Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 5 - January 8,1970
FAMILY
CLINIC
By John J. Kane, Ph. D.
Professor of Sociology
University of Notre Dame
I’ve been married 20 years.
I still must beg my husband
for money and I get about 10
cents a week. His nights are
spent in taverns but he boasts
that he’s never beat a man up
when he was drunk, but then
he comes home and beats me
up. He talks about me to the
neighbors and when they
repeat it I cry for three days.
He gives no money to the
Church, has no money to pay
for wedding for his daughter.
Don’t tell me this man is sick.
He is weak. How can he call
himself a man at all?
♦ * *
Your letter ran to about
eight pages and it is
impossible to reproduce all of
it in a few lines. I have
purposely selected what I
consider the worst abuses
that you listed. A great deal
of your letter consists
exclusively of recriminations
against your husband, and
incidentally against all men.
I realize how difficult it is
going to be to attempt to
counsel you at all under the
present circumstances. You
are extraordinarily hostile
toward your husband and
you have in turn projected
this to all men. It will do
little good for me to tell you
that it is unfair to judge all
men by your husband, or
perhaps not quite fair to be
so bitter about your husband.
If what you write me is true,
and I am not questioning it,
you have ample cause for just
complaint. But let me try to
analyze the situation a bit,
and if you can possibly try to
at least listen and accept what
I say, it may be helpful.
Again and again I am
surprised at some letters I
receive from women who
have tolerated what I would
consider a cruel and
outrageous marital situation
for ten, fifteen and twenty
years. I have said this a
number of times and each
time I am deluged with letters
informing me that there were
two reasons. First, the
woman hopes that her
husband will change; second,
that the economic situation is
such that they can do nothing
about it. I think it is highly
desirable that no wife should
give up hope of a husband’s
possible reformation. But I
underscore the fact that hope
in itself is scarcely adequate.
To get to the root cause of
many of these marital
problems, one would have to
consider the premarital
situation. There is no
questions about it that the
selection of a spouse in our
society is frequently based on
the most fickle and frivolous
grounds. When one is in love,
it is difficult to be objective.
But one does not fall in love
at the very beginning and all
women and all men would be
well advised in the very
beginning of dating or
courtship to try to be highly
objective. When they see
some chracteristic that looms
on the horizon as a serious
problem, they should give
serious consideration to
breaking off the dating or
courtship. Very frequently
this is not done.
There is also, of course,
the women who are growing
older and desperate. They
seem to clutch at the last
straw and sometimes the last
straw is quite literally as well
as figuratively just that. They
accept for a husband a man
who has all the potential
makings of a future alcoholic,
a bully, a miser, and an
adulterer. The danger signals
are clearly flying, but they
refuse to recognize them.
Friends, relatives, even priests
speak in vain in an effort to
dissuade these people from
marriage. It is already too
late.
However, I am forced to
admit that in some cases
these things are not clear
before marriage, rather well
concealed, and suddenly
loom after perhaps five or ten
years of marriage when the
partner may become highly
disillusioned. But even in the
cases where people neglect to
heed the obvious danger
signals, I can only be
sympathetic. To repeat what
I said in different words,
“hope springs eternal in the
human breast.”
Along with hope certain
steps should be taken to try
to resolve these difficulties in
marriage. After twenty years,
in your case, I have little
hope that much will be
accomplished. However, I
would make an effort. It is
absolutely essential that you
consult one of the parish
priests and perhaps ask him
to direct you to a marriage
counselor. I feel that your
problem is so complex and
deep-rooted, it is going to
take the services of a trained
person to unravel, if indeed
he can.
However, let me be very
honest with you, as much as
you may disagree with me
and some readers will too.
Unless you can somehow or
other mitigate or get rid of
your highly hostile attitude
toward your husband, I see
absolutely no hope of a
change in him, because
there’s little hope of a change
in you. It is not easy to
forgive and forget what you
have apparently suffered for
twenty years. And yet if
there is to be any
reconciliation between you
and reform on his part, this is
clearly the first step.
There is absolutely no
reason in the world why you
should tolerate the severe
economic privation to which
you are subjected, and above
all the physical beatings. I
hesitate to make a clear
recommendation in a letter,
but I believe if you were to
discuss this with one of your
parish priests, he will set you
straight on just what your
rights are in this regard. No
one is compelled to live in
danger of his or her life, and
this is what you may indeed
be doing. So far as saying
your husband is a weak man
and not sick, or that he is not
a man at all, these are simply
words, words, words. They
may, indeed, assuage your
feelings, but they solve
absolutely nothing.
In my estimation your
husband is sick, quite sick. I
haven’t the slightest doubt,
and I am no psychiatrist, that
ultimately he will require the
services of a psychiatrist or a
psychologist if he really
intends to mend his ways. It
may be very difficult for you
to obtain work at your age,
yet I would certainly give
serious consideration to this.
It seems that most of your
children are reared and it
would be possible for you to
get out of the home. It is
amazing what your own
income may do to change this
situation. This, however, may
be an impossible dream at
this point.
My advice to you is simply
that you have tolerated a
horrible situation far too
long. It is time to take steps
to remedy it, and the steps
should be taken the day you
receive this reply. It is already
a bit too late.
IN PHILADF.LPHIA HOSPITALS
Ask Abortion Curtailment
PHILADELPHIA (NC) -
The Philadelphia
archdiocese’s chancery office
called on Philadelphia area
hospitals to curtail the
“startling increase’’ in
abortions by protecting the
rights of the unborn child.
Msgr. Terrrence F.
Monihan, chancellor, in the
(Dec. 29) statement, said that
in the growing number of
abortions in some area
hospitals the “legal
protection for the fetus is
being ignored.” He asked
physicians to “live up to the
highest ideals of their
profession: to heal, to cure,
to save life--not to destroy
life.”
The statement made no
specific mention of any
institution, but it was
indicated that one hospital
with a newly adopted
liberalized abortion policy
was a principal cause for
issuing the statement.
The statement said that
this country’s declaration of
independence called for
protection of human rights
and that “our laws, courts
and customs have always
defended this right to life,
including that of the unborn
child.”
Some local hospitals
reportedly justify their
position on the grounds that
abortion should be accepted
by society and that no one
should be convicted for
performing an abortion, the
statement said.
“This is nothing less than
abortion on demand,” the
statement added. “The
conscience of modem man is
said to be tending more and
more to decisions in favor of
life and against violence. The
growing practice of
abortion--and especially
abortion on demand-makes a
mockery of this.”
The statement said
pro-abortionists “speak of a
woman’s right over her own
body, overlooking the
obvious fact that the fetus is
destined to enjoy its own life
independent of tne mother.”
“They say that the ‘mental
health’ of the mother may be
impaired if the pregnancy is
continued. Yet the phrase
‘mental health’ is so vague
that it would allow abortion
for almost any reason. In
their more honest moments
they use the phrase,
‘unwanted pregnancy,’ ” the
statement said.
“With the exception of the
area of abortion, the general
trend in law is to extend
more and more recognition
and protection to the rights
of the unborn child. Many
courts have accepted the
principle that the unborn
child is a person. The right of
the unborn child to recover
damages for prenatal injuries
has been acknowledged in a
number of cases,” the
statement said.
“But in the area of
abortion law, the pressure
now is to seek denial of the
principle that the unborn
child has a right to life,” the
statement added.
AFTER DEMONSTRATION
L.A. Cardinal 9
Militant Leader
Exchange Notes
LOS ANGELES (NC) -
James Francis Cardinal
McIntyre of Los Angeles said
he was “completely disposed
to hear with sympathy” a
petition for forgiveness for
members of a militant group
who expressed regret for a
violent demonstration outside
a Catholic church here on
Christmas Eve.
“True sorrow, of course,
carries with it the intention
to amend a wrongful course
of conduct,” the cardinal
said. “I shall repeat my
prayer of the Midnight Mass
imploring God’s forgiveness
for those who are now sorry
for their unfortunate
actions...”
Cardinal McIntyre’s
statements were contained in
a letter to Richard Cruz, a
spokesman for Catholics por
la Raza, whose members
fought with police while
attempting to disrupt the
Christmas Midnight Mass at
St. Basil’s church. The police
succeeded in stopping the
group from bringing its
demonstration inside the
church, but five policemen
were injured and five of the
demonstrators arrested. One
was charged with assault with
a deadly weapon.
Members of the group said
they were protesting the
“millions of dollars used to
build the church” and what
they claimed were inadequate
efforts by the archdiocese to
meet the needs of the
Mexican-American
community.
Cruz wrote to Cardinal
McIntyre asking forgiveness
for the demonstration and
requesting that criminal
charges against the
demonstrators be dismissed.
Cardinal McIntyre said in
reply that “criminal charges
are not brought by
individuals who are wronged
or by organizations such as
the Church.
“If...laws are broken, the
charges are brought by the
appropriate officers of the
government in behalf of all of
the people,” he said.
“Preservation of law and
order and the protection of
all of the people is the duty
of the government. Under no
circumstances would we
interfere with the
performance of duty by the
police and the other officers
of the government in
prosecuting persons charged
with crimes.”
“The outbreak which led
to these charges put in great
fear and danger the faithful
who gathered to celebrate the
first Mass of Christmas,”
Cardinal McIntyre wrote.
“Those who violated the law
must answer for any crimes
they may have committed
against the people of this
state.”
“We sincerely hope that
this occurrence will be a
lesson to all of us of the
danger of setting in action
forces which we cannot
control,” Cardinal McIntyre
said. “Historically, our
enemies attempt to put a
wedge between our people
and the loyalty they have to
the leaders of their faith. We
ask that you consider these
factors in your future
activities.”
Doris Answers
YOUTH
BY DORIS REVERE PETERS
Dear Doris:
I have a problem. I’m 13
and my vocabulary is pretty
good, although my usuage
isn’t. I know the meanings of
a lot of big words. Anyway,
when I write letters
three-fourths of each one is
explaining the first sentence.
My mother said to write the
way I speak, buy my problem
is - I do. Yes, I talk this way
too. I always have to explain.
Your advice will be
appreciated.
Perturbed.
Dear Perturbed:
You don’t have to explain
everything. So cool it. Give
the reader the benefit of the
doubt in understanding you.
A vocabulary is a great
asset-useful in both speaking
and writing. But it’s
not necessary to use “a lot of
big words,” in order to be a
fine writer. Take your
mother’s advice and write the
way you speak. And keep it
simple.
Completing written
assignments in school
provides excellent experience.
Take extra pains with your
English assignments. By
paying attention to the
instructor’s corrections and
suggestions you can learn a
great deal.
Volunteer to work on the
school paper. And read, read
and read some more. Reading
broadens your interest,
improves your vocabulary
and is the backbone of
writing.
And keep on writing. It’s
the best way to learn how. As
you get older, and have the
opportunity you can take
courses in writing.
BROTHER CAN HELP
Dear Doris:
I’m 15 and I have two
brothers, 16 and 18. We all go
the the same school. My
brothers are allowed all kinds
of privileges but when I ask
for permission to go to a
school dance I’m refused. I
have tried discussing this with
my father but all he says is
that “they are boys.” What
kind of an explanation is
that? It’s not fair.
Little Sister.
Dear Little Sister:
In telling you that “they
are boys,” your father is also
saying, “you are a girt and I
want to protect you.” It
might not seem fair to you,
but it’s rather nice to think
that you are someone special.
Even if you were the same
age as your brothers you
might find the same situation.
Fathers are usually more
protective of their daughters.
Instead of competing with
your brothers try to enlist
their help. When your older
brother is feeling extra
magnanimous ask him if he
would consider taking you to
some evening activity at
school. Since your father has
confidence in your brothers
perhaps he will listen to their
ideas and let you go. At least
it’s worth a try.
BRACES
Dear Doris:
Did you hear of the words
Tin Grin, Metal Mouth and
Tinsel Teeth? The kids use
these expressions to describe
the other kids who wear
braces on their teeth. Now
I’m one of them, and I can’t
bear it. I keep thinking of all
those names and that they are
saying the same thing about
me. My mother says I’m too
self- conscious and shouldn’t
pay attention to them. What
would you do?
Toothy.
Dear Toothy:
The only encouragement I
can offer is that I know
everyone who has ever worn
those “ railroad tracks” (how
about that description?) say
they were worth all the
anguish. And from the
number of young people who
are having their teeth
straightened you have lots of
'company. For what it’s worth
that should help you
overcome your self-conscious
ness.
WAR ON WANT - Barbara
Ward was presented recently
with the Victor Gollancz
Award, given annually to the
person considered to have
made the most outstanding
contribution to the compaign
against world poverty. Miss
Ward, in private life Lady
Robert Jackson, is Schweitzer
Professor of International
Economic Development at
Columbia University, New
York. (NC Photo)
SELECTIVE CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION
Selective Service Ruling Apprasial
(The author of the following
article, a Jesuit history professor
at Sacramento State College,
appeared as a witness in Leslie
Bowen’s behalf)
BY FATHER JAMES E.
STRAUKAMP, S.J.
SAN FRANCISCO (NC) -
Judge Stanley Weigel’s
precedent-setting decision in
U.S. District court (Dec. 24)
here meant, in effect, that the
draft law as it now stands is
unconstitutional for Roman
Catholics. It was a vindication
of the Catholic Church’s
teaching on war and a
vindication as well of Leslie
Charles Bowen’s commitment
to that teaching.
Judge Weigel’s ruling
stated that section 6J of the
Military Selective Service Act
of 1967 discriminates against
Catholics since it fails to
provide for a Catholic refusal
to participate in a particular
war that he considers unjust.
The judge’s argument was
twofold: first, the teaching of
the Catholic Church; and
second, the religious sincerity
of Bowen who had been
charged with refusing
induction.
A Catholic is taught that
he must do good and avoid
evil to attain salvation. His
conscience, properly
informed by Scripture,
Church teaching and
reflection, determines for him
what is good and what is evil.
Traditionally the Catholic
Church has taught that
certain conditions must be
fulfilled for a war to be just.
If these are not realized in a
particular war then that war
is unjust and a Catholic may
not participate in it.
Judge Weigel, having first
accepted this as an authentic
statement of Catholic
teaching, then acquitted
Bowen. He ruled that section
6J is unconstitutional in its
restriction of conscientious
objector status to men who
are opposed to all war. The
exemption, said Judge Weigel,
must be extended to so-called
selective conscientious
objectors-men such as Bowen
who object to service in some
wars but not all.
(In Washington, Vincent
C. Allred, assistant general
counsel, United States
Catholic Conference (USCC)
and a colonel in the retired
reserve, U.S. Army, expressed
a “personal view.” Allred said
he does not see “how a
Catholic can assert the status
of selective conscientious
objection in a country like
the United States where our
governmental institutions are
based on the premise, quoting
Mr. Justice Douglas of the
Supreme Court, that ‘we are a
religious people whose
institutions presuppose a
supreme being.’ ”
(But Father Patrick P.
McDermott, S.J., assistant
director for peace at the
USCC Division of World
Justice and Peace, hailed
Judge Weigel’s decision as “a
glimmer of light in what has
up to now been a long and
dark tunnel.”
(“Many concerned
Christians have struggled for
some time to gain recognition
for selective conscientious
objection but to no avail,”
Father McDermott said. “Our
correspondence with them
has been a testimony to their
commitment and the
suffering they have endured
to gain such recognition.”)
The judge determined that
Bowen was definitely sincere
in his religious motivation
and that he had formed his
conscience according to
Church teaching. He further
decided that the defendant,
after careful study, had come
to the belief that the Vietnam
war was unjust and
consequently participation in
that war would force him to
act against his conscience-
and his Church’s teaching. In
such a case, the federal judge
ruled, refusal of conscientious
objector status amounted to
“serious and unjustifiable
discrimination.”
Judge Weigel’s ruling
culminated a series of legal
actions that were initiated in
May, 1968. Leslie Bowen,
then 23, and James F.
McFadden, 25, two students
at the Jesuit-run University of
San Francisco, faced
induction, and a crisis of
conscience as well as of law.
Through their religious
training they found
themselves opposed to the
Vietnam war but not to all
war. Since the draft law did
not permit selective
conscientious objection a suit
was initiated before they had
to refuse induction. Included
in the suit were 12 priests
who according to the law
could be indicted for
counselling draft resistors.
Msgr. John Tracy Ellis,
well-known Church historian,
was one of these priests.
After months of hearings
and appeals, no opportunity
was given to test the
constitutionality of the law
for Catholics. During this
period both Bowen and
McFadden refused induction.
Bowen’s trial was held in
October and McFadden’s is
scheduled for January.
On the morning of
Bowen’s trial, Judge Weigel
was prepared to dismiss the
case on the grounds that the
U.S. Government failed to
present proper evidence.
Richard Harrington, the
defense attorney, tried to
prevent this since the
question of constitutionality
would remain unsettled.
When the court reconvened in
the afternoon, the judge
allowed the trial to
proceed-the right to a jury
had been waived in the
morning. Judge Weigel
permitted the introduction of
such evidence as he would
need to consider whether the
present selective service law
denied religious freedom to
Catholics.
A philosophy professor
from Wisconsin testified to
the fact that Bowen had
participated in a seminar on
the just war doctrine and that
they had discussed the
subject outside of class as
well. He then explained the
traditional Catholic teaching
on war.
I was called to explain
Catholic moral theology on
conscience: it must be free,
informed and the ultimate
criterion in judging an action
as moral or immoral. Later,
during the testimony of
Bowen, I was recalled to the
stand. Judge Weigel wanted
to discuss at greater length
the concept of freedom and
supremacy of conscience and
the possible conflict between
such individual freedom and
the common good of the
state. It was pointed out that
conscience is not whim and
freedom is no license. Judge
Weigel and I both commented
on the difficulty of devising
legislation that would protect
both the individual
conscience and the good of
the state. (The judge in his
brief states that
administrative difficulty may
not be a reason for the denial
of rights.)
Bowen took the stand and
explained his ideas on
Catholic moral theology. He
described his ideas on the just
war doctrine and said this
principle guided his
conscience. Next followed a
discussion of how he had
determined the Vietnam war
was immoral. As evidence,
Harrington, the defense
counsel, introduced material
on the history of U.S.
involvement in Vietnam, as
well as material showing war
crimes had been committed
during the conflict. Bowen
explained that these, together
with accounts of veterans he
knew, convinced him that he
would be part of immoral
activities. (This trial, it should
be noted, occured before the
My Lai publicity).
Katherine Bowen, Leslie s
wife, presented testimony
that she had wanted her
husband to apply for
conscientious objector status
as a pacifist. He had refused,
she said, because that was not
his belief. During this
presentations Kathy’s tears
highlighted the ever-present
fear that her husband would
be sentenced to jail. In an
understanding way, Judge
Weigel assured her that her
husband was a sincere person.
highly principled; a man of
whom shw could be proud.
He added that if such a
person were a felon, then
there was something wrong
with the law.
Judge Weigel’s decision,
therefore, opened up the
possibility of more such cases
and an appeal to the Supreme
Court. Whatever happens, his
decision makes it clear that
Catholics are descriminated
against. But it is just as clear
that any defendant must give
evidence to establish his
sincerity.
Father McDermott,
speaking in Washington,
noted that “many religious
bodies, including the National
Conference of Catholic
Bishop, have gone on record in
support of selective
conscientious objection since
it is a concrete witness of a
traditional teaching-the just
war doctrine.
“Certain precepts of that
doctrine are particularly
applicable to Vietnam-the
precepts concerning just
cause and just conduct of the
war and the principle of
proportionality, that the
effect must be in proportion
to the devastation wrought
by the war.”
Allred said he has not yet
seen the ruling but that it
appeared to him there were
two issues in the case. “The
one issue,” he said, “is that
the religious denomination in
which an individual may have
membership in not a test of
his right to the status of
conscientious objector under
the present law, according to
a number of judicial
precedents, but rather the
test in his bona fide view as
to whether it is morally right
or wrong to participate in any
war.”
“The other issue,” he
continued, “is that under the
present wording of the
statute the status of
conscientious objector is
available only to a pe oon
who is opposed to all war,
but not to a person who is
opposed to a particular war
because of any views he
might have on its justice or
morality.”