Newspaper Page Text
BISHOP BERNARDIN:
\
Collegiality Rooted In
Communion Of Faithful
MIAMI, Fla. (NC) -
Collegiality among bishops
must remain rooted in the
communion of the faithful in
order to be “credible and
authentic,” a leading U.S.
Church official said here.
Addressing the fifth
Inter-American Bishops’
Meeting, Bishop Joseph L.
Bemardin, general secretary
of the National Conference of
Catholic Bishops (NCCB),
also urged dynamic
cooperation of Catholics at
the international level to help
the Church keep up with the
times.
He told the group of
prelates from Canada, Latin
America, Spain and the U.S.
that exchange of information
is a key to the needs of both
collegiality and international
cooperation.
The meeting was jointly
sponsored by the Latin
American Bishops’ Council
(CELAM) and the U.S.
bishops’ conference.
The group undertook a
study of pastoral needs of
some 25,000 Latin American
students in the United States
and the qualifications
required for U.S. missionary
personnel, religiuos and lay,
to make a positive
contribution to the Church in
Latin America.
The prelates were also
concerned with updating
educational methods to serve
the poor better in the struggle
for more human conditions in
the areas they represent.
Bishop Bemardin
introduced the fourth major
item of the meeting’s agenda:
“Inter-Communication
between the Church in the
United States and in Latin
America.”
He said there were two
underlying needs in this
relationship:
--A necessity for
collegiality to remain rooted
in the communion of the
faithful, thus lending greater
force to common efforts.
-A necessity for closer
bonds.
As world unity increases
through communications and
travel, he declared, there
must be a corresponding
development in the relations
between churches in the
world. Within this context,
the Catholic Church in the
U.S. and in Latin America
must concentrate on
improving means of
cooperation, the bishop said.
One of the means he cited
was the mutual exchange of
information on approach and
methods developed by
priests, Religious and lay
workers in the inter-American
field.
John Cardinal Dearden of
Detroit, president of the
NCCB, pointed out how the
range of discussions had
broadened since the first
meeting in 1965 between
U.S. and Latin American
bishops. At that time, he
recalled, the main concern
was how to utilize the
resources-personnel and
material-that the Church in
the U.S. was able to provide
Latin Americans.
Bishop Humberto
Medeiros of Brownville,
Texas, expressed regret over
the decrease in pastoral
attention given to students in
recent years.
Less than a decade ago, he
said, there were over two
dozen organizations in the
U. S. interested in the foreign
student apostolate, but they
lacked coordination and now
lack continuity, even though
there has been an increase in
the number of foreign
students in this country.
Bishop Medeiros said there
are nearly 25,000 young
Latin American students on
American campuses, in
addition to about 800
scholars. These figures, he
added, dramatize the need for
a strong pastoral response on
the part of U.S. Church
leaders. He warned, however,
that at the same time concern
for these students must
originate within the Church
in their respective countries.
The bishop’s remarks were
followed by a brief discussion
of the many Latin American
graduates who choose to
remain in the U.S., thus
draining their own countries
of the brain power needed for
development.
BELFAST — Soldiers inspect bomb damage (Feb. 1) in the Brown Square Barracks, a former
police station being used as headquarters for British Army units. Troops later sealed off the Shank
Hill area of Belfast, as tensions ran high between Protdstants and Catholics. (NC Photo)
NORTH IRELAND WOES
Belfast Priest Declares,
“Things Look Bad Here”
BY FATHER LEO
E. McFADDEN
BELFAST, Northern
Ireland (NC) — “Things look
bad here,” Father Francis
Teggart of St. Peter’s parish
told me after bringing me in
from a blustery afternoon
and sitting me down in front
of a mug of strong tea.
“You hear an odd shot
once a week,” he said. “It is
nothing like last August, of
course, but life has become a
constant tension.”
Two days before the Feast
of the Assumption last
August, the men of the
“Falls” section were manning
barricades to enclose the
neighborhood. The women
and children had been moved
to a guarded area of the
parish, when Father Teggart
heard the first shots of some
200 marauders. This mob was
beaten back by a band of
boys who had only stones to
hurl, but until one hour
before the first Mass on Aug.
15, the church and school
were under constant fire.
TABLE GRAPES
Texas Diocese
Backs Boycott
REDUCES VATICAN TIES
C.U. Revises
Its By-Laws
SAN ANTONIO (NC) -
Support for the table grape
boycott being spearheaded by
the United Farm Workers
Organizing Committee
headed by Cesar Chavez was
announced by the San
Antonio archdiocesan
Commission on Church and
Society.
At the same time, the San
Antonio Grape Boycott
Committee coordinated by
Franklin Garcia, international
representative of the Meat
Cutters Union, expressed
hope for “all-out support
from the churches” as it
begins to extend the boycott
to major San Antonio and
South Texas supermarket
chains.
The local boycott, similar
to those called in several
other states, has received
pledges of support from 500
persons who were among the
more than 1,000 people who
attended a rally in January
here which featured Chavez
as the speaker.
At that time, Archbishop
Francis J. Furey expressed his
support for the cause of the
farm workers in their struggle
to attain the right of
collective bargaining.
In its statement-released
by executive director Mathew
Ahmann--the 38-member
commission emphasized that
farm laborers do not have the
protection of federal labor
laws enjoyed by other
workers and also cited the
strong affirmation of the
right to collective bargaining
which “has been sustained in
Catholic teaching since Pope
Leo XIII.”
Observing that Chavez’
strike in the California fields
is seven years old, the
commission statement said:
“The union has long been
willing to sit down and
bargain with the table grape
growers but the growers have
been stubborn in their refusal
to bargain. •
The archd iocesan
commission declared its
support of the boycott by
stating “we are behind it 100
per cent.”
Bishop Medeiros voiced his
preference for existing
pastoral organizations-the
parish, the campus chaplains,
the specialized youth
movements-to take care of
Latin American student needs
rather than creating new
ones. He stressed however,
that Latin American
personnel, clerical and lay,
should be involved in this
pastoral effort.
According to Bishop
Medeiros, a chaplain cannot
limit his work to liturgical
services or mere social and
cultural functions. The new
generation of Latin
Americans he said, is
searching for answers on such
basic issues as justice,
development, liberation and
ways to improve
contemporary society.
John Cardinal Krol of
Philadelphia, vice president of
NCCB, said that the meeting
here is essentially a forum to
exchange ideas and
information. He said the
participants have no mandate
to commit the bishops but
that they can report back to
them with recommendations.
Juan Cardinal Landazuri
Ricketts, O.F.M., of Lima,
Peru, asked that more
attention be given to the
selection and formulation of
the subjects of discussion for
the meetings, with greater
stress on an exchange of
information on actual needs
and achievements at the top
levels of CELAM, the NCCB,
and other bodies concerned.
Archbishop Avelar
Brandao Vilela of Teresina,
Brazil, president of CELAM,
described the widening gap
between the Church and the
people in some areas of Latin
America.
The Church is facing a
crisis with lay people, he said,
as traditional lay apostolate
movements dwindle and fail
to attract the young. He
attributed this to lack of
contact and dialogue between
Church leaders and the
average Christian.
The bishops of Brazil, he
added, aware of this fact,
have proclaimed 1970 as the
Year of the Laity to seek an
understanding of the
problems and motivations of
the laity and bring to them
the postconciliar Church.
Archbishop Coleman
Carroll of Miami greeted the
participants. He said his
diocese, in which 25,000
Latin Americans have settled,
offers an advantageous setting
for the discussions as the seat
of two cultures and the
bridge city between North
and Latin America.
*
WASHINGTON (NC) -
Catholic University here has
announced major changes in
by-laws which reduce Vatican
ties and establish what Dr.
Clarence C. Walton,
university president, calls “a
most unique and adaptive
arrangement.”
Catholic University of
America was established in
1889 as a “pontifical
university,” accredited by the
Holy See. The change,
however, provides for only
three “pontifical schools” in
the university, out of a total
of 12-Philosophy, Theology
and Canon Law-with the
stipulation that “those
courses, programs, and
degrees having canonical
effects shall be conducted
according to norms and
regulations promulgated by
the Holy See.”
In the past, the Vatican
also had to approve the
university president, but
under the revised statutes, he
is selected by the Board of
Trustees after hearing the
report of a committee which
includes faculty
representatives.
All cardinals who were
heads of dioceses in the
United States were formerly
members of the board of
trustees. But the new by-laws
provide that only five
cardinals may serve on the
board, utilizing a rotation
system based on seniority if
there are more than five
cardinals desiring to serve.
Patrick Cardinal O’Boyle,
as archbishop of Washington,
remains ex officio the
university chancellor serving
“as a liaison between the
university and the National
Conference of Catholic
Bishops as well as between
the university and the Holy
See,” according to the new
by-laws.
The by-laws reaffirm the
historic role of the Academic
Senate, existing at the
university since its inception,
giving it the authority to
“adopt rules and regulations
pertaining to its operations
and to the academic
operation of the university”
but stipulating final approval
by the president of its
enactments. The Senate may
submit its considerations to
the Board of Trustees, if the
president does not approve
them.
Catholic University has
felt the “growing pains” of
campus unrest along with
other colleges in recent years.
In 1967, the Board of
Trustees had initiated the
termination of the contract
of Father Charles Curran, a
controversial moral
theologian and a member of
the Institute for Freedom in
the Church but a four-day
university boycott and letters
supporting the priest from
many academic circles caused
his reinstatement and
promotion to associate
professor.
Another controversy
centered around the move
last spring to appoint Father
Roland Murphy, O. Carm., as
Dean of the school of
theology. Father Murphy had
widespread student and
faculty support, but the
Board of Trustees held up his
appointment, reportedly
because he had signed a
statement of dissent from
Pope Paul’s birth control
encyclical, Humanae Vitae.
Dr. Walton, first lay head
of the university, appointed
Father Reginald Masterson,
O.P., to the Theology School
post in January, setting the
precedent for another by-laws
change which states that the
president may now appoint
the deans of the various
schools without seeking the
confirmation of the Board of
Trustees.
President Walton told NC
News Service the new by-laws
“respect the autonomy of the
Church and the integrity of
the university,” and that
under them “both are going
to grow more effectively.”
“In some ways we’re living
at Catholic University the
long history of Catholic
higher education,” said
Walton. He said there was
first an emphasis on the
“seminary” type of Catholic
higher education, evolving
into the “Church-dominated”
university (“which Catholic
University, like Harvard
University, was during its
formative years,”) to the
“Church-related university,”
which is the role Catholic U.
has currently assumed.
“At 1:30 a.m. we got our
first automatic weapons, four
to be exact,” the priest told
me, “and that took the heart
out of them.” In the
meantime, however, the row
of fiats behind the church
and the playground were
raked with rifle fire.
Falls Road is not the only
Catholic ghetto in Belfast.
Delegates from another
half-dozen underprivileged
areas gather at St. Peter’s for
weekly meetings. This is the
governing council of the
defense committee elected
from among the working class
with an occasional priest as a
delegate.
“I was with them last
night,” my host admitted.
“We talked about discipline
among the people, for we are
far beyond the state of
individuals acting on their
own. We are in this business
for defense not foolishness.”
If there is one ray of
sanity in all this furore, it is
the presence of the British
army and the political
influence of the government
from London. The Catholic
minority “accepts” the army
but wildly distrusts a
policeman.
The government of
Northern Ireland, aided
directly by London, is
involving itself in equality in
jobs and housing, the crux of
all the trouble. Only with
peace will industry return,
they argue, and many have
listened.
But many will not, and
there is the lurking danger of
extremists on both sides who
are quick to turn the most
casual events into explosive
politics. A housing tract near
a riot area wins an
architectural award, but the
venture is condemned by one
Catholic spokesman as a
political move. The inspector
general of the police allows
the residents of Falls Road to
patrol their own area at night.
The peace has been kept and
the crime rate has dropped,
yet a Protestant minister
complains loudly over this
‘‘surrender of the
government.”
Machine guns “disappear”
from an army storehouse.
Gun runners are arrested in
London. Petrol bombs rip
open a barracks or devastate
innocent shops near a
political headquarters.
Charges and counter
charges ring round the
courtrooms as investigations
continue over the troubles of
August. The government in
Belfast pleads for calm
through an uneasy truce.
TAITUNG, TAIWAN — A Svuss lay missionary explains a lathe
operation to a student at the technical school here founded by
the “Bethlehem” missionaries of Immensee, Switzerland. The
Church has contributed heavily in people, money, time and
talent to the post-war rise of Taiwan from an agricultural to an
industrial economy. (NC Photo)
PAGE 3 — February 12, 1970
Rockefeller
Report Analyzed
(The author of this story is
assistant director of the Division
of World Justice and Peace,
United States Catholic
Conference.)
BY FATHER PATRICK
McDERMOTT, S.J.
WASHINGTON (NC) -
The riots and protests that
met last summer’s
presidential mission to Latin
America, headed by Gov.
Nelson Rockefeller of New
York, received more public
attention among Americans
than the vital finding of its
report.
This paradox gives support
to Marshall McLuhan’s
extensive writings on the
hypothesis that, in this age of
instant communication, the
means or medium of
communicating often
supplants the content of the
communication itself. The
medium becomes, in a real
sense, the message.
The Rockefeller Report
was meant to be a message
delivered to the President of
the United States concerning
the state of affairs in Latin
America as an aid to policy
formation in the Western
Hemisphere. The fact-finding
trips and the publication of
the data were the means by
which the message was
constructed and
communicated.
I think it would be
interesting, however, to
examine the Rockefeller
mission, the chaotic events
surrounding the four trips to
Latin America, the delays and
secrecy surrounding the
publication of the report as a
real message in itself, of equal
or even greater importance
than the data-gathering, the
evaluations or the judgments
contained in the 137 pages of
the final draft.
The report itself is
ambiguous as to its approach,
combining an optimistic view
of development possibilities
in Latin America with a
pessimistic view of Latin
America as a hotbed for
future subversion.
The report will, no doubt,
be read by a number of
experts and government
officials, but that number of
readers will be small in
comparison to the millions
who viewed the riots and
disruptions which met the
Rockefeller investigators on
each leg of the journey. These
millions received another
message which was just as
emphatic or informative as
any written report.
The extent and intensity
of the violence accompanying
the Rockefeller trip should be
a sign to North Americans
that Latin Americans were far
from unanimity in their
estimation and approval of
the Rockefeller mission. In
fact, the opposition was
widespread and highly
emotional. Should this
surprise us? What would
Americans think if the
president of Brazil or Chile
loaded up several airplanes
with experts in the fields of
education, government,
religion, industry, art and the
military, and sent them on a
whirlwind tour of the United
States to “evaluate” our
institutions so that they
might provide us with a
better understanding of our
problems and point out ways
of imp roving these
institutions.
I would venture to say
that the average American
would respond “Those
so-and-so’s! Who do they
think they are?” The Latins
reacted in somewhat the same
manner.
No matter how sincere
were the intentions of the
President in initiating the
study, and how sincere the
efforts of Gov. Rockefeller
and others in carrying out the
mandate, they must be
sensitive to the negative in
interpretations of the mission
which have some basis in
reality. For instance, the
whirlwind nature of the trips,
the interviews and
data-collecting precluded any
in-depth study which could
be used as a basis for serious
policy formation. Couldn’t
this lead to an interpretation
b y Latins that the
Rockefeller Report was, more
than anything else, an
exercise in public relations?
I
Furthermore, the final
draft of the report was
influenced heavily by the
representatives of business
and the military. What was its
message to the Latins, who
are particularly sensitive to
the possibility of economic
exploitation and domination
by the United States?
It is precisely this
ambiguity in the final report
which will detract from the
value of this otherwise
noteworthy study. The
ambiguity concerns two
approaches which run side by
side in the report, but are in
essence contradictory. It is as
if two separate reports were
made by two different
groups, approaching the issue
from vastly different points
of view. The final drafter
shuffled the two reports
together into one deck, or at
least tried to.
One approach centered on
the economic requirements of
the Hemisphere. It sought to
define areas of cooperation
between the Americas with
an emphasis on growth and
development stimulated by
an intelligent and prudent use
of resources. This echoes the
style of the “Good Neighbor”
policy which the United
States has tried to push
forward through various
forms of in ter-American
assistance programs. It looks
forward to the decade of the
70s with hope for a period of
peace and prosperity.
The other approach is the
complete antithesis. It looks
upon Latin America as ripe
for subversion and infiltration
by the darkest elements of
Castroism and communism.
The report states:
“All of the American
nations are a tempting target
for communist subversion. In
fact, it is plainly evident that
such subversion is a reality
today with alarming
potential ... governments are
forced to use increasingly
repressive measures to deal
with it.”
The report warns:
“Clearly, the opinion in the
United States that
communism is no longer a
serious factor in the Western
Hemisphere is thoroughly
wrong.” It is no surprise that
the Rockefeller report
recommends increased
outlays for counterinsurgency
training and the beefing up of
riot control forces.
This alarmist side of the
report reflects some Cold War
rhetoric which is becoming
less meaningful in Latin
America. Actually,
Castro-style subversion has
been on the decrease in
recent years, especially with
the death of the Guevara in
Bolivia. The cause of Castro’s
relative decline in Latin
America is Moscow itself, as
the Kremlin’s thawing tactics
now call for improved
relations with the West. Why,
then, crank up old fears when
the present realities may call
,for a different response?
Perhaps it was this
ambiguity of approach which
delayed the publication of
the report as Gov.
Rockefeller tried to marshall
his forces and produce some
sort of unified statement.
Also, it is quite possible that
the Rockefeller report made
some observations which
would conflict with policies
the Nixon Administration
itself was formulating about
Latin America.
Returning to our original
theme, if the medium is the
message, then the presence or
coexistence of these diverging
views in one report is a
message in itself. There must
have been a good deal of
dissent and divergent opinion
within the Rockefeller team.
It would probably have been
more informative, and
possibly more credible, if the
various opinions had shown
up in separate reports; for
example, a military or
security report separate from
a report on economic
development.
In this way, the real
complexities and diversities
of the southern half of the
hemisphere could have been
spelled out in greater detail to
the President and to the
nation.
V