Newspaper Page Text
4
PAGE 4—The Southern Cross, March 3, 1966
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 $5.00 per year.
Vietnam Stance
Arguments pro and con the presence and ac
tions of United States military forces in South
Vietnam have been aired in just about every
conceivable public forum.
College campuses and public halls and meet
ing places have reverberated to the strident
sounds of students, professors and just plain,
everyday people denouncing American partici
pation in the southeast Asia war. Spokesmen
for the Johnson administration have appeared
in the same places, offering arguments in sup
port of United States policy.
Newspapers and magazines have carried
countless news stories and commentaries on
the conflicting opinions being expressed by ordi
nary citizens and statesmen alike, concerning
America’s course of action in pursuing military
operations while at the same time seeking an
honorable negotiated peace.
The American public, through radio and tele
vision, has had an opportunity to listen to posi
tion statements by congressmen at loggerheads
with one another on the issue.
We have our own opinion as to whether this
nation is right or wrong in its foreign policy re
garding southeast Asia and communist military
expansion there, and we think our readers are
capable of formulating their own opinions on the
matter without being led by the hand by us.
All the same, we detect a glaring defect in
the attitude of both sides to the present con
troversy.
Both those who uphold American policy in
South Vietnam and those who oppose it have
one thing in common, it seems to us. They
both present their position and their arguments
with the same spirit of self-righteousness-
neither side seriously listening to the other and
neither making much of an attempt to appraise
the concept of war from a truly Christian view
point.
On the one hand, we have those who call for
the immediate withdrawal of all American forces
-even if the Viet Cong refuse to cease their
infiltration tactics and their attempts to sub
jugate South Vietnam by force of arms. It
matters not at all, to such, that American
abandonment of South Vietnam would signal
an end to the most elementary rights of mil
lions upon millions of people, and they seek
to justify their position by alleging that there
is no freedom in South Vietnam anyway - a
charge which is not warranted by fact.
On the other hand, we have those who would
throw all caution to the wind, enlarging the
scope of military action, certain that such
escalation would not lead to Russian or Red
Chinese involvement on a massive scale, when
the truth is that no one knows for certain
whether it would or not. These are they who
find cause for jubilation in headlines announc
ing “X number of Viet Cong ‘wiped out’.”
Congress has given overwhelming support
to Administration policy, but it remains for
each individual to appraise that policy in his
own conscience, because the Administration,
after all, represents him.
Is it any part of Christian concern for the
welfare and rights of neighbor to consign the
people of South Vietnam to the rule of those
who would strip them of their dignity as chil
dren of God and make of them nothing more
than mindless cogs in an ant-hill world?
Is the mind of Christ and the love of God
for all men reflected in the ability to shout
“Hurrah” when told that hundreds of the enemy
have been killed - hundreds of human lives
snuffed out, hundreds of wives made widows,
thousands of children made orphans?
It seems to us that the problem is not how to
extricate ourselves from a nasty and contro
versial war, nor how to end the war by the
quickest and most expeditious means.
Rather, it is how to minister to the needs
of the poor and oppressed in a far-off land,
while seeking to end the carnage and suffer
ing which war always brings to the immo-
cent on both sides.
The Christian ideal of a world order based
on the love of God and love of neighbor will
certainly never be realized by abandoning any
part of the world to those who would drive
God out of it.
Nor will it be realized by those incapable
of compassion for men who have made them
selves our enemies and who force us to defend
ourselves and our friends at the cost of their
lives. (F.J.D.)
A FINAL WORD
God’s World
Leo J. Trese
Almost every priest, I suspect, has been
moved at one time or another to speculate,
“If I knew that this was to be my last sermon,
what would I want to say?”
As ithappens, this will be the last of my weekly
columns. After fifteen years of recurring dead
lines, I feel that I have said all that I have to
say. Much of it I doubtless have said two or
three times over.
What, then, should be my parting word? Of
all that I have written, what is
of primary importance?
Obviously, our Lord Himself
already has answered that ques
tion. “Love God,” He tells us,
“and love your neighbor as
yourself.”
This is the grand, the total view. All theology
flows from this, and all religious instruction
and exhortation must converge on this.
However, if there is one small area of
this over-all mandate which calls for em
phasis and reemphasis, it surely is the need
for trust in God, for an unshakable confidence
in His care for us.
Trust is one of the finest tributes of love
which we can offer God. We know that there
is no more touching evidence of a child’s
love for his parents, than the absolute con
fidence with which he raises his eyes to mother
or dad. Similarly there is no more expres
sive act of love which we can show God than
figuratively to put our hand in His and say,
“Lead me, God; I know that I am safe with
You.”
God wants us with Himself in heaven, Oh how
He wants us! Through all the years of our
life He surrounds us with His grace, respecting
our free will, yet all the while trying to steer
us toward Himself. Even when we try to run
from Him, His grace still pursues us.
He never gives up. We sometimes, in ora
torical excess, speak of God as having aban
doned a sinner to his fate. What we mean by
this figure of speech is only that it is possible
for a sinner to erect an impenetrable shell
of self-love between himself and God. As far
as God Himself is concerned, He never gives
up as long as there is enough life left in the
sinner to whisper, “I’m sorry, God. Please
love me again.”
Inevitably God’s love meets with a certain
amount of abuse. There always will be some
who reason, “If God loves me so much, then I
can do as I please. Later on, when I’ve had
my fun, I can depend upon God to save me.”
This, as we know, is the sin of presumption.
It is the act of beating God over the head with
His own gift of love. It is a horribly dangerous
attitude. Because, while God’s forgiving love is
always at the ready, the presumptions sinner
easily becomes complacent in his sin and loses
his capacity to turn back to God.
However, for every person who is guilty of
presumption there are a thousand of us who
sincerely do wish to do God’s wilL We try to
keep his commandments and to show a decent
concern for the needs of our neighbor.
At the same time we are acutely aware of
our weakness and imperfection. In life’s hustle
and bustle we so easily lose sight of eternal
values.
We are ashamed that our prayers are so
sketchy and so full of distractions; ashamed,
too, that we so often are unrecollected at Mass.
Sometimes the Consecration has passed and
we hardly have adverted to the fact that Jesus
has reached out to us for an expression of our
love and fealty.
We have sworn to be more charitable, and still
we have indulged in rash judgments and in
harsh crtiticisms.
It is at such times that we must remind our
selves, “God loves me. He knows that I am
trying. He also knows that I am weak. In spite
of my failures, He willbring me safely through.”
As I write “finis” to this column, I cannot do
better than to recommend to my readers my own
favorite philosophy: “Do the best you can,
and leave the rest to God.”
Lenten Action
DON’T YOU SING?
It Seems To Me
Joseph Breig
Attending the funeral of a
friend the other day. I found
myself in a United Presby
terian church; and I rise to
testify that if we Catholics
will only be patient, and will
cooperate cheerfully with the
ecumenical council’s direc
tives, everything is going to
come up roses, liturgically
speaking, in due time.
I under-
§ stand, and am
with, my witty
correspondent,
Joseph V. Wil
cox of Albion,
Mich., who re-
f e r r e d re
cently to “the
perfectly dreadful examples
of incompetent hymn writing”
with which some parishes are
afflicted, and to the lack of
enthusiasm in many congrega
tions for what he described
as “brotherly caterwauling.”
Mr. Wilcox, as we all know,
is exaggerating only enough
for legitimate and good-
humored emphasis. But I wish
he could have been with my
wife and me in that United
Presbyterian church in Pitts
burgh, Pa.
The minister, after a quietly
eloquent eulogy of our friend
for his great virtues as hus
band, father and citizen,
gave us the number of a hymn.
At once, my wife did what I
expected her to do. She leaned
her head close to mine and
breathed an appeal; “Don’t
YOU sing.”
This calls for explanation.
I am not without musical
talent. I can play a bit of
piano by ear. I am a lover
of good orchestra music,
expecially the great tunes of
the 20s and 30s. There are
worse voices than mine, and
I can hit a note. But my vo
cal chords are not pitched for
the keys in which other people
sing. I’ve got to keep changing
octaves; and in the process,
I can cause consternation in
any congregation.
Therefore, “Don’t YOU
sing.” begged my wife: and
I did not argue the point. We
stood as the organ played the
introductory notes, and then
suddenly we were lifted on a
great wave of magnificent
singing.
I was at first startled, then
astounded, then thrilled. From
my place in a back pew, I
could see that there were
no more than 60 or 70 per
sons present; but they sounded
like 10 big churchfuls of Ca
tholics.
I amend that statement, I
mean that in volume they
sounded like 10 churches filled
with Catholics. But never have
I heard Catholics sing to the
Lord with such openhearted
and open-throated skill.
“Heavens”, I thought,
“these people must have been
born singing.” Then I realized
that I had touched the heart
of the matter. Hymning had
been part of their devotional
lives from childhood. More,
if had been handed down
through the generations.
Caught up on that tide of
wonderful sound, I added my
own voice; and even I wasn’t
able to spoil it. In time, we
too will be singing like that.
Patience, Mr. Wilcox!
ANTI-POVERTY REPORT
Capital Report
WASHINGTON (NC)—The
first annual report of the Of
fice of Economic Opportunity
underlines both the triumph
and the tragedy of the nation’s
bold, brave war on poverty.
The report is embodied in
a handsomely printed 96-page
brochure entitled “A Nation
Aroused.” It is replete with
pictures and a professionally
written text that dramatize
the achievements and the chal
lenges of the antipoverty cam
paign.
Reading it, one gets a strong
impression of dynamism, de
termination and optimism. Its
tone is suggested by OEO di
rector Sargent Shriver’s de
claration, in the introduction,
that “we know that poverty
in the United States will be
abolished in our time.”
All this is the triumph side
of the war on poverty. The tra
gedy, though not spelled out
in the report, is neverthe
less present between the lines.
For the plain fact is that the
poverty war may lag in the
BY J. J. GILBERT
near future for simple want of
funds.
It is no secret that many
people were disappointed by
the administration’s proposed
budget of $1.7 billion for the
OEO in the coming fiscal year.
Some observers say this sum
is barely sufficient to keep the
poverty war operating at its
present level—and that cut
backs in some of its programs
may actually be necessary.
There is good reason, of
course, for the adminis
tration’s reluctance to budget
more for the OEO. Many Great
Society programs are facing
slowdowns as the costs of the
war in Vietnam skyrocket.
And, however painful the
choice may be, there is not
the least doubt which of the
two wars—the one on poverty
or the one in Southeast Asia—
takes priority in administra
tion thinking.
Still, it is particularly dis
couraging to see the bright
hopes that accompanied the
launching of the poverty war
blunted by the economic facts
of life attendant on waging
the hot war in Vietnam.
As Shriver observes in “A
Nation Aroused,” the anti
poverty effort has created “a
new and growing concern”
among many Americans for
the nation’s estimated 35 mil
lion poor or near-poor.
Telling them in effect to wait
just a little longer may be
necessary, but it is distinctly
unpleasant. And it also raises
profound questions for any
thinking person about why
80% of the nation should live
in affluence and 20% in de
privation.
The OEO report, however,
is by no means a gloomy
document, and it does offer
plenty of cause for encourage
ment, though not complacency.
Statistically, the achieve
ments of the still youthful war
on poverty make impressive
reading.
*
C4BBAGES AND KINGS
On
Armstrong
Rev. William V. Coleman
Reading the signs of the times is a dangerous
business. It is often difficult to separate the
decisions of individuals from the policies of the
institutions they represent. In the end, it is not
the individual decisions which rock the world
as much as the set policies of powerful insti
tutions.
There are signs present in Savannah which
bode no good for the community. They eminate
from the campus of our new, four-year college
Armstrong. If we interpret them correctly,
the young people of Savannah cannot look for
the broadening influence a col-
j|a>, lege education should provide
and Savannah, consequently,
1 will not have the type of leader-
tjfi ship she needs to awaken from
\ - p the doldrums.
The first of these signs of
the times was a talk given by
the president of the college to a local service
club in which he discussed Communism in
education. The local paper assured Savannahians
that Doctor Ashmore would protect our youth
from all contamination. Is this the purpose of
a higher education? Should college age youth
not be exposed to various ideologies and be able,
under skillful and unobtrusive guidance, to
choose for themselves?
The college years are the age of deep thought.
He who throttles that thought destroys what is
best in man and produces a generation of
robots, ready, in the best tradition of totali
tarianism, to carry out the will of those who
set policy. If we want independent thinkers here
in Savannah we must be willing to pay the
price of a youthful error or two.
The second sign of the times was the refusal
of the administration of the college to allow
cigarette machines on the campus. What could
possibly have motivated such a decision? If
the college years are times for self determina
tion, and all educators assume they are, may
our local boys and girls not even choose to
smoke or not to smoke? Smoking may be harm
ful to health but not nearly so harmful as
decisions smacking of totalitarian and pres
sure group tactics.
The third sign of the times was the refusal
to allow Mass to be celebrated on the college
campus, while next door at Savannah State the
“college minister and dean of men” was or
ganizing religious emphasis week. Both colleges
are governed by the same Board of Regents. ..
If individual freedom is to be maintained by
our students, it will not be done by forbidding
religion and cigarettes from the campus.
We voice these criticisms, well knowing that
they may be misinterpretations of the policy
of Armstrong College. Yet, someone must ques
tion such decisions in an institution which holds
in its hands so much of Savannah’s future.
Doctor Ashmore may well have a fine policy
developing for our school. If he has, we stand
happily corrected. If he has not, I, for one,
suggest it is time to evaluate such a policy
before Savannah is deadened with just another,
little, “bible-belt” college whose only mission
seems to be to maintain the “status-quo”.
QUESTIONS
Our F aith
Msgr. Conway
Q. I am a person who did not go to Mass very
often when I was young, but now I am a devout
Catholic. I sometimes think of things whichldid
40 or so years ago, without knowing that they
were sins. Now I know it is a serious sin to do
such things. What should I do about it now?
A. Thank God for the graces he has given
you in recent years and forget the past. We
commit sin only when we know, at the time
we are doing it, that our action is sinful. In
those actions of 40 years ago you were not
guilty of sin because of your lack of knowledge.
t Q. I am quite confused about
the Rosary. I have been using
my Rosary for years at Mass,
since I haven’t been able to see;
well enough to read my prayer
book. I asked a priest about
saying the Rosary at Mass; he
said if you find it gives you 1
more comfort go on and say your Rosary.
The Mass prayers they say now I have learned
by heart, and why should I give up my Rosary?
I never will. I made a solemn promise to the
Blessed Virgin that I would say the Rosary
every day of my life. What I cannot understand
is why the Rosary now is not a proper prayer
at Mass, especially when you are blind?
A, Say your Rosary every day with devotion
and meditation. But why do you have to say
it at Mass? can’t you find any other time of
the day for it? If you know the Mass prayers
by heart, why not say them during Mass?
Are they more monotonous than the Rosary?
For a person who is blind and finds no Mass
prayers to say the Rosary during Mass might
be all right. But for anyone else it is a de
liberate distraction from the most sacred prayer
and action which we, the People of God, per
form in union with Jesus Christ.
t