attention from
Hungary. One of my correspon
dents asks this question: “Why
do you condemn the action in
Egypt and not propose that vig
orous intervention take place in
Hungary?”
It is not, I submit, a matter of
preference. I would have been
most happy to see arms and
means of combat supplied to the
Hungarian freedom fighters. Who
could possibly wish them any
thing else but victory in their des
perate bid for liberation? Unfor
tunately, however, any proposal
to intervene in Hungary—justifi
ed as it was—would have met
with the Soviet veto in the Secu
rity Council and with the solid
opposition of the Soviet bloc, plus
the Asian-African, in the General
Assembly. Precisely because Bri
tain and France were then en
gaged in Egypt, there was no
chance of a united western posi
tion; no chance of uninterrupted
attention on the Hungarian trage
dy and that alone.
If. Egypt, had not existed, per
haps the revulsion in Asia against
Soviet frightfulness would have
made possible a common front
to save Hungary. The United
States was faced with two prob
lems: to operate through the UN,
in spite of the handicap indicated
above, and to try to save the At
lantic alliance which was falling
apart precisely at the moment
that it was most needed to act as
a unit against Soviet ruthless-
ness.
ESSENCE OF MATTER
Could the United States accom
plish both simultaneously? This,.
I think, is the essence of the mat
ter. Could we have gone it alone
in Hungary? That is to say, pay
no attention to the UN recom
mendations, and barge in on our
own as did Britain and France in
Egypt? Certainly all of us would
have liked nothing better than
to see every form of assistance
pouring into Hungary to oust the
barbarians who were crushing the
rebellion.
Could the United States risk
what was almost certainly war
with the Soviet Union, by an ac
tion outside the UN or even
against its majority and with the
two principal allies bogged down
in the Middle East and unable
physical^ and morally to be of
any particular use? I submit this
question simply as a matter of
thought. None of us has the full
answer.
Let us remember that the Car
dinal Primate of Poland in his
first sermon after his release cau
tioned prudence to his people—
festina lente—little by little the
Soviet power will be shaken.
Whether the kind of action that
many of our people wanted
against the Soviets in Hungary
would have been the best thing
is, to be sure, a very open ques
tion, Next week I am going to list
some of the consequences around
the world of the great and heroic
sacrifice of the Hungarians—nht
to justify our inaction, mind you,
but to point, out that perhaps the
martyrdom of Hungary has not
been entirely in vain.
seem to have led
im-
What Russicn Visitors To U, S. Say—In Russia
THE BACKDROP
By JOHN C. O’BRIEN
The assumption—it seemed so
reasonable when the Big Smile
was beaming from Moscow—that
an exchange of visitors from both
sides of the Iron Curtain would
contribute to a better understand
ing between
communist and :
non -communist
nations is about ;
due for a critic- :
al re-examina- i
tion.
In the last
few months we !
have seen a
parade to our shores of Soviet
“observers” — farmers, builders,
journalists and, most recently,
“students of government.” Each
group was welcomed with tra
ditional American hospitality.
They were permitted the widest
access to our people and, unlike
American visitors to Russia, en-
ocuraged to move about without
restriction. Only defense installa
tions and arms protection plants
were barred from their prying
eyes.
It was the hope, if not the ex
pectation, of the promoters of
these visits, that upon their re
turn to Russia the visitors would
have a better understanding of
our way of life and in their re
ports to the Russian people cor
rect some of the false impressions
fostered by the communist press
and radio.
Instead of doing this, as we now
know? the beneficiaries of our
hospitality carried back a mass
of distortions, all the more effec
tive as anti-American propaganda
because they could be presented
as the observations of eye-wit
nesses.
SOVIET BUILDING OFFICIALS
Were the Soviet builders — all
government officials by the way
—impressed by our spanking new
communities of cottages, ranch-
houses and split levels, or by our
steel-and-glass skyscrapers? Per
haps they were; they observed
closely and took copious notes.
But if they were, they failed to
tell the Russian people. What
they reported in the Russian press
was that Russian methods of con
struction are far superior to ours,
that the gi’eat masses of Amer
ican people still lived in squalid
slums.
SOVIET 'FARMERS'
The Russian farmers conceded,
at least on this side of the Atlan
tic, that American farmers made
far more efficient use of machine
ry than the Russian farmers. They
told their American escorts they
had learned much that they could
profitably apply to their own ag
ricultural production. But so far
as Government monitors of the
Soviet press and radio could dis
cover, not one word about how
American farming families live”
from the lips of Russian observ
ers ever was allowed to trickle
out to the Kulak on a collective
farm.
WHAT SOVIET JOURNALISTS
REPORT
The Soviet journalists, however,
wrote reams for the enlighten
ment of Ivan when they got back
to Moscow. They invited their
readers to pity the poor American,
who found nothing in his news
papers but capitalist incitements
to war. One of the writers relat-
ed a touching story about a waiter
at the Waldorf hotel who “at the
risk of his life”: revealed how he
lived in constant fear of the capi
talist-imperialists. He communic
ated his plight in a note slipped
under the breakfast toast, which
read, “I do not dare speak to you,
so I am taking this means of let
ting you know how oppressed we
workers are.”
One can only hope that Ivan
was not allowed to read about
the recent action of the Bureau
of Internal Revenue against cer
tain waiters at a swank New
York hotel for failure to report
large sums received as tips.
RECOGNIZE THIS?
Our most recent Soviet visitors
(Continued on Page 5)