Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 4 — The Southern Cross, October 30, 1969
Published at Waynesboro, Ga.
Most Rev. Gerard L. Frey, D.D. President
Rev. Francis J. Donohue, Editor John E. Markwalter, Managing Editor
Second Class Postage Paid at Waynesboro, Ga. 30830
Send Change of Address to P. O. Box 10027, Savannah, Ga. 31402
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.
Conscience And Vietnam
That the resolution of the Vietnam
war is the most vexing and complicated
moral problem plaguing the conscience
of the American people is certainly no
profound observation.
We fear, however, that precisely
because the problem is so complicated
there is a danger that more and more
people will simply yield before a
mounting wave of frustation, closing
their hearts and minds to the nagging
pin-pricks of a conscience which is
unable to reconcile a desire for peace
and an end to violence and killing with a
fear, based upon past experience, that
withdrawal of the American presence
from Vietnam in the absence of a
Communist renunciation of war and
terror as a means of self-propagation,
would lead neither to peace nor to an
end of the bloodshed -- a conscience
which finds it difficult to embrace the
concept that peace, purchased at the
cost of chains and slavery, does not
make Justice a certain victim.
We think our fear is justified by the
reluctance of the more vociferous and
militant war critics to address themselves
to the lessons of history.
North Vietnamese ‘negotiators’ in
Paris refuse to offer withdrawal of their
own forces from the South if the
Americans will leave. Is there any solid
reason to believe they actually will leave
South Vietnam once the United States
has done so?
Thousands of Vietnamese who
support the American presence in their
country and/or the Saigon government
have been murdered in cold blood by
both the Viet Cong and the North
Vietnamese. Some have been bound,
hand and foot, then shot to death.
Many, less fortunate, have been tortured^?'
and mutilated before death brought an
end to their torment. Still others were
condemned to the horror of being buried
alive. Is there any solid reason to believe
that such atrocities will not be repeated,
wholesale, against all “enemies of the
State” by a victorious Viet Cong or
North Vietnamese government in
Saigon?
Of the thousands of American
servicemen listed as missing in action in
Vietnam, only a few hundred have been
confirmed as captured because Viet
Cong and Hanoi officials refuse to
publish the names of American
prisoners. Two months ago, wives of
American men missing in action went to
Paris and pleaded with the enemy
negotiators to tell them whether they are
wives or widows. Although they were
promised information, they have not
received it. The enemy persists in his
claim that captured American
servicemen are not prisoners of war
entitled to the safeguards imposed by
the Geneva convention, but ‘war
criminals’ who may be tried and
imprisoned or killed for their ‘crimes.’
Representatives of the International
Red Cross have tried in vain to visit them
_ and confirm that they are being treated
humanely. These prisoners have been
denied all communication with their
families. Only a handful have been
repatriated, and those only for reasons
of propaganda. Enemy negotiators have
steadfastly refused to agree to any
prisoner exchange. Is their any solid
reason to believe that these prisoners will
be released after an American
withdrawal of all forces, or that their
wives will EVER know whether they are
wives or widows, or that American
prisoners will NOT be tried as war
criminals once the United States has
abandoned South Vietnam?
We think the answer to all these
questions is “No.” Furthermore, we
believe that it would be immoral for the
United States to remove its presence,
entirely, from South Vietnam so long as
the enemy gives us no solid reason to
believe that the questions we pose can be
answered in the affirmative.
We repeat our call for the United
States to demand that the South
Vietnamese government prepare to take
over the actual fighting, if it is still going
on a year from now. But unless and until
the enemy is willing to guarantee his
willingness to allow the people of South
Vietnam to freely decide their own
destiny, to renounce the use of
subversion and aggression against his
neighboring countries, and to submit,
immediately, to the requirements of the
Geneva convention governing the
custody of prisoners of war, the United
States must continue, by its financial
and industrial support of South
Vietnam, its efforts to bring the enemy
to terms.
PLIGHT OF AMERICAN PRISONERS
The Backdrop...
By John J. Daly, Jr.
Who are the American prisoners of war in
Vietnam? Where are they? How are they
treated?
These are basic questions as efforts increase
in the Nixon Administration, in Congress and
elsewhere in behalf of these men.
The tragic fact is that none of these
questions can be answered completely. North
Vietnam and the
Vietcong have
co nsistently
rejected efforts to
ge t the answers
from them. These
rejections include
the brutal brushing
aside of the appeals
of families of men
suspected to be in enemy hands.
Two wives, representing the national
organization of wives of missing and
captured servicemen, the “National League of
Families of Prisoners in southeast Asia,” were
told by North Vietnamese officials in Paris that
the best way to find out if your husbands are
prisoners is to demonstrate against the war
presumably bringing it to an end and then
searching among the returned Americans for
their loved ones.
Still, efforts continue, including a turn to
spiritual help. The House has passed and sent to
the Senate a resolution that President Nixon
declare Sunday, Nov. 9, as a national day of
prayer for the prisoners and the missing
Influential members of the Senate and
House have appealed, via a letter, to Pope Paul
VI for his intercession in behalf of the prisoners
and for public prayer in the Catholic world for
them. In addition, other religious bodies have
been approached and are beginning to respond.
The Episcopal Diocese of Southern Virginia has
resolved to urge all parishioners to write to the
North Vietnamese delegation in Paris for release
of the men.
How many prisoners are there? The United
States thinks the number may be as high as
1,400. The Pentagon feels it know^ of 401 men
definitely in enemy hands. It thinks another
1,000 listed as missing are actually captives.
Most of the imprisoned or missing are Air Force
personnel: 192 known captured and 516
thought to be held.
Where are they? No one knows for certain,
but most are thought to be in North Vietnam;
others are held in primitive jungle prisons by
the Vietcong in the South Vietnam areas
controlled by the communist guerillas. A few
are thought to be interned in Laos and a small
number in Red China.
How are they treated? Again, no one knows.
But the suspicion is that in human treatment
is not uncommon.
On the cheap pretext that the captives are
“criminals” and not prisoners of war, the
communists have refused inspection of prisons
by neutral observers, despite the fact the North
Vietnam had signed the Geneva Convention in
1957.
In addition, North Vietnam has refused to
identify prisoners, release the sick and
wounded, allow proper flow of letters and
packages and protect prisoners from public
abuse.
The new initatives to secure inforn/ation on
the prisoners seem bound to attract growing
concern and involvemnet. The Nixon
Administration itself seems to be encouraging
this as part of its effort to build public pressure
in support of its policies toward the Paris Peace
talks.
But not only advocates of the present
Vietnam policies are involved in the
mushrooming effort. A protest against
treatment of the prisoners signed by 42
members of the Senate was led by two
opponents of the Vietnam war, Charles Goodell
of New York and Alan Cranston of California.
%
In a nutshell,this is what
the Second Vatican Counci I
was all about.
Achievements
Of The Synod
WHOSE OX GORED?
It Seems To Me
I am repeatedly reminded,
by the inconsistencies I
encounter, of the saying
about everything depending
on whose ox is getting gored.
Frequently I don’t quite
know whether to chuckle
indulgently or to slap my
forehead in hopeless
frustration.
8 An editorial
published a
few weeks ago
in the Denver
Register will
serve as an
example. It
was headlined
“Los Angeles-
IHM Case Proves a Point,”
and was signed with the
initials of the editor, Father
Daniel J. Flaherty.
Father Flaherty, I believe,
would consider himself a
liberal-at least a moderate
liberal. He would be in favor
of subsidiarity. That is, he
would not want the pope
settling every little thing in
the Church, banging his desk
and ordering the bishops
about, and all that sort of
thing.
But it is not easy to think
objectively, and to stick to
principles, when one’s ox is
involved; and one of the pet
oxen of the liberals has been
getting gored in the dispute
between the Immaculate
Heart of Mary Sisters in
California and Cardinal James
Mclntye of Los Angeles.
Joseph Breig
Father Flaherty, therefore,
was annoyed because Pope
Paul did not crack down on
Cardinal McIntyre; although I
feel sure he would be equally
annoyed if Pope Paul DID
crack down, say on Cardinal
Suenens of Belgium or on one
of the Netherlands bishops.
Father Flaherty noted that
Father Edward Heston,
secretary of the Vatican
Congregation for Religious
(Communities) recently
explained to a convention of
Mothers Superior the basic
requirements for a religious
order to be recognized by the
Holy See.
One requirement is that
the religious order must
collaborate with the bishop
of any diocese in which the
order works. In this
connection, Father Heston
remarked that some bishops
are permissive, and some
aren’t -- “but that’s the
human element that we can’t
do anything about. We have
to take people as they are and
that includes ordinaries
(bishops) also.”
But, wrote Father
Flaherty, “The lingering
tragedy of the IHMs is that
they must live under one of
those Ordiniaries that Rome
will not do anything about.
Apparently Rome is willing
to sacrifice 450 religious
women . . . rather than
instruct one Ordinary to
change his manner of
operation.”
In other words, Father
Flaherty is upset because
Pope Paul does not clobber
Cardinal McIntyre -- although
as I have said, he would be
equally, or more upset if
Pope Paul were to clobber
somebody like Cardinal
Suenens. It all depends on the
ox.
But at the this point I
must balance things,
remembering Chesterton’s
famous complaint that if he
called clouds beautiful, about
half his readers would accuse
him of opposing sunshine.
Let me say, then, that I do
not take sides with Cardinal
McIntyre. But I do wonder
why 450 religious women are
unable to be patient with a
man who is 83 years of age.
Why the dreadful hurry?
Why the absence (so it seems
to me) of the elementary
sense of humor that goes with
humility? And why the
absence also of any
apprehension of the
mysterious spiritual power
and value of obedience?
The greatest achievements
in the history of
religion--from the time of
Abraham’s willingness to give
his only son to God -- have
stemmed from obedience
when obedience was difficult.
But then who understands
this sort of thing nowadays?
(Following is the third in a series of articles on the
extraordinary Synod of Bishops at the Vatican. The
author is one of three synod members selected to
make reports to the synod. His synodal report
concerned the relationship among various episcopal
conferences.)
By Most Rev. Marco McGrath, C.S.C.
Archbishop of Panama
VATICAN CITY (NC) - As the curtain falls
on this session of the synod, Anno Domini
1969, the actors, that is to say the members,
are in general manifestly content. The problem
for some is precisely that they do feel very
much like actors, upon a broad public stage,
watched and criticized by many and they
wonder if this particular act of the synod has
been understood. They hope so.
The main point is that the synod is an
on-going affair, made up of periodic sessions
tied together by the work of a permanent
secretariat. Normally speaking, the sessions will
be brief and will take on very few and very
specific matters each time in order to get
effective results. The nature of a synod, the
gathering of busy pastoral leaders from all over
the world, does not lend itself, especially in the
brief span of each session, to much
philosophizing nor deep doctrinal debate.
Nor is it merely pragmatic, in any business
sense of the term. The accent is pastoral: that
is, evangelical and spiritual in inspiration,
practical in its projection. Real life issues
breathe animation into the discussions, as
bishops from the five continents, all the races,
cultures and economic and political situations,
speak of the aspirations and problems of their
peoples. Doctrinal issues are touched on,
examined briefly, referred to their sources in
Scripture and the councils, and looked at
through pastoral experience.
Synods are not made, as they now stand, for
doctrinal decisions, but they highlight doctrine
in the Church life, and help immensely toward
the development and richer grasp of Christian
belief.
After a few days discussion on the doctrinal
foundations of the bishops’ relations among
themselves and with the Holy Father, in the
whole context of “collegiality,” the synod
acted true to the form just described. It stressed
one or other doctrinal aspect, insisted strongly
on points of common agreement, pointed out a
few areas which require more theological
reflection, since obviously all do not agree, and
suggested that these matters be referred to
further study, while we live our episcopal
collaboration in all possible practical forms.
Theories, taken out of life, grow cold and hard,
then they divide. In life, wairhied by pastoral
charity, they seek to converge and find their
meeting point in the mystery of the Church at
the service of all men.
The discussion of relations between the
bishops, through their episcopal conferences,
and the Holy See, touched on many areas, some
of them sensitive. But in this and other aspects
of the synod, many remarked upon a noticeable
improvement. The synod of 1969 was more
“at-home like,” more familiar, less tense than
the first synod in 1967. The almost daily
presence of the Holy Father, quiet, smiling,
simple, contributed immensely. It manifested
and created confidence. But also there was
more obvious understanding on “both sides,”
so to speak.
The Curia now has among its members many
bishops brought in-from years at the head of
dioceses. They understand their brother bishops,
in the diocesan field, and help spread this
understanding in the Curia. The bishops in the
dioceses, on the other hand, themselves taken
with problems of “aggiomamento” in their own
dioceses and countries, know it is not merely a
question of good will nor is all solved with a
few documents, even though they may be
conciliar. In this atmosphere, mutual hopes and
problems are more easily shared.
“You were right, Father, money isn’t everything.
There’s credit cards, charge accounts and
travelers checks!”
In this “vertical” area of collegiality (Rome
and the episcopal conferences), the synod
stressed greater contact with the Pope, contact
through personal visits of the heads of the
episcopal conferences, contact through
two-way information and consultation on all
major issues, with due respect for the Pope’s
free decision on matters at his choice, and the
presence of even more bishops from around the
world in the responsible posts of the Roman
Curia.
But the enthusiasm for the
internationalization of the Roman Curia is
waning a bit, partly because it means uprooting
important pastors from the local churches,
partly because the continuation of the synodal
sessions may take, the place of further
internationalization.
The major suggestions bore upon the synod
itself. Its statutes might well be revised, at the
discretion of the Holy Father, so it becomes
more simplified, more normal, more easy and
even routine, in the positive sense, in the life of
the Church, with a more fully manned
secretariat to keep up contacts with the
episcopal conferences between sessions, prepare
the meetings, etc. Some would insist on annual
meetings, some biennial, better prepared.
Some suggest the election* of some bishops
from the various continents to act as a
committee between sessions to help guide the
work of the synod’s secretariat. Certainly all
this would function under the authority of the
Holy Father, perhaps immediately represented
by his Secretary of State, as a kind of delegated
president between sessions.
(Continued on Page 6)
&
*