Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 4—The Southern Cross, March 4, 1965
The Southern Cross
P. O,. Box 180, Savannah, Ga.
Most Rev. Thomas J. McDonough, D.D.J.C.D., President
Rev. Francis J. Donohue, Editor j 0 h n E. Markwaiter, Managing Editor
Phone 234-4574
Second Class Postage Paid at Waynesboro. Ga.
Send Change of Address to P. O. Box 180, Savannah, Ga.
Published weekly except the second and last weeks
in June, July and Augusta and the last week in Deeember.
Subscription price $5.00 per year.
True Church Unity
Undoubtedly one of the great fruits of the
Second Vatican Council to date has been its
proclamation of the Decree on Ecumenism, a
magna charta which will influence the dialogue
now going on among the Christian Churches for
many years to come. In the light of this doc
ument’s importance, it is interesting to observe
some of the points which the major Italian
Catholic review, “Civilita Cattolica”, recently
made about the meaning the decree has on
Church unity problems. Admitting that many
non-Catholics still fear that the basic intention
of all Catholics in these ecumenical discussions
is simply to bring about the return of heretics
to the one-true fold, the article points out that
the decree actually speaks of “the holy objec
tive of reconciling all Christians in the unity
of the one and only Church of Christ.”
For in fact the Decree on Ecumenism no
longer speaks of the “return” of separated
brethren but rather of the “restoration of unity
among all the disciples of Christ”. The subtle
change in terminology indicates that the Cath
olic Church has left behind her a position of
inertia in Church-unity affairs, a passive and
patient waiting for heretics to return and as
sumed instead an active and dynamic move
ment toward separated brethren and Church
reunion. And the face of this new Catholic
position has a two-fold appearance. As to the
past with its ‘‘sins against unity” the Church
“humbly begs pardon of God and 1 of our sep
arated brethren, just as we forgive them that
trespass against us.” For the future the
Church hopes for an enrichment from its own
contacts with all the separated 1 brothers when
all have come at last to enjoy “a common
celebration of the Eucharist ... in that unity
which Christ bestowed upon His Church from
the beginning. We believe that this unity sub
sists in the Catholic Church as something she
can never lose and we hope that it will con
tinue until the end of time.”
As a pledge of the future blessings she
hopes the true Church of Christ will enjoy with
all men, the Church already rejoices over those
good influences non-Catholic scriptural studies
have had upon the current deepening of Catho
lic insights into the Bible. For as “Civilita
Cattolica” observes, “the Biblical movement,
now so flourishing in the Church and bearing
such copious fruit, is not unconnected with the
veneration which Protestants profess for the
Bible, with the very frequent use they make of
it and above all with the Biblical studies they
pursue.”
Indeed the current attitude of the Catholic
Church in ecumenical matters, feels “Civilita
Cattolica”, can be summarized thusly, “It is
precisely in order to prepare for the meeting
with the separated brothers that the Church is
endeavoring to find again its authentic counte
nance, setting it free from certain superstruc
tures and incrustations of the past, at times
glorious and venerable, but also suffocating. It
tries to rethink, also from the ecumenical point
of view, with an effort at deepening or develop
ing, its doctrinal and disciplinary heritage, not,
surely, to change them radically or to adapt
them to the tastes of our time, but in order to
be more faithful to Christ and to the Gospel
and in order not to impose on the separated
brothers more than is necessary to recover the
ancient unity.
“Thus, the Church does not wait, immobile
and locked in lofty pride, for the ‘return’ of
the separated brothers, but moves toward them
with humility and respect, doing everything in
its power to facilitate the encounter, to remove
all obstacles, and with the desire to serve oth
ers, not to dominate and conquer. The union
of all the Christians in the sole Church of
Christ will not be the victory of the Catholic
Church, but the victory of Christ and of the
fidelity of us all — Catholics and non-Catholics
—to the impulses of the Holy Spirit, who is the
Spirit of unity.”
— (Catholic Light, Scranton, Pa.)
SOME ARE TEMPTED MORE
God’s World
Rev. Leo J.
There is one problem in life with which all
of us have to contend. It is the problem of
temptation. It is the urge which all of us feel,
at times, to seek our own will at the expense
of God’s will.
We know that the ultimate source of temp
tation is to be found in original sin. In hu
manity’s very beginning, there
was an act of rebellion against
God which irreparably damag
ed the control which reason
was designed to exercise over
human behavior. In the state
of original justice, to know the
good was to do it. After Eden,
reason no longer had the abili
ty to discriminate clearly be
tween the true good and the phony good. The
specious good of self-satisfaction came to loom
larger, often, than the genuine good of God’s
law
The fact of original sin answers the basic
question of “Why temptation?’’ It does not
answer, however, the somewhat puzzling ques
tion as to why some persons are more severely
tempted than others. In baptism we all receiv
ed the same supernatural life and the same
supernatural virtues. We all started even. Yet,
we have not remained even. As life progresses,
some of us are afflicted with more numerous
or more severe temptations than others. Why
should this be so?
A major part of the answer lies in the fact
that no two of us have exactly the same type
of personality. Our personality develops partly
from heredity; that is, from the nervous and
glandular systems, the brain and the physique
which we have inherited from our parents. Ex
cept in identical twins, born from a single egg,
no two persons have exactly the same physical
endowments. One will be by nature more vigor
ous than another; more active, more emotion
al, more passionate, more talented or more
intellectually gifted.
Perhaps more important than heredity has
been our environment. Our environment em
braces all that happens to us from birth on
ward. The environment of our infancy and
J-.£a..ood, especially the treatment we got from
the people around us, was crucial to the kind
of personality we now possess.
Trese
If, as a child, we felt unwanted or unloved,
we now are likely to be of a jealous tempera
ment, never quite sure that friend or spouse
really does love us. In some instances we may
be tempted to still our chronic love-hunger by
sexual excess.
If we grew up in a home where there was
economic stress and much talk of money prob
lems, we now may feel insecure and tend to
be overly acquisitive and miserly. If our par
ents were generous with criticism but stingy
with praise, we now may have subconscious
feelings of inferiority and may seek to com
pensate for these feelings by fault-finding and
tale-bearing.
On the other hand, if our infancy and
childhood were marked by warmth, love and
frequently-voiced approval, our home a haven
of domestic peace and security, we probably
now possess a tolerant, friendly, generous and
charitable disposition.
These are but a few illustrations of the ef
fect which our earliest experiences have had
upon our present personality. For most of us
the picture has been neither all black nor all
white. Few of us have been severely damaged
by our environment but, unless we are excep
tional, few of us have ended our childhood
without a few pyschological or emotional trau
mas.
So, our temptations do differ — in nature,
in gravity or in frequency. It would be a great
mistake, however, to think that we are the
helpless victims of our past. Whatever our par
ticular wayward tendency may be, we can keep
it under control by determined use of our free
will fortified by God’s grace, channeled to us
through the sacraments and prayer.
Another great defense against temptation,
as members of Alcoholics Anonymous have so
well proven, is to think less, about ourselves
and more about others. Our temptations lessen
in direct proportion to the time and effort we
expend in promoting the happiness and the
good of our neighbor.
It should be encouraging to remember, too,
that the more errant our emotions and passions
may be, the greater our merit and the more
rugged our virtue with each successive victory.
Be Peacemakers’
THE SOUND OF...WHAT?
It Seems To Me
JOSEPH BREIG
I keep telling my Protestant
and Jewish friends that we need
them in the Church because we
are not as bright as we might
be; and heaven knows not near
ly as good as we ought to be.
Maybe we’re not utterly bum
bling the job, — but by and
large we are not earning any
kudos.
We need their brains and we
need their virtues. And it is not
everywhere.
only of them
that this can be
said. In order
to serve God as
He sh o u 1 d be
served, we need
every gift and
talent which He
has breathed in
to the multitu
des of His sons
and daughters
GETTING DOWN to an imme
diate case, we need the Protes
tants because we’re singing off-
key. I received a hummer of a
letter the other day from a man
who said, with the finality of a
guillotine blade zipping down,
that he hadn’t uttered one peep
at Mass since all this liturgical
falderal started, “and I shan’t.”
He added that Pope Paul and
I could jolly well become Bap
tists if we liked, but he’d been
baptized a Roman Catholic and
that’s what he intended to go
on being.
When a chap feels like that,
you don’t argue; you go your
way and let him go his, figur
ing that the two of you can
laugh it off together in eternity
one day. But most of us realize
that changes involve difficulties,
and are willing to strive patient
ly to work things out.
“MANY OF US,” writes a wom
an reader, “agree that many of
the hymns (which we are pres
ently using) are of poor quality;
but I won’t go into that. But
something can be done about
the way they are sung. I stop
ped singing this morning to lis
ten and I thought that our dear
Protestant friends would be
much amused.”
(Or, may I suggest, horrified.)
“The organist played such a
slow tempo,” she went on, “that
the singing was listless, dispirit
ed, unenthusiastic.” And then
she got into my own chief trou
ble/ “The biggest difficulty, I
believe, is the' fact that the
hymns are pitched much too
high for most men, and for
many women . . .”
VERILY, VERILY, I find my
self trying to slide up an octave
on the low notes, and down an
octave on the high notes, like a
trombone; and I know that my
dear Protestant friends would be
neither amused nor horrified.
They would be roused to right
eous wrath, and in defense of
divine harmony they would run
me out of town.
My correspondent goes on: “If
some of the hymns, which do
not seem to be used at all, were
dropped from the cue cards to
make room for the musical notes
for each hymn, it would help us
all to keep on key. There is
nothing that discourages singing
so much as someone standing
next to you singing way out in
left field.”
(UNLESS IT IS I myself sing
ing way out in, left field and
trying to pretend to myself that
I can’t hear the hideous cater
wauling that is emanating from
me. I wonder whether we’ll ev
er become so aggi.ornamentaed
that they’ll ilet. me whistle the
hymns; I’m pretty good at whis
tling, and why shouldn’t I do it
for the glory of God? Oh, well,
it was just a thought.)
Concerning the words of some
of the hymns, I would simply
say that maybe we ought to add
to the Prayer of the People a
petition, “May God send us
poets.”
On this same theme, another
reader remarked that “the Mass
in English could be most inspir
ing and satisfying if the trans
lations retained the dignity and
literary quality of the missal
translations.”
THERE IS ROOM here, of
course, for differences of opinion
about what makes for literary
quality. At any rate, in this mat
ter we must be patient; geniuses
in language are not often given
to us.
As Chesterton observed con
cerning the King James Bible,
Cranmer could write like that
and nobody else could, before
or since; and there is no ex
plaining fhat kind of talent.
MOVIE CENSORSHIP LA W
Capital Report
WASHINGTON (NC) - The
U.S. Supreme Court, while un
animously striking down a Ma
ryland movie censorship law be
cause it lacked “adequate safe
guards” for permitted films, in
dicated that such laws can be
constitutional.
The court did not rule out all
laws that require films to be
licensed for public exhibition
under so-called prior censorship
procedures. It held instead that,
to pass muster, these laws must
contain provisions guaranteeing
the rights of constitutionally
protected movies.
Besides Maryland, three other
states — New York, Kansas and
Virginia — and 41 cities have
movie censorship laws, although
28 of the municipal ordinances
are said to be “inactive”.
The major sin of the Mary
land licensing law, t h e court
held (March 1) in an opinion
written by Associate Justice Wil
liam J. Brennan, Jr., was that
it contained “no statutory provi
sion for judicial participation in
the procedure which bars a
film, nor even assurance of
prompt judicial review.”
To pass the constitutional test
under the First Amendment’s
free speech guarantee, he add
ed, a rn .o v i e censorship law
must have at least these three
procedural safeguards:
1) The burden of proof that a
film is obscene or otherwise il
legal must rest on the censor.
2) The length of a ban im
posed on a movie by censor
prior to a court ruling must be
strictly limited.
In striking down the Maryland
law, t h e Supreme Court took
pains to distinguish its action
from another ruling only four
years ago in which it upheld a
similar Chicago film licensing
ordinance.
Justice Brennan said the “on
ly question tendered” in the ear
lier case — Times Film Corpo
ration v. Chicago — was “wheth
er a prior restraint was neces
sarily unconstitutional under all
circumstances.”
3) There must be a prompt
court ruling on the issue.
State law requires that all
films be licensed by the board
before being shown publicly in
Maryland. It empowers the board
to ban films which are obscene
or which “tend ... to debase
or corrupt morals or incite to
crimes.”
Freedman was convicted of
violating the law and fined $25,
even though the state conceded
that “Revenge at Daybreak”
would have received a license if
it had been submitted. The Ma
ryland Court of Appeals affirm
ed his conviction last February.
In 1961, he said, that “nar
row” question brought a nega
tive response from the court,
which held that the Constitution
does not confer “complete and
absolute freedom to exhibit, at
least once, any and every kind
of motion picture . . . even if
this film contains the basest
type of pornography.
But in the Maryland case,
Justice Brennan said, Freed
man raised a “quite distinct”
issue: While accepting the Tim
es Film ruling of 1961, he ar
gued that the Maryland law was
an “invalid prior restraint” be
cause it created a danger of
“unduly suppressing protected
expression.”
CABBAGES AND KINGS
Rev. William V. Coleman
On Lent
It’s that time again.
Few Catholics look forward to it. Fewer
enjoy it. Most all make a real effort to keep
it. All have heard at one time or other the
words of Our Savior, “Unless you do penance,
you will perish.”
This is the time of the year when most of
us begin to toy with the idea of just what we
will do during the penitential
e season to insure the growth of
our spiritual lives. It is a time
for great plans, untried hero
ism, always the most heroic
kind, and resolutions which
might shake the courage erf
Saint Paul. In a week or so
the cruel reality of our human
weakness will cut these heroics
down to size but in the end, we will accomplish
a few giant steps toward God.
Many, who write on Lent, try to emphasize
the positive. Some give the mistaken idea that
penance is not really necessary, if prayer is
used in its place. I beg to differ. Penance is
quite necessary even today in this, the enlighten
ed twentieth century. But the best form of pen
ance is that which is closely tied to prayer and
not a form of subtle pride manifesting itself by
a kind of spiritual he-man-ism.
All of us, who are bound by the law of fast,
will have something to offer up. This is the only
Lenten penance, as such, asked by the Church.
It must be important so we will keep it.
What else? Can we, should we add some
thing to it? This depends on the conditions of
our lives. For many daily Mass is possible.
This combines the best possible prayer and
one of the most difficult penances, rising early.
For some the weekly stations of the cross will
serve the penance and prayer motif. For oth
ers the daily rosary with its sacrifice of our
time will help us to God. Yet, whatever the
resolution which we hope will lift us to the
Crucified and makes us share in His passion,
it should be simple, clear and possible.
Make the Lenten resolution simple. Try to
keep from plans which are filled with compli
cated conditions and certain days of the week
—if Aunt Maggie doesn’t come to visit—sort of
thing.
Write it down. Phrase it carefully in your
prelenten prayers. Understand just what you
are setting out to do so that the age old prob
lems of the second week of Lent will not arise.
Just what did I really mean by only thirty-five
cigarettes? Was that thirty-five a week or
thirty-five a day? Was I going to count Sun
days? •
Make it possible. You know your strength.
Don’t be overcome by prelenten heroics and
find that you have fallen into discouragement
by the first Sunday of Lent. Better to make
and keep a small resolution that to make and
fail to keep several more difficult ones.
One last word on Lent. It is a time of pern
nance but not of sadness. Don’t make others
suffer for your penance. Do what you can in
a spirit of joy and confidence. Avoid other
penances for charity toward others is the basis
of our spiritual lives even during Lent.
QUESTIONS
Our F aith
Msgr. J. D. Conway
Q. Considering what our Lord said about
alms-giving I would like to know from where
a pastor gets the right to publish the amount of
each person’s contributions and what recourse
is there for a person who objects?
A. He arrogates the right to himself, and
invokes the great need of the church, the school
and various pious causes as
justification; presuming that
people will give generously on
ly when rewarded by the trum
pet of publicity, or that they
can be saved from parsimony
only by the shame of notoriety.
I doubt that the lay-cleric
dialogue is sufficiently develop
ed for your objection to be effective; but If I
were in your place I would object anyway —
and urge all my friends to object.
Q. When one receives Holy Communion,
should the response be “Amen” (A as in acorn)
or “Amen” (A as in ah — as we said it in
Latin).
A. When the priest holds the host before
you and says, “The Body of Christ”, your an
swer should be “ayemen” — the preferred
English pronunciation. But “ahmen” is also
acceptable English, and would be preferable if
the priest is still saying “Corpus Christi”.
Anyway, say it forcefully, to express your
faith and love: “yea, verily, truly, indeed; I
am witness to it.”
Q. Must we tell it in confession if we do
not pray at the table? One priest said it was
a sin; two others say it is no mortal sin. If
we have company and all are not Catholics, we
pray to ourselves. Any other time we pray to
gether.
A. It is no sin at all to omit your meal
prayers for good motive. And whatever our
motive, most of us have far more important
things to confess.