Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 4—The Southern Cross, Oetober 21, 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 John 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 85.00 per year.
Doctrine And Opinion
Within the context of what is clearly Catholic
Doctrine on Faith and Morals, editors of Catholic
newspapers and columnists writing in them are
just as free to express their opinions on public
issues which affect the community, state, nation,
and world, as readers are free to disagree, also
without denying what is the clearly defined Doc
trine of the Church.
Readers will find, on page 3, an article on the
Catholic Press, by Gerard E. Sherry, editor of
the GEORGIA BULLETIN, Atlanta Archdiocesan
newspaper. We recommend it to their serious
consideration.
It ought to go a long way toward dispelling the
false but, apparently, prevalent notion that every
expression of opinion appearing in a Catholic
newspaper necessarily reflects THE Catholic
attitude on any given subject, or that a Catholic
paper’s editorial viewpoint constitutes the ex
pression of an OFFICIAL stance on the part of
either the catholic Church or the diocese which
sponsors the paper.
Make It A Real Fight
Ohio Knights of Columbus are launching a
five-point plan to combat obscene literature.
Their campaign will parallel a four-point plan
approved at the national convention of the K.
of C. last summer.
In addition Ohio Knights will supplement the
nationwide K. of C. decent literature campaign
by conducting statewide polls of all dealers
of magazines who wish to cooperate in clean
sing their racks of obscene material.
All Ohio councils have been asked to form
decent literature committees designed to pro
mote the formation of citizens groups com
posed of clergymen of all faiths, business and
professional men, educators and labor leaders-
not as self-appointed censorship boards, but to
help educate their respective communities on
the extent of the problem and to arouse them
to demand tighter law enforcement.
Ohio Knights have also been urged to support
the efforts of Citizens for Decent Literature,
national anti-obscenity organization, to attack
the problem through lawsuits and other legal
measures.
We hope a similar program of attack can be
mounted in the state of Georgia.
Such a campaign, coupled with the efforts
of other interested groups could well be the
answer to the growing trade in pornography
in Georgia.
And there are other interested organiza
tions—groups which have been working quietly
but doggedly to drive printed filth from the
book racks and newsstands of the stae. One
is a Savannah organization headed by Mr. A.
K. Gannam.
Last Tuesday, Gannam asked Savannah’s Ma
yor Malcolm Maclean to make an “official
statement” to dealers and distributors of maga
zines and paperbacks to help “clean-up” ob
jectionable literature on newsstands inSavannah.
Gannam’s request is the first positive pub
lic reaction to a charge, voiced in Savannah
last week by Citizens for Decent Literature,
and given rather widespread publicity,
Charles H. Keating, Jr., the organization’s
founder and legal counsel had charged that
the only effective answer to the problem of
obscenity is strict law enforcement, and that
law enforcement officials and prosecutors were
not acting to implement the State’s anti-ob
scenity laws. To date, Gannam’s is the only
positive reaction. Nothing has been said by
either law enforcement or prosecutive of
ficials.
We believe that if the Knights of Columbus
in Georgia follow a plan similar to that under
taken by Ohio’s Knights , adding their great
strength to other responsible community organi
zations such as that headed by Mr. Gannam,
Georgia can end what has been largely, up to
now, merely a war of words and slogans, and
finally make a real fight against the incursions
of the smut merchants.
RELIGION IS LEARNED AT HOME
God’s World
Leo J. Trese
God shares with parents the great privilege
of passing on the light of faith to subsequent
generations. It is an awesome responsibility,
because it is not just this present child whose
spiritual life is dependent upon his parents.
He in turn will be the transmitter of the faith
to his own descendants, perhaps to be numbered
by the hundreds and thousands, through all
the centuries to come. From this one blood
line can come a host of saints — or a host of
spiritual derelicts.
Some parents place too much
confidence in religious know
ledge. They feel that if they
send their child to a Catholic
school or at least to reli
gious instruction classes, his
spiritual future is assured.
They, the parents, have done
all that can be expected of
them.
However, it is an unhappy fact that there are
many ex-catholics who, as children, were well
instructed in the truths of the Catholic faith.
Some of these fallen-aways are products of
eight, twelve and even sixteen years of Ca
tholic education.
The truth is that a child is much less in
fluenced by what he hears from a teacher
than by what he sees and unconsciously ab
sorbs in his own home. Religious instruction
is necessary, certainly. A child must learn
the body of revealed truths. But it is the
religion which “rubs off” from parent to
child which reaUy determines the offspring’s
spiritual future.
racial and other types of prejudice, generous
and helpful toward those in need, thoroughly
honest in all business dealings, quick to for
give and to seek forgiveness if marital quar
rels occur. In a home like that, a child really
learns the meaning of religion.
Even in such a home, however, there are
two important cautions to observe. The first
caution is: Never use God as an instrument
of discipline. From the ver y beginning a child
should learn to see God as a God of love. It
is a horrible injustice, both to God and to
Child, to tell a little tot, “God doesn’t love
you when you’re naughty.” It is an even worse
abuse to tell a child, “That was a big sin
you commited,” when the youngster is not
even old enough to be capable of sin.
Another caution is: never force religion on
a child. Rather, help him to see that our ser
vice of God is a freely given service, rendered
out of love for God.
Moreover, since a child is not obliged to
assist at Sunday Mass until after the age of
seven, he should not be forced to go to church
if he objects. Even after the age of seven, if
the youngster claims a stomachache or a head
ache as an excuse for staying home from Sunday
Mass, it is better to take him at his word, how
ever dubious his claim may seem.
Further, when a young child is taken to
church, he should not be threatened with dire
consequences if he does a bit of squirming.
He is not “hurting Jesus”: not the Jesus who
blessed and smiled upon the children who were
pestering Him.
That child is blessed whose home is per
vaded by a spirit of faith. His parents are
visibly grateful to God in times of prosperity,
resigned to God’s will in time of adversity,
confident of God’s care and help in time of
trouble. They are consistently truthful, re
verent and charitable in speech, free from
Parents will not make many mistakes if they
keep clearly in mind their two objectives: To
help the child to see God as Someone who loves
him tremendously, and who continues to love him
even when he is “bad;” and to see religion as
a service which, by our own choice, we freely
give to God out of love for Him.
CABBAGES AND KINGS
- Ilir " ~~ T| ■ -<
Rev. William V. Coleman
On Liberals
The past two months have been no Roman
holiday for the Liberals in and out of the
Church. The ‘ruler’ of moderation has given
liberal knuckles a sound trimming. Behind the
‘ruler’ has been the firm and uncompromising
hand of Pope Paul VI.
It all began last summer with repeated papal
warnings. The Holy Father
seemed to be especially con
cerned about those who were
tampering with the doctrine of
the Eucharist. There was little
or no response from the liberal
theologians who were experi
menting with doctrine and try
ing to explain away some of the
mystery. Then, came a formal encyclical which
removed the problem from fatherly advice to
outright condemnation.
A married clergy in the Roman Rite was the
hope of a small but vocal minority. One Catholic
newspaper in the U. S. was especially concerned
with this idea. Just the other day, Pope Paul
ordered the matter removed from discussion
in the Council. The bishops cheered. The liberal
press chanted, “Shame, Shame”.
In his United Nations speech, Pope Paul made
clear that the teaching of the Church on
birth control is not to undergo any drastic
revision.
All of this has set the liberal press to hum
ming an unhappy tune. Looking for an ex
planation which their religiously unlettered
public would find palatably they seized upon Pope
Paul as the devil of the piece. They are making
a desperate effort to convince us that things
would have been different, if Pope John had
lived.
It Seems To Me
It begins to sound like the campaign they
waged a few years ago against Premier Diem
in South Viet Nam. Perhaps they are sug
gesting a revolution in Rome to match the
Saigon coup?
In the ecumenical council
debate on the marriage-fa
mily section of the document
on the Church in the Modern
World, Emile cardinal Leger
of Montreal said:
“The for
mula defining
marriage as an
institution or
dained to the
p r ocreation
and education
of children is
an example of
the principal
defect in this
schema, in that
it fails to reflect correctly
the goal pursued by the hu
man person in marriage.
“In my opinion this formu
la is incomplete and ambig
uous ... This seems to be
admitted in the schema itself,
when it adduces a correction
saying that marriage is not
‘a simple instrument of pro
creation.’
“The formula perhaps ex
presses the meaning of mar
riage for the human species
But it is PERSONS who are
united by marriage, and there
fore the meaning marriage
has for persons must be de
scribed, without of course ne
glecting the meaning it takes
for the human race.”
Bishop Hermann Volk of
Mainz, Germany, said that
the schema ought to treat
of marriage in logical order.
“Man as such must first be
considered; then man as a
Christian; then his right to
select a state of life. The
same principle applies to the
priestly and Religious state.
As a creature of God, man
has a right to choose his state
of life.”
Thus at last we are getting
away from theological fixa
tion upon the statement that
the primary purpose of mar
riage is procreation and ed
ucation of children. Even when
referring to marriage as an
institution, and to man as a
“species” ( if man can ever
be so described) this has long
seemed to me to be greatly
inadequate.
I am convinced that the
fruitful foundation for a theo
logy of marriage is the rea
lization that the primary pur
pose is the sanctification of
human beings in preparation
for their life with God forever.
Marriage is for the making
of saints—first of the husband
and wife; then of the children
if God sends children; finally
of those to whom the family
is an example of, and an in
spiration to, unassuming non
tub-thumping holiness.
When marriage is so seen,
everything else falls into
place—conjugal love, regu
lation of family size and the
rest.
Sooner or later, I believe,
we will follow the bright
light shone upon marriage by
Benedictine Father Maur
Burback in his essay in the
book, “Readings in Sacra
mental Theology” (Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.)
Marriage, says Father
Maur, is a revelation from
God because it is a divinely
instituted way of life.
Marriage is a vocation from
God; indeed it was the first
vocation given to man.
Marriage is a mystery in
the full supernatural sense of
the mind of St. Paul, who
compared it with the union
of Christ and His Church.
The mystery of redemption
takes place within a family
context, from God’s promise
of the Seed who would save
mankind, to the birth of the
Savior.
Marriage, because it is a
sacrament, is liturgy; it is
part of Christ’s worship, with
His people, of the Father.
Marriage too, is sacrifice
partaking of the humility of
Calvary and the Mass. Two
human beings place them
selves on the altar of their
love for each other— not for
an hour or a day, but for
life with all its joys and pain,
its heartliftings and itsheart-
tearings.
If you say that all this is
too idealistic concerning a way
of life in which the flesh has
a leading role. I reply, first,
that it is the truth; and se
cond, that the whole story
of mankind is one of spiri
tual sublimity and colossal
divine purposes, worked out in
the flesh and in earthiness.
©
I S. STILL WOOS TITO
What does the liberal press in the United
States want of the Council and the Pope? They
seem to desire something new — A TIME-ESE
CHURCH. A “Time-ese” Clurrch would have two
heads, one in Rome under the Pope and the
other in New York under the editorial offices
of Time, Inc. What they seem to have in mind
is a reed shaking in the wind of their opinion,
a Church so sensitive to the press that it
would blindly hop through any hoop held up
by the liberal press.
It doesn’t look as if things will be that way.
Thank God and His Holy Spirit! The liberal
press has made trouble enough in directing
our foreign policy throughout the past fifteen
years without putting its meddling finger into
the Church pie.
We Catholics owe a real debt to Pope Paul
and to the Council Fathers for their willing
ness to stand up under the pressure. It is good
to see that Time and the Times have met
their match.
QUESTIONS
Our F aith
Msgr. Conway
Q. Ever since the Second World War stories
have been circulating that one of the popes
will eventually move the Vatican to Jerusalem.
Is there any truth in this?
Is St. Peter’s so marked that it cam be taken
apart and moved elsewhere?
*
Is this one of the reasons the
Pope went to visit Jerusalem
last year?
A. Your rumor is totally
new to me, and totaUy false.
It would probably be easier to move the
Empire State Building to Jerusalem than to
transfer St. Peter’s Basilica.
Capital Report
WASHINGTON (NC) — The
State Department intends to
continue its wooing of Marshal
Tito, Yugoslavia’s commu
nist dictator.
That is a message to be
learned from an incident which
has caused some speculation
here.
It was revealed that the
Secretaries of State, Defense
and Commerce had joined in
a letter to leading cigarette
manufacturers in this coun
try, commending them for de
fying the threat of a boycott,
said to have been raised be
cause they were using Yugo
slav tobacco in some of their
products.
This unusual epistle must
be considered as a declaration
of Administration policy.
The letter acknowledges the
right of citizens to object to
Government policy, but says
the Federal Government
“must direct the relations
with other nations.” These, of
course, are simply statements
of fact. In the light of history,
however, it would seem that
the expression “private opin
ions aqd prejudices” minmi-
zes too much the dislike for
Tito that exists in this coun
try.
For a good many years now
there have been in the State
Department people with a dis
tinct enthusiam for playing up
to Marshal Tito. Their pitch
has been that we might be
able to woo him away from
Moscow, if not from com
munism. So, we have given
Tito billions of dollars in
aid, seemingly without mak
ing him any better friend of
this country.
Tito did come to the U. S.
in 1963, and was in Washing
ton for six hours. While he
was being received with
proper speeches at the White
House, his visit was being
deplored at the other end of
Pennsylvania Avenue by mem
bers of the Congress.
Since then, it was said here,
the United States has become
Yugoslavia’s leading trade
partner.
Pope Paul went to Jerusalem, Nazareth and
Bethlehem to visit and venerate places made
sacred by the life of Jesus while He was on
earth. It also gave him opportunity to visit
with the Ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople
and thus to begin a restoration of friendship
and communication with the Orthodox Churches.
It was the first such meeting since the Council
of Florence in 1439.
Jerusalem would be a poor place for the Pope
to reside in the present days. It is a city divided
by a wall and a neutral zone — no man’s land —
with Israeli and Jordanian soldiers watching
each other like hawks.
Q. I know it is not possible to commit a
mortal sin without full advertence. Does this
also apply to the Sacrament of Penance? Is
it possible to make a bad confession without
knowing that you are doing so?
A. You cannot make a bad confession without
knowing it; you cannot make a bad confession
without willing it. You cannot make a bad con
fession when you honestly wish and try to make
a good one.