Newspaper Page Text
I
PAGE 4—The Southern Cross, April 22, 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 hn E. Markwalter, 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 August and the last week in December.
Subscription price $5.00 per year.
American Schools
The newly enacted federal education aid leg-,
islation will be the subject of controversy for
a long time to come.
There are still, and there probably always
will be, those who see, in government aid to
children of parochial as well as public schools,
a threat to America’s traditional separation of
Church and State.
There are still others, and there probably
always will be, who merely use the Church-
State argument to hide a deep-seated animus
toward the Catholic Church and all its works.
Then there are those who maintain that is
has never been clearly and conclusively demon
strated that there is a real and present need
for federal intervention in the affairs of the
nation’s elementary and secondary school sys
tems.
Finally, there are those who prescind com
pletely from the question of need, maintaining
that federal intervention, for whatever cause,
means dangerously increased federal control
of American education, and an alarming dimi
nution of State and local authority in the school
ing of the nation’s children.
But, whatever the merits of the arguments
of the last two groups, and whatever the ulti
mate fate of the new law when Congress de
bates the appropriation necessary to implement
its provisions, the cases presented by the first
two groups seem to have been finally and
totally rejected. And for this alone, Catholics
ought to be grateful.
For the Congress has not only judged that
tax-paid aid to parachial school students does
not infringe on the principle of separation of
Church and State, but is so confident of its
judgment that an expression of doubt framed
by Senator Ervin was rejected. , ...
In the glaring light of publicity during lengthy
House and Senate hearings the bigots have been
exposed for what they are and have slowly
crept back to the darkness which spawned them.
It would appear that at long-last, the Con
gress of the United States has, in the words
of columnist Walter Lippmann, recognized that
church-related schools are indeed “American”
and an essential part of the American school
system.
Writing in the Washington Post, Mr. Lipp
mann said of the education measure:
“What is novel in it and highly significant
is the recognition by Congress that religious
schools are American schools, that they are
an essential part of the American school sys
tem...
“It has long seemed to me that the public
policy of the Act can be stated in the following
way. It is a fundamental principle of Ameri
can society that education is so indispensable
that government rightly makes it compulsory.
At all levels of government, the nation since
it was founded, has promoted education in schools
and colleges.
“It has never been the rule or the practice
to make it compulsory that children be edu
cated in public schools alone. From the be
ginning, American governments have accepted
religious and private schools as educational
agencies, provided they met certain standards
of educational efficiency.
“If, then, private schools are legitimate
and recognized institutions, then justice de
mands and the public interest requires that
they receive public assistance, outside the pro
hibitions of the first amendment. A parochial
school is an American school.”
As we said, it would appear that the Con
gress of the United States has finally admitted
to the sentiments expressed by Mr. Lippmann
and by others before him for many, many
years.
Is it too much to hope for, that the legisla
tures of the various States, Georgia included,
will follow the lead of the nation’s lawmakers,
and apply themselves to the task of finding a way
to finally render justice to those parents who
comply with the demands of compulsory edu
cation laws by sending their children to other
than public schools?
PATH TO A PEACEFUL HEART
God’s World
Rev. Leo J. Trese
“Peace and quiet.” We often associate the two
words as though there were a necessary con
nection between them. The truth is that genuine
peace—tranquillity of heart and mind—has little
to do with the absence of noise. A person can
be at peace in the midst of clanking machinery
or honking horns. A person can suffer inner tor
ment in the solitude of an empty
church.
Peace of heart is a precious
possession. It is a wonderful
thing to be able to face each
new day without undue fear or
anxiety; to go through the day
with a feeling of satisfaction
in our work and our surround
ings; to feel confident that what
ever crisis or emergency may
arise, it will in the end have a happy issue.
Such peace of heart must, of course, have a
spiritual basis. It can be built only on the con
viction that God is in ultimate control of the
world and that the world with all its happenings
is moving toward the destiny God has in mind
fo r it. Doing our best to identify our own will
with God’s, insofar as we can discern it, we
know that we too, with each day’s activities,
are moving toward God’s objective. We are
moving in the right direction.
There are persons who, because of a persona
lity disorder such as a severe neurosis, are
presently incapable of preserving peace of heart.
There ar e others who may be deprived tempo
rarily of peace of heart by some sudden per
sonal catastrophe. But for most of us it is
true that, if we lack peace of heart, the fault
is our own.
It is obvious that peace of heart cannot
coexist with sin. Sin by definition is a rejec
tion of God’s will. As long as a person retains
any traces of religious faith, he never can con
vince himself, really, that he is smarter than
God. Whatever pleasure or profit he may now
be finding in his self-will, the sinner knows
that he is on a dead-end street which can lead
only to the bitter failure of a wasted life.
This is not to say that every virtuous per
son enjoys peace of heart. Some who walk
with God do so with reluctance. They keep
God’s commandments, they do what they must,
but they nourish a (perhaps unrecognized) re
sentment against God. They feel that God has
treated them unfairly in placing them in their
present circumstances and that He asks more
than He really has a right to ask.
An unpeaceful heart may be caused, not only
by conflict with God, but also by conflict with
ourselves. In this event, to reestablish peace
we have to discover the source of our inner
conflict. What is it that is frustrating us? What
is it that we want so badly but cannot have?
Sometimes we shall find that the source of
our discontent is a condition which, with cou
rage and determination, we can alter. Perhaps
all that is requried is a change of jobs, a change
of environment (school, neighborhood or cli
mate) the acquisition of more education or some
other not-impossible goal.
Adhering to God’s will does not mean the
surrender of all initiative. It is a part of our
vocation to seek, by trial and error if need be,
what God’s will may be for us. So long as we
operate within the framework of His law, God
actually encourages us to try to bend circum
stances to our needs and to make the most of
our talents. He will positively help us to that
end with His guidance and His grace.
To achieve peace of heart, then, there are
two essential steps which we must take (beyond
the conquest of sin). On the one hand we must
stop feeling sorry for ourselves and take active
steps to eliminate whatever it is that is frus
trating us.
On the other hand, when we find ourselves
in a bind from which there simply is no escape,
then we know that this is God’s will for us, how
ever impossible it may be to see the reason
for it. We accept His will. More, we embrace
His will. So doing, we find peace.
There is an ancient prayer which beautifully
summarizes the* secret of pe*ce of heart: “God
grant me the courage to change the things I
can change; the serenity to accept the things
I cannot change; and the wisdom to know the-
difference.”
NEW MASS AND I
It Seems To Me
JOSEPH BREIG
I am in complete rapport with
the small boy who boasted that
his dad was a “Mass complica-
tor.” As a commentator at Mass
myself, I have stumbled into
more than my share of blun
ders.
Once I created almost total
confusion by starting the hymn
at Communion
time without
waiting for the
celebrant to lead
the people in the
“Lord, I am not
worthy.”
I rise to allege,
that I am improving. Indeed I
finally got through an entire Mass
without one mistake--and was
even able to re-route the priest
when he absentmindedly began
reciting the Creed while the con
gregation was saying the Gloria.
I HAVE DISCOVERED once
more what a great ocean of good
nature and patience there is
among the people. We are going
through a difficult period, but I
have heard little complaining and
no carping at all.
This is not to say that every
body likes, or pretends to like,
the new ways of divine worship.
Of course not; and I haven’t the
slightest objection to folks speak
ing what is in their minds. In
fact, I think they should, because
we are experimenting, and there
is certainly room for improve
ment.
In a letter to a diocesan news
paper the other day, a reader
testified to being impressed with
“the freedom with which the
Mass in its new form is discuss
ed and criticized.” The letter
continued:
“I have not yet discovered how
to successfully partake of Com
munion while singing‘hymn num
ber six, page nine.’ I submit it
is impossible to sing and eat at
the same time.
“It is also extremely disquiet
ing to find one’s way to the altar
railing, raise eyes to the host,
quickly slide in that ‘Amen’ (do
we not testify by just being
there?) receive, carefully swal
low the sacred Host, return to
one’s place and join hymn number
six, page nine.
“I am not being facetious nor
irreverent ...”
Of course this reader is not be
ing facetious or irreverent. The
bishops would be the first to say
that they need to know whether
the new liturgy is properly adapt
ed to the people.
I would join in the suggestion
that the Communion hymn prob
ably should be dropped, at least
in large churches, The people at
that time can’t very well sing:
they are too busy getting in and
out of pews, and to and from the
altar railing. At least, such is my
observation as a commentator.
I AGREE ALSO—at least ten
tatively—that it might be better
to eliminate the priest’s repeti
tion of the words “Body of
Christ” and the communicant’s
“Amen”—or at least the latter,
I find it awkward and distracting
to concentrate upon the‘“Amen”
and on timing it just right; and
I think that my presence at the
Communion railing is a suffi
cient profession of my faith in the
Real Presence of Christ under
the sign of bread.
Discussion of the “new Mass,”
however, does not mean that we
forget what Pope Paul said the
other day—that we must be pa
tient while we adapt ourselves,
and that:
“The religious and spiritual
plan unfolded before us by the
new liturgical constitution is a
stupendous one for depth and
authenticity of doctrine, for ra
tionality of Christian logic, for
purity and riches of culture and
art. It corresponds to the inte
rior being and needs of modern
man.”
WORLD SITUATION DANGEROUS
Capital Report
WASHINGTON--Pope Paul VI
told a throng in St. Peter’s square
that the international situation is
such today as to make one doubt
that men are capable of attaining
peace.
At the same time, officials
here were saying privately that
a very dangerous world situa
tion exists as a result of the Viet
nam crisis.
Voicing the prayer that the
world may be filled ‘with peace
which it always needs so much,”
the Pope told some 50,000 per
sons gathered beneath his win
dow;
“Present conditions make us
doubtful and almost make us lose
hope that men can be capable of
attainin g peace and of persever
ing in efforts of reasonableness
and brotherhood which maker\
peace possible.”
Officials here say, as they have
said many times before, that this
nation does not want war. They
say they are convinced that Red
China and Soviet Russia do not
want a general war over South
east Asia. At the same time,
it is obvious to authorities here
that the communists want to take
over Southeast Asia. To this end,
Red guerrilla attacks in Viet
nam are expected to be stepped
up greatly.
Words and actions in Peking
and Hanoi have convinced offi
cials in this city that, despite
President Johnson’s offer of “un
conditional discussions,” the
Reds have decided to take a
hard line. This belief has been
strengthened by Peking and Hanoi
bluntly rejecting a proposed visit
by a British emissary, by Pek
ing’s rejection of the idea that
the United Nations might help
with a settlement of the Viet
nam problem, and by Peking’s
advice to UN Secretary General
U Thant not to visit Red China
or North Vietnam.
The U.S. says there is no
doubt that North Vietnam is di
recting the Viet Cong guerrillas,
and this government will not
negotiate with the Viet Cong, as
Peking demands, or with the
National Liberation Party, the
communist political arm.
A statement issued on behalf
of the State Department here
earlier this year said in the
1930’s “the Western democracies
refused to face up to their re
sponsibilities and tried to ignore
events in such far-off places as
Manchuria, the Rhineland, Ethio
pia, Czechoslovakia, andAustria.
We all know the results of such
a stance: the holocaust of World
War II. We would indeed be
foolish to make the same mis
take again and pull out of a dif-
ficult situation like Vietnam as
soon as we found that there
was no instant, easy solution.”
The same statement said “we
seek no wider war, but whether
or not this course can be main
tained lies with the North Viet
nam aggressors.”
The Pope also told the crowd
in St. Peters’ square that the
Easter season restores the hope
“that peace is not only a duty
but is possible, it is pos
sible if Christ is accepted by us.”
CABBAGES AND KINGS
Rev. William V. Coleman
On Aliases
The other day I was in the post office and
saw the inevitable scowling pictures of the
wanted on the wall. The description of one
or two of these modern desperados struck me.
After the real name of the criminal was a
long list of aliases, new names taken to avoid
trouble.
It struck me that this was something I ha<J
seen done before even in my own lifetime and
not by desperados but by sins.
S Once upon a time there was
the simple concept of murder
and everyone agreed that mur
der was wrong. Today every
one still agrees that murder
is wrong but then there is
mercy killing and theraputic
abortion which, after all, are
not murder and so not wrong.
Once upon a time, there were two kinds of
criminals, young ones and old ones. Today the
younger criminal set has disappeared into the
hazy land of juvenile delinquency. Now, for some
reason which my poor mind has never fathomed,
the young criminal is no longer classed as such.
Once upon a time, there was such a thing
as smut and indecent literature. Today we have
pornography masking under the names of free
dom of expression, liberty and thousand other
subterfuges. Somehow or dther, pornography
sounds much more evil than “modern realism.”
Once upon a time there was the sin of anger
and little boys were spanked for losing their
tempers and heaping insults on the neighbors’
daughters. Today the little fellow is recognized
as expressing his pre-adolescent frustration and
expressing his individuality—no more thwarted
ego here!
What does it all add up to? It adds up to a
multiplication of sin and a refusal to f&ce the
facts of sin and sin’s consequences. If mercy
killing is somehow different from murder, then
it will not be long before the social conscience
of the nation will, through its laws, recognize
and provide for the difference. It has already
done this to a shocking degree, with juvenile
delinquency. The other day I saw a case made
by a harrassed police man against an unruly
teenager dismissed with a mild warning by an
indulgent judge. What the youngster needed was
a severe fine and some real trouble at home.
Perhaps he might have learned that being
sassey with the representative of authority
doesn’t pay. As it is, he learned that a teen
ager may under the guise of his immaturity
get away with almost anything.
It is about time that we Catholics, at least,
faced up to reality and called a spade a spade
and acted accordingly. A rose by any name
may smell as sweet but a sin by another name
may well smell like the sweetest rose.
QUESTIONS
Our Faith
Msgr. Conway
Q. Why is Pilate criticized for asking, “What
is truth?” To me that is THE question. If you
can’t answer me I’ll have to ask him when I see
him.
A. If Pilate asked the question seriously,
really wanting to know the truth, then he should
not be criticized but praised. Man has the privi
lege and the duty of seeking the truth; and the
closer he comes to finding it, the more he re
sembles God, Who knows all truth and is the
source of all truth.
muse wau criticize ir’iiaxe ior nis question
(John 18, 38) see in it a strong
note of skepticism -- implying
that no one can really know
the truth with certainty. This
interpretation receives cre
dence from the fact that Pi
late apparently did not expect
an answer and Jesus did not
give one.
However , Jesus’ silence may be explained
by the alienation of Pilate from any basis of
understanding the truth. A search for truth
must feed on truth while searching. Unless
truth guide us, we cannot recognize truth when
we find it.
Q. We have understood and were taught in
catechism, and some of us in our instructions
when we converted, that when you receive Com
munion from the priest he would never, ever
touch your tongue. Well our priest never heard
of this because he never misses. He touches
everyone and not faintly either. I for one can
not stand this, and I know of several people in
our parish who watch to see if people with
known infections go to Communion, and it they
do, these people will not receive.
Our husbands say you won’t answer this,
but will send the letter back to our priest.
A. I never send letters back to pastors.
But I probably would not have found place
in my column for your question if you had
not challenged me and questioned my integrity.
Priests generally try to avoid touching the
tongue or mouth of communicants, but some
times it is not possible, either because the
priest is clumsy or because the communicant
is a snapper or tongue wiggler.