Newspaper Page Text
FOUR
THE BULLETIN OF THE CATHOLIC LAYMEN’S ASSOCIATION OF GEORGIA
MARCH 2, 1957.
laUetin
The Official Organ of the Catholic Laymen’s
Association of Georgia, Incorporated
JOHN MARK WALTER, Editor
416 Eighth Street, Augusta, Ga.
Observance Of U. N. Resolutions
THIS WORLD OF OURS
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, March 2, 1957
No. 20
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.
Welcome Bishop McDonough
The Holy Father sends Bishop Thomas J. McDonough
to the Diocese of Savannah to serve as Auxiliary to the Most
Rev. Gerald P. O’Hara, Archbishop-Bishop of Savannah and
Apostolic delegate to Great Britain.
Bishop McDonough is no stranger to the clergjr of the
Diocese nor to many of our Catholic laity. For the past 10
years he has labored as Auxiliary Bishop in our neighboring
diocese of St. Augustine-. He is well known for his accom
plishments in Florida.
Prior to the appointment of Savannah’s Auxiliary, Phila
delphia had sent three of its sons to serve Holy Mother
Church in Georgia. The Diocese’s First Bishop was the Most
Rev. Francis X. Gartland, a native Philadelphian. In 1936
our present beloved Bishop, Archbishop O’Hara, was ap
pointed to the See of Savannah. Bishop Hyland, former
Auxiliary of Savannah-Atlanta, and First Bishop of Atlanta,
are both Philadelphians.
The Catholics of Georgia have learned of the saintly
courage of Bishop Gartland, they know of the love of Arch
bishop O’Hara and Bishop Hyland, seeing about them what
they have accomplished for the Church since they came to
Georgia from Philadelphia. They are most confident that
their debt of gratitude to Philadelphia will be increased with
the coming of Bishop McDonough.
There is joy and gratitude in the hearts of the clergy,
Religious and laity of the Diocese of Savannah. They are
confident, that under the blessing of God, the leadership of
Archbishop O’Hara and his Auxiliary, Bishop McDonough,
the Diocese of Savannah will write a glorious new chapter
of notable progress in its history.
The Catholics of Savannah know of the personal worthi
ness of Bishop McDonough, of the greatness of his apostolic
zeal and the fervor of his devotion to the Faith of Christ.
They know, too, of the brilliancy of his intellect, and of his
executive ability, which were among the qualifications which
merited his being appointed Auxiliary-Bishop of St. Augus
tine. The Clergy, Religious, and laity of the Diocese of Savan
nah cordially welcome Bishop Thomas J. McDonough upon
his arrival in Georgia.
On his arrival in Savannah Bishop McDonough told the
Faithful: “My apostolic mission is to you; consequently, I call
upon your help, your understanding, your daily prayers
which I need, and I know under God you will not fail me.”
We desire to assure His Excellency of our prayers and co
operation.
The Bulletin welcomes Bishop McDonough and assures
him that though they may not be in the. numerical strength
of the laity of other Dioceses, the Catholics of Savannah will!
not be surpassed in the strength of the devotion and loyalty
which they offer their Bishop and. his Auxiliary.
Welcome, Bishop McDonough!
I think we must all agree that
if the United Nations is to op
erate properly the moral — and
perhaps physical — force behind
its resolutions should be such as to
make it obligatory for those who
form a part of
the internation
al body to carry
them out faith
fully.
It may be use
ful to call at
tention to the
way some of
those nations
most articulate
in their denunciation of internat
ional lawlessness have acted re
cently with reference to pro
nouncements emanating from the
U. N.
Prime Minister Nehru is con
sidered one of the men of peace
in the world today — at least he
is always saying that he is a man
of peace, He was shocked at the
Anglo-French intervention i n
Egypt, considerably less than
shocked at what happened in
Hungary.
KASHMIR ILLUSTRATION
Time and time again, Mr. Neh
ru has been telling the world
that if moral values do not pre
vail, and if the United Nation is
not given the prestige and recog
nition that it requires, there is
scant hope for a peaceful world.
Mr. Nehru is extremely active in
defending moral solutions when
they concern someone else’s prop
erty in Asia or in Africa. He is
much less keen about this sort of
thing when India is involved. Re
cent news regarding Kashmir il
lustrates this perfect contradiction
in the application of moral pre
cepts to specfic situations.
The Indians are enthusiastic for
the U. N. when it seeks to get the
Israelis out of Sinai. New Delhi
is not only enthusiastic, but ac
tually flouts a U. N. resolution
when it comes to Kashmir, where,
in spite of the overwhelming de
cision of the U. N. and the long
standing proposal to submit the
matter to a plebiscite. India has
now by force taken what has
been specifically denied her by
the international body. Just how
does Mr. Nehru manage to recon
cile this “imperialistic” attitude
with the anti-colonialism and an
ti-war attitudes he has been
striking for years?
It is enormously significant that
the Indians refer point-blank to
a plebiscite in a territory they
claim to be rightfully theirs. If
the people of Kashmir are so
wildly desirous of becoming In
dians, then certainly a plebiscite
should be quite in order. The In
dians were more than willing to
have this done in Vietnam, as
originally proposed at Geneva af
ter the conclusion of the Indo-
Chinese war. The next time Mr.
Menon prates in New York about
loyal and rigorous adherence to
U. N. resolutions, it may be well
to recall that India has given an
eloquent example of the direct
refusal to abide by the decisions
of this body.
HOLLOW RING
It is becoming a little tiresome,
too, to read and hear exclusively
of Israel’s obligations to abide by
the. rules of the U. N. and do the
hundred and one things this little
state is supposedly obligated to
do. The talk of sanctions against
Israel rings hollow when one re
calls that Egypt has never paid
the slightest attention to a U. N.
resolution calling for free traffic
through the Suez Canal.
For years Egypt has paid no
heed to this demand, nor has she
accepted even to conclude the
war of 1948 on the basis of the
armistice as worked out.
I somehow cannot manage a
great deal of enthusiasm for the
contention of Nasser that he was
the victim of foul aggression on
October 29 when Israelis nipped
across the Sinai. Nasser himself
has been screaming for months
that a state of war prevails with
Israel. If war prevailed, in spite
of the U. N., then there was no
aggression but simply an act of
war according to the Egyptians’
own interpretation.
LOOSE TALK FROM IRAQ
Moreover, for good or for ill,
Israel exists as a result of the
U. N. decision to partition Pale
stine. The loose talk from Iraq
and other sources about wiping
out Israel and destroying the last
vestige of this little state—-with
the thoroughness that Titus ap
plied in the year 70 in destroying
the Temple—runs directly counter
to the U. N. decisions in which
most of the world participated.
The only nations that have re
spected the U. N. with scrupulous
fairness in these last months are
France and the United Kingdom.
They have followed point by
point the policy as laid down by
the United Nations, withdrawing
from Egypt and undoing what
was done in November.
It is high time that a little de
flation were introduced regard
ing the punctilious respect for
the U. N. that is claimed for Neh
ru, Nasser and a number of others.
Literary Paradox
THE BACKDROP
By JOHN C. O'BRIEN
On all sides we hear complaints
that Americans have lost their
taste for reading, particularly for
the reading of serious books. We
skim through newspapers and
magazines of the popular sort,
but seldom do
we re-read the
classics or tack
le the more
t hough tful
books of cur
rent output.
Even the maga- §
zines of high §
literary quality |
have suffered
have suffered from a high rate of
mortality in the last half century.
Yet never have the great books
of the past been available at so
cheap a price. At nearly every
corner drugstore one . may find
well-edited, well-printed, paper-,
bound editions of the treasures
of our literary heritage for the
price of a toothbrush. But only
the cheap-at-any-price trash sells
in the millions.
For the decline of serious read
ing television is currently taking
the lion’s share of the blame. In
stead of sitting down with a
book after dinner, Americans, we
are told, are now spending their
evenings staring at television
screens. Though most of the tel
evision fare is mediocre, if not
worse, Americans seem to pre
fer it to the great works of lit
erature or even to the lesser books
that come off the presses with the
passing of each week.
NOTHING NEW
A half century ago the news
paper was held responsible for
the decline of reading. As long
ago as 1911, the late Hilaire Bel
loc, himself a prolific author, was
complaining about the neglect of
books in England. In an essay en
titled “On the Decline of the
Book”, he noted that “the pro
portion of the population which
reads books of any sort, though
perhaps not larger than it was
three hundred years ago, is very
much smaller than it was one
hundred years ago.
In times past, he reminds us,
almost every great house in Eng
land had a good library, filled
with the Greek and Latin classics,
histories of the best sort, and the
great works of English literature
—poetry as well as prose. And
most of the squires, it seems, did
not spend all their time riding to
hounds; they were dilinquent
readers.
But at the time of which he
was writing, Belloc complained
that there was no market for the
“kneaded and wrought matter of
the true book.” Especially neglect
ed were the solid works of history,
of which Belloc himself was a seri
ous and critical student. A few
novelists were able to prosper by
catei'ing to the popular taste, but
most of the other writers were
compelled to turn to journalism
to keep the wolf from the door.
TV NOT EVEN INVENTED
At this time, of course, Belloc
could not have foreseen the im
pact of television, for it had not
yet been invented. To him, it
seemed evident that the news
paper was the culprit, although
he assigned much of the blame
to the change in the attitude of
the national mind.which caused
the British public to prefer ephe
meral writing.
As to the outlook for a return
of the British people to their
former reading habits, Belloc was
gloomly pessimistic.—even before
he was able to consider the dis
tracting influence of television
which was beginning to be felt
only before he died. To the ques
tion whether there was any rem
edy for the . state of things, as he
noted them in 1911, his answer
was, “There is none.”
“Its prime cause.” he wrote,
“resides in a certain attitude of
the national mind, and this kind
of broadly held philosophy is not
changed save by slow preaching
or external shock. As long as
modern England remains what
we know it, and follows the line
of change which we see it fol
lowing, the book will necessarily
decline more and more, and we
must make up our minds to it.”
NATIONAL TRAITS
That televison is distracting ug
from serious reading can hardly
be denied. But as an American
writer, Shirley Watkins, suggests
it may not be the only cause for
the decline of book reading in
this country. It may be traits of
our national character—our rest
lessness and our gregariousness
—that account in no small meas
ure for our failure to read.
How often have we heard well-
educated Americans excuse them
selves for their unfamiliarity
with the current as well as the
great books of the past with the
remark. “I just simply can’t find
time to do any reading.” What
they mean of course, is that golf,
dinner- parties, bridge parties and
(Continued on Page 5)
