Newspaper Page Text
''N
k
PAGE 5— October 30, 1969
WELFARE PLAN’S
Compulsory Work
Edict Scored By
Charity Official
Doris Answers
YOUTH
BY DORIS REVERE PETERS
By John J. Kane, Ph. D.
Professor of Sociology
University of Notre Dame
I know as a mother-in-law
I should not interfere, but I
can no longer stand it. My
son was reared in a fine
home. He had hot meals, a
clean house and clothing
washed and put away. His
wife is downright lazy. He
comes home to no meal. She
tells him to open a can of
beans. Dirty dishes are always
stacked in the sink until he
does them. His shirts are
dirty, his handkerchiefs
worse. Should I say
something? I can’t take it
much longer.
* * *
Parenthood brings
pleasures and privations. Just
now you are suffering one of
the severe privations of a
parent. I’m afraid that my
letter may make your anguish
a little worse, not better.
Your son is what you reared
him to be. In all of your
complaints I would point the
finger as much, indeed if not
more at your boy, than at his
wife.
Let’s look at this matter as
objectively as we possibly
can. When a man and a
woman marry they choose
each other for better or for
worse. So far as housekeeping
is concerned, he apparently
got worse. He will continue
to get worse until he acts like
a man. From my point of
view, he is encouraging his
wife in her delinquent,
slipshod housekeeping or lack
of it. If he really wants to
change things, it is not
impossible.
We must admit at the start
that some women just are
inefficient housekeepers. Just
as some women are
inefficient njothers. Sloopy
housekeeping, of course, is
not so serious as being a poor
mother, but it certainly can
make life miserable as you
apparently think it does. But
really, you seem much more
annoyed about it than your
son.
If and when your son
really becomes disgusted with
the present situation, I think
he will stand up and tell his
wife off. Assuming that she is
not ill, that she does not
work outside the home or no
other considerations of this
type enter into it, there is
absolutely no reason why she
cannot prepare a hot meal for
her husband when he returns
from work, no reason why
she cannot keep the house
clean and his clothing in
order. But perhaps you led
him to expect too much.
I read with interest your
comments that you always
washed his clothes and put
them away for him. In itself,
I see nothing wrong in this,
but from the tone of your
letter I suspect there may
have been quite a bit wrong
with it. It is my impression
that you excessively
pampered him. If I could ask
you a number of questions
about other activities, I think
you would reveal yourself as
a woman who overprotected
and overindulged your son
and thus kept him from
achieving masculine maturity.
Whether or not it is
possible for any drastic
change to occur in your son
at this time I certainly cannot
say. It would seem to me that
almost anyone would openly
get disgusted with the
situation in which he lives. I
think he too will eventually
do so, and as a matter of fact
I feel he is already disgusted.
His problem is that he lacks
the courage to stand up to
tell his wife off. Sometimes
this has to be done.
So long as he is satisfied to
open a can of beans and get
his own dinner, so long as he
is willing to wash the dishes
and, I suspect, do many other
household chores which are.
rightly his wife’s, she will
continue to expect him to do
so. While the division of labor
in our society is less
pronounced than it once was,
it is still customary for most
wives to carry out the
household duties about the
lack of which you complain.
If she is employed outside the
home, then certainly the
husband should assist, and in
the event she is ill or tired
there is no reason why he
should not occasionally assist
her. This does not seem to be
the point in question.
Let me make the positive
suggestions about possible
steps. First, above everything
else, please keep out of it
yourself. The prognosis of
this marriage does not appear
too favorable at this moment.
If you enter into an argument
with your daughter-in-law,
things may get considerably
worse. I fear that the
inter-personal relationships
between your son and his
wife will deteriorate even
more, that she will do less
housework than she does at
present, assuming this is
possible, and that ultimately
the marriage may go to pieces
completely.
There is another interesting
possiblity too. It may be that
if you enter the tilts your son
will side completely with his
wife and turn on you. This is
not unexpected or unusual
behavior. You will be deeply
hurt if this happens, and yet
this is what you really deserve
for your interference. Your
son and wife must work their
problems out together and,
hopefully, successfully.
WASHINGTON (NC) -
The “compulsory nature” of
the requirement for work
registration of mothers in the
Nixon Administration’s
proposed welfare reform
came under strong criticism
during testimony delivered
before the House Ways and
Means Committee (Oct. 23).
Msgr. Edward D. Head,
vice president of the National
Conference of Catholic
Charities, contended that
such a legislative proposal was
an “unconscionable”
deprivation of a poor
mother’s freedom to consider
her maternal role as a primary
responsibility.
Msgr. Head also
questioned the low level of
family assistance proposed in
a House bill, pointing out
that it is less than half of the
level defined as constituting
poverty for a family of four.
The Catholic Charities
official commended the bill’s
recognition of the “fruitful
partnership” that has existed
between public and private
health and welfare
organizations.
Msgr. Head emphasized
the value of the continuing
cooperation between these
groups in providing services
to beneficiaries of the family
assistance programs.
He also expressed approval
of other aspects of the family
assistance program, including
the inclusion of the “working
poor,” work incentives, and
the supplementary Food
Stamp Program.
The stamp plan, Msgr.
Head said, should eventually
be eliminated in favor of “an
adequate cash grant
program. ”
On behalf of NCC, Msgr.
Head made eight
recomme ndations:
--That Social Security
benefits be raised to an
overall rate of 15%, instead of
the proposed 10%, to provide
a real increase in benefits
rather than adjustment to
inflationary pressures.
-An increase of 50% in the
minimum level for individuals
and couples.
--That future benefit
increases be automatically
related to increases in the
cost of living, and the starting
point for many beneficiaries
be elevated.
--An increase in the
taxable wage base rather than
an increase in the Social
Security tax rate.
--A strong Manpower
program sponsored by the
federal government and
involving public and private
sectors.
--Establishment by
Congress of clear and
reasonable guidelines to
determine a person’s
suitability for employment
and training.
--Separate pieces of
legislation for j income
maintenance and another for
services.
--Mobilization of the
public and private welfare
sectors in a total approach to
the resolution of national
problems.
Msgr. Head said he deems
necessary the mobilization of
public opinion and public
support behind Nixon’s
proposed welfare reform.
He emphasized what he
called the importance of
exposing the vast changes in
the public welfare system
recommended in the Nixon
proposal to the “broadest
possible public debate.”
Calling for numerous
public hearings across the
country, Msgr. Head warned
that without widespread
public understanding and
approval of the issues
involved, “we will not have
an effectively functioning
welfare system, (although) we
may have an improved
welfare law.”
FEARS-AND
HOW TO DEAL
WITH THEM
Dear Doris:
I don’t know whether
there’s something the matter
with me or not. But when I
walk down the halls at school
and a group of kids talking
look my way I always think
they must be talking about
me. The same thing happens
in gym or the library or lab or
wherever I see people talking.
My mother says this is all in
my imagination and I “just
should get over it.” Is it just
my imagination or is it true?
Elizabeth.
Dear Elizabeth:
It’s my hunch that it’s
your imagination-and that
it’s working overtime. There’s
an old adage that comes to
my mind which you might
remember the next time this
feeling overtakes you:
“People wouldn’t worry half
as much about what others
think of them if they knew
how seldom they do.”
Perhaps you have become
overly self-conscious because
you are afraid of being
criticized. This is one of the
real fears many people suffer.
From the time when, as small
children, we were afraid to go
to sleep in the dark, to the
first time we rise to speak
publicly as adults, we often
have such fears. But we get
over them, and as they pass
we come to see how absurd
they were.
You might talk to the
guidance counselor or a
favorite teacher at school
about this fantasy. If you
can’t master it yourself,
perhaps she could
recommend a psychological
or mental health service
planned for students.
NATURAL AND FRIENDLY
Dear Doris:
For the past two years I
unsuccessfully tried to reach
every girl’s dream of junior
cheerleader. This year I won
it. The problem is that in my
school every year a few
cheerleaders who were your
“best friends” before
suddenly become very
snobby. Now I hear rumors
that I’m getting that way too.
I dislike snobbish people and
don’t want to become one,
but I’m bewildered by what’s
hapening. Any advice?
Linda.
Dear Linda:
Only you know whether
you’re becoming a snob. Take
a good close look at yourself
and your behavior. If you can
honestly say that you are the
same friendly girl and don’t
feel any differently, then
ignore the rumors As you go
about your school work and
cheerleading activities acting
natural and friendly you will
silence all the wagging
tongues.
GRAB OPPORTUNITY
Dear Doris:
I think my problem is
unusual. At least I haven’t
seen it in j^our column
before; here it is. We have an
exchange student living with
us this year. I had looked
forward to her coming but
did not anticipate all the
attention she would get, both
at home and in school. The
kids in school aren’t too bad
but my parents are in a dither
over her. She gets all the
attention. They laugh and go
into hysterics at everything
she says. My mother already
is comparing me with her and
has told me over and over
again how rude I am. What do
I do to get some attention
from my parents?
Andrea.
Dear Andrea:
Do you really want more
attention from your parents
of do you want to learn to
cope with your feelings of
jealousy? For that is what has
happened. Your nose is out
of joint and you feel snubbed
and neglected. Well, for a
beginning try putting yourself
in the place of the exchange
student. How would you feel
in a strange land among
people whose habits and ways
of living were different from
your own? Wouldn’t you
appreciate it if your host
parents showed interest and
kindness?
Your parents must have
thought a great deal of you to
offer to host a foreign
student. While they may not
have bothered to say it, the
fact that they offered proves
they felt you were mature
enough to handle the
adjustments that accompany
any new member in the
family.
Don’t let your feelings of
jealousy obscure the fact that
you have a once-in-a-lifetime
chance to get to know
someone from a different
country. Instead of griping
about your parents,
concentrate on taking
advantage of this wonderful
opportunity.
DRY SKIN
Dear Doris:
My skin is so dry that
sometimes I feel as if it is
going to peel right off. I have
tried olive oil treatments and
even put Crisco on it but to
no avail. I wash it three times
a day. What would you
suggest?
Mary Q.
Dear Mary Q.
Don’t despair for I think
that I have a very sensible
routine that should work.
Stop washing your face.
Instead, use one of those
marvelous cleansing creams
and then use an
emolient-type night cream at
night. Do not use soap. To
bathe, use a bath oil plus one
of those fragrant oil coated
(but not greasy) after-bath
pads on your entire body.
Powders are sometimes very
drying, so check into that. If
your hands are chapped and
dry, put a rich cream on them
at night and then slip them
into those special cosmetic
gloves they sell in the
drugstore. For dry and scaly
feet there are preparations
that remove much of the
dead skin. And remember
that exercise plays an
important part in maintaining
the natural balance of oils in
your skin.
BY DOUGLAS J. ROCHE
VATICAN CITY (NC) -
For a week I’ve been
concerned about what to say
when I go home to Jasper
Avenue, 8,000 miles from the
Vatican, and people ask me,
“What really happened at the
synod?”
Will they understand when
I say that Synod II launched
the Church into a new era of
government by co-respons
ibility? Will tjie.y care when I
tell them that collegiality is
now an established fact?
I can hear the replies now.
“But the synod didn’t deal
with the gut issues-the life of
priests, the election of the
pope and the nomination of
bishops, the human problems
like overpopulation and war
that afflict mankind.”
I will have to answer, no,
the bishops didn’t deal with
these issues, crucial though
they are, because the
majority of them recognized
that there is one question
central to everything in the
Church today: collegiality.
Until the issue of
authority is settled, the
Church is logjammed. It is
necessary to introduce
collegiality not only to
prevent anarchy in the
Church but to release the
energy of new creative forces.
Although I may not be
able to point to a signed
document or to a dramatic
papal speech, I will try to tell
my questioners that history
was truly made of Synod II
because the Pope and the
bishops, in an open display of
good faith and mutual
What Really Happened At The Synod? ... ‘New Era Of Co-Responsibility’
confidence, began to walk
together and thus to govern
together. The age of absolute
papalism died with Synod II.
If my questioners respond
that they personally aren’t
affected by all this and that
they’re more interested in
getting on with the urgent job
of becoming a servant church
than in manipulating the
control of Church structures,
I will concede that this is a
slow way to make progress.
But, in the light of Vatican II,
it is the only sure way. There
are undoubtedly burning
issues in the Church around
the world-but there is no
fiddling in Rome these days.
At a press conference,
Father Bernard Haering, that
doughty ecclesiastical warrior
who has played such a vital
part in the opening up of the
Church, reminded us that
nothing is as exciting as a
great idea that has found its
moment. And the time for
collegiality-the sharing of the
bishops with and under the
pope in Church government-
has arrived.
Moreover, as we saw this
past week, the bishops are
not waiting until every detail
is worked out in a juridical
formula before practicing
collegiality. The majority of
the 146 members of the
synod made clear their desire
for effective co-responsibility
with the pope, decided to
leave the theology of it to the
theologians, and got on with
the action.
Somewhat hesitantly--be
cause open exchanges of
opinion are still new to the
Vatican scene-the bishops
split up into language groups
to discuss the practical things
they wanted. It might be a
little strong to call this
process “group dynamics”
but that was the general idea
as the internal dialogue began
to take shape.
Two days of talk in the
“ciculi minores” produced a
long list of recommendations
that boil down to a common
desire for a permanent synod,
meeting regularly (once every
year or two years) with a
permanent office of synod
bishops in Rome and with the
right to join with the Pope in
placing items on the synod
agenda. The synod bishops
want direct access to the
pope, no documents issued
from the Vatican without
consulting them, and the
Curia to work for the bishops
as well as for the Pope.
The Pope must approve
these recommendations
before they can be put into
effect. Also, even with a
permanent synod, the pope
will retain the supreme
authority in the
Church-because, as was said a
hundred times, that was the
way Christ founded the
Church. He gave the keys to
Peter and made Peter the
rock. But Christ also started
an apostolic collge-the first
bishops-who had the right of
joining Peter in the
decision-making process.
There are many observers,
and even some journalists
covering the synod, -who
hold that primacy and
collegiality are incompatible,
that if you have one, you
can’t have the other. The
answer to the co-existence of
primacy and collegiality lies
in the idea of the Church as
communion. In this
communion, * there is
inter-action in unity and love
and a sense of co-responsi
bility at the various levels to
reach the best decisions.
In its earliest days, the
Church exhibited this sense
of communion through a
synod system in which the
bishops joined together with
the pope. But historical
conditions demanded the
emergency of a strong
centralized papacy to protect
the Church and this led to the
papacy becoming a
monarchial government, with
papal power flowing through
the hands of the Curia. The
bishops were put on the
receiving end of orders.
Vatican II recovered the
idea of the Church as the
People of God, with bishops
holding a collegial
responsibility. It is only by
making collegiality work that
the bishops can share in
finding the answers to those
problems that affect them in
various parts of the world.
For example, belief in the
real presence of Jesus in the
Eucharist is central to the
Catholic faith and this must
be upheld by the central
government. But whether
people receive the Eucharist
on their tongue or in their
hand, whether they stand or
kneel, what the priest wears
when saying Mass-all these
are the kind of decisions that
should be made by bishops
on the national level because
they know the culture of
their people better than
Vatican authorities do.
Bishops want the freedom
to experiment with new
solutions to the problems of
not only the liturgy but
ecumenism, marriage, the
ministry of priests and ways
to teach the faith. We have
reached a time when theology
needs to be developed out of
a sense of the faithful and
thus the Church takes
account of the human
condition of society rather
than imposing abstract
principles. If they have the
freedom to make decisions as
national hierarchies, then the
bishops will be more
responsive to the needs of
people and the gap that now
separates bishops from people
will be closed.
As the English-language
workshop, chaired by William
Cardinal Conway of Armagh,
Ireland, and reported by John
Cardinal Dearden of Detroit,
put it: “Authority in the
Church, whether in the area
of teaching or of discipline,
must always recognize its
accountability to the entire
Church. It should be
exercised in a spirit of
collegial concern.”
Pope Paul VI, being
personally humble but
ecclesiastically strong in his
conception of the papacy,
will not lightly tamper with
the tradition he has inherited.
But he took the advice of the
first synod two years ago and
set up an international
commission of theologians
(to objectively view the crisis
of faith in he Church rather
than just having warnings
from the Congregation of the
Doctrine of the Faith), he
pledged himself to organic
collegiality at the beginning
of this synod, and he has
given every indication so far
that he will accede to the
wishes of the majority of
bishops who do not want a
papacy unilaterally exercised.
That is what I mean when I
say that Synod II has ended
the age of papalism.
It was accomplished by
the Pope and bishops both
slowly feeling their way down
this unlighted corridor. If the
bishops had started to run,
for example, by insisting that
the election of the pope be
broadened from the college
of cardinals immediately, that
celibacy by settled “here and
now,’’ that national
conferences start making
their own decisions right
away-then almost certainly
both the bishops and the
pope would have stumbled.
And the entrance into the age
of collegiality would be
halted. For you can’t give up
an old tradition without
making sure that its
replacement works better.
Diversity in unity,
subsidiarity in solidarity -
these are big and complicated
themes. They have
tremendous implications for
how religious life at the local
level will be lived. And they
will have a great effect on the
Orthodox, Protestant and
Anglican worlds.
Collegiality, in short,
makes possible structural
advances in co-responsibility
among Catholics at home and
also provides a new opening
to ecumenism. With a
practical, workable
collegiality, Vatican II is
confirmed and the way
opened once more for the
pilgrim Church to find the
best way to bring the message
of a timeless Christ to a world
in change.
Collegiality does not mean
that faith and authority are
bound to diminish. Rather
they will be enhanced
because faith will be more
closely related to people’s
lives and authority will be
more reasonable and
responsible. As Msgr. Gerard
Philips of Louvain University
insisted, collegiality requires a
“communion of chairty,” and
so the synod Fathers should
be careful not to lock up
collegiality in too tight a legal
formula. Unless there’s lots of
breathing space we may find
ourselves merely transferring
from one overly canonical era
to another.
Will this lengthy
explanation of “What really
happened at the synod”
satisfy my questioners?
Perhaps not those who$e
patience has run out with
Church leaders constantly
examining the interior
operation of the Church,
while an unbelieveing world
cries for solutions and actions
on a dozen fronts
simultaneously. On the other
hand, Synod II, by restoring
confidence in the authority
of the Church, may help
many others to realize that
the enourmous energy now
being spent to make this
massive updating in the
institutional structure is the
correct historical response.
ROME - Terence Cardinal Cooke of New York and his
theologian, Msgr. Austin Vaughan, are attending the Synod of
Bishops in Vatican City. (NC Photos)