Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 4—The Southern Cross, March 9,1972
The Southern Cross
Business Office 225 Abercorn St. Savannah, Ga. 31401
Most Rev. Gerard L. Frey, D.D. President
i^ev. 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.
At 202 E. Sixth St., Waynesboro, Ga. 30830
Subscription Price $2.76 per year by Assement Parishes Diocese of Savannah Others $5 Per Year
Court-Ordered Busing
OUR PARISH
fiSfit
Massive busing of school children out
of their own neighborhoods as a means
to effect a unitary, or integrated, school
system is still very much a topic of
wide-spread discussion and, we believe,
sophistic argumentation.
That it is an inconvenience to many
parents and children -- even a hardship -
cannot be denied. But what opponents
keep ignoring is that the courts have
declared dual public school systems
unconstitutional and, therefore, illegal.
Where the courts found that dual
systems were in operation, it has ordered
them replaced with unitary school
systems. The reaction of some school
boards to such court orders was to
institute “freedom-of-choice” plans
under which, theoretically, parents could
designate which school they wished their
children to attend. The only trouble was
that the courts found that such plans did
not, in their view, eliminate dual school
systems. The result has been
court-ordered busing to achieve
integration of the maximum number of
schools.
Each such court-ordered busing plan
must, of course, stand or fall on its own
merits. There can be good plans and bad
plans. It is possible that some school
boards may have devised plans which
could be improved and result in less
inconvenience than they now place upon
parents and students.
But, unless someone can show us how
schools can be racially integrated by
some other means - now, not ten or
twenty years from now - busing seems
to be the only way to comply with what
the courts have declared to be the
requirements of the United States
Constitution.
The important thing to keep in mind
is that as a matter of historical fact, the
neighborhood school concept, because
of racially discriminatory residential
patterns, produced what the courts have
called, and what were in fact, dual
school systems in which the children
from urban poverty-pockets received an
education inferior to that received by
their more affluent counterparts in other
areas of the city. This was certainly an
important factor in perpetuating what
Pope Paul has called “the hellish circle of
poverty.”
Massive busing may not be the ideal
method of rectifying discriminatory
educational policies and practices. But
until someone can demonstrate that
some other method will achieve equal
educational opportunity on a racially
integrated basis, we do not see how
busing can be discarded without bringing
about a retrogression to school patterns
which have, in the past, contributed so
heavily to the racial tensions which
continue to beset communities all over
the nation.
Search For Truth
The rift over how to view the Harrisburg
conspiracy trial is only one evidence of the lack
of civility that is creeping into Christian debate
in the Diocese. We’ve sensed and experienced a
rising anger, not only over the trial but over a
variety of other topics from liturgical change to
outright trivialities. Our tempers often grow
short and our judgements are swift and
merciless.
It’s spiritually unhealthy to look upon one
another as villains to be annihilated rather than
as brother Christians who all need more light on
one subject or another.
These are difficult times. We need to acquire
a greater sense of prayer to cope with them.
Prayer will help us overflow with love instead
of bitterness. Christ Himself relied on prayer
when trouble came. Quite possibly He was
praying for us as well as His other persecutors
when He pleaded, “Forgive them, Father, for
they know not what they do.”
(From the Catholic Witness, Harrisburg, Pa.)
Compulsive Gambling Brings
Misfortune, Not Fortune
Doctor Armand DiFrancesco
Heywood Broun, one of America’s noted
journalists, was witty with his capsule
comments on the American scene. He once
remarked: “The urge to gamble is so universal
and its practice so pleasurable that I assume it
must be evil.”
Today over 75 million Americans woo “Lady
Ltfck” with an estimated $30 billion annually.
The first human being to take a chance was Eve
in the Garden of Eden when she tried to
conquer fate and shot the works for
omnipotence. She took a chance on the apple
and lost; people haven’t changed much ever
since. Like anything else that gives pleasure,
gambling can be fun and it can also be a
sickness.
In every age and culture, gambling has been
popular and is most likely linked to the human
fascination with the unpredictable. Tales of
ancient religious beliefs tell of Greek and Indian
gods directing human destiny by casting dice.
The most popular forms of gambling amongst
the Greeks were horse racing, dice and cock
fights.
Even the Romans were wont to bet and one
of them, Claudius, wrote a book on shooting
dice. We all know of the Roman guards who
cast lots for the robes of Christ. In the 16th
Century, a Renaissance physician and a
compulsive gambler, Dr. Jerome Cardano, put
all his tricks and skills in a book entitled THE
GAMES OF CHANCE.
In the 17th and 18th centuries, fortunes
were squandered by wealthy aristocrats on
Dutch pins, checkers, cards, skittles and cock
fighting. The Queen of Hungary and mother of
Marie Antoinette was Maria Theresa, a noted
addict to gambling. Instead of going to church
one Sunday, she went to the casino and “blew”
20,000 crowns before noon.
There are various types of gamblers: the
“sharpie” who makes his living with dice or
cards; the percentage gambler who has a “feel”
for the laws of probability and never bets on
anything but a fairly sure thing; the casual
gambler who goes to the track a few times a
year just to “lose a few dollars” which he can
afford to lose; the compulsive gambler who is
addicted to gambling much like a heroin addict
is to heroin.
Gambling becomes a sickness or character
disorder when an individual habitually starts
taking chances. Betting on anything and
everything, the game becomes more important
than his job or family. Like the gambler who
joined a poker game, in spite of being told that
it was crooked, and said: “Well, it’s the only
game in town.”
A study of the personalities of compulsive
gamblers has revealed some basic conflicts and
problems. To them, gambling seems to be a
kind of challenge to fate, which is forced to
make its decision for or against the player. To
conquer fate, to prove omnipotence in a
child-like, playful fashion without effort, the
compulsive gambler must gamble to protect
himself against deep, unconscious anxieties and
threats and to prove his worth to himself by
being smiled on by “Lady Luck.”
In this kind of “make-believe” fantasy, in
winning they feel “loved” and in losing, they
feel rejected or punished.
In addition, the compulsive gambler gets rid
of tensions by gambling continuously, much as
a child gets rid of tension by active repetition
of acts, like bouncing a ball or taking something
out of a box, putting it in, taking it out, etc.
Unconscious guilt leads to an unconscious
wish to be punished because the compulsive
gambler must eventually be ruined.
The tragic part is that, besides ruining their
own lives, they inflict much suffering and
deprivation on their families. If they have the
proper motivation to get over this, they can be
helped. Sometimes hospitalization is necessary.
A fairly new group, Gamblers Anonymous,
has aided many a compulsive gambler back to a
sane way of living. Composed of recovered
gamblers, they help, educate and support
victims of this disorder until they have it licked.
It’s a game that brings misfortune, not fortune.
(
“Must you play ‘Battle Hymn of the Republic’
every time I walk out?”
Suenens A Victim
Of Clerical Envy
Reverend Andrew M. Greeley
One of the more interesting examples of the
old demon of “clerical envy” is the repeated
calumny one hears from American priests
against Cardinal Suenens. As sure as the sun
comes up in the morning, one can be confident
that in any conversation in which the Cardinal’s
name is mentioned some priest will say, as
though it were unquestioned truth, that while
the Cardinal talks about collegiality in the
Church he does not practice it in his own
diocese.
As someone who knows a little bit about the
Archdiocese of Malines, I always ask the priest
who has repeated this bit of calumny where he
got his evidence. The best that anyone has ever
done is to cite a story at second or third hand
from someone who told someone he knew. In
other words, the reputation of a brave
churchman is impugned on the most slender of
evidence.
I happened to have spent some time in
Malines. I have watched the Cardinal at work
with his priests. I have seen how they react to
him. I have talked with them about his
administration. There are criticisms as there are
of any leader. But no one has ever suggested to
me that he is not a democrat in his leadership
style. On the contrary, his priests are deeply
offended at the calumny against him of which
they are well aware. Some have suggested to me
that the Cardinal’s bitter rivals in the Belgian
hierarchy are responsible for the falsehood;
others think that the stories may originate in
Rome.
It doesn’t much matter where the stories
start. Anyone who assumes a position of bold
and dramatic leadership in the church is going
to have to live with such falsehoods. Leo
Suenens is no radical; on the contrary, if
anything, he is a conservative or at most a
moderate. But he has spoken up on some of the
critical weaknesses of the structure of the
church. It is understandable that his enemies in
the curia would try to suggest that he is a
heretic. But it is disgusting that those who are
presumably his allies are frequently more
concerned with impugning his reputation than
supporting his courage.
Are the clergy more subject to envy than
other groups? Or is envy part of the human
condition? From the perspective of my other
profession, I can report that it is by no means
absent from the academy, where it is reimorced
by another vice which afflicts the clergy much
less - vanity. When you mix envy with vanity --
as many college professors do - you have a very
hate filled and vindictive creature.
But I think there is more envy in the clergy,
probably because the reward system is so
limited. The church has little in the way of
prizes with which to reward hard work,
accomplishment, or ambition. If anyone gets
recognition, he is thought to have obtained this
“goody” by depriving others of the rewards
they deserved. “I could have been as famous as
you are,” says the envious cleric, “if I had been
as ambitious as you are” (or “as lucky,” or
“had the right friends,” or “pushed myself as
much”). In such a system of scarce rewards the
only one who is not going to be envied is the
one who stays carefully in line and does not do
anything except what everyone else does. The
ideal cleric, from the point of view of clerical
envy, is the one who never “steps out of line,”
which is to say, the one who makes systematic
mediocrity the aim of all that he does.
If a man like Leo Suenens is to be criticized,
let the reason be that he is too radical - or too
conservative - on matters of church
organization. But let the issue not be blurred by
mean,'nasty, vicious clerical dislike of anyone
who does anything out of the ordinary.
«
Christian
Seeds
BY REV. JOSEPH DEAN
GRANDMA’S GLASSES
Two small boys were talking together. The
one asked, “Wouldn’t you hate to wear
glasses?” “No,” answered the other, “not if
they were the kind my grandma wears. My
mother says she always sees when folks are
tired and sad. She sees whenever a neighbor is
in need. She never fails to recognize things at
the right time.”
The lad continued, “I asked Grandma one
day how it was that she could see that way. She
explained it like this: ‘It’s the way I’ve learned
to look at things since I’ve gotten older!’ So I
just know it was those glasses of hers!” The
author of this account found out later on that,
“It wasn’t Grandma’s spectacles - It was the
love of God in her heart!”
Having experienced His redeeming grace in
her own life through the provision of the One
who was willing to take upon himself “the form
of a servant,” this Christian’s eyes were opened
to others.
With a new heart filled with the Lord’s love
she enjoyed sharpened spiritual vision.
Perceiving the heart-break endured, the burdens
borne, and the battles encountered by those
about her, she did what she could to cheer and
help them along the way.
If you’ve been blind to the plight of those
nearby and have failed to see the vast needs of a
world lost in sin, it may be that you should
have “new glasses” - the kind that provide the
discerning insight which comes with being born
again. Then, under the control of the Holy
Spirit and having the mind of Christ, you’ll be
able to see others the way “Grandma” did.
My life shall touch a dozen lives before this
day is done, leave countless marks for good or
ill ere sets the evening sun; This is the wish I
always wish, the prayer I always pray: “Lord,
may my life help other lives it touches by the
way.”
THOUGHT: Forget yourself for others, and
Jesus will never forget you!
I Never
Said That
At All
Joseph A. Breig
A few weeks ago in this column, I remarked
that after a lifetime of combatting racial,
religious and other prejudices, suddenly I found
myself prejudiced in one respect.
My bias, I said, has to do with long hair,
beards and moustaches on men. I quoted
Chesterton that it is not easy to see “the
familiar image of God” behind the black beard
of a Frenchman or the black face of an African.
I observed that I had this difficulty with hairy
men, and suggested that they come out from
behind the bushes.
Well! The longer I live and write, the more I
realize how hard it is to communicate without
being misunderstood.
I began to receive letters saying, “Come on,
Breig, admit it - you’re prejudiced.”
Admit it? I had asserted it. The whole theme
of the column was that I, who had thought
myself prejudice - proof, was prejudiced in this
one respect. And I suspect that this is true of
millions of others.
I did not boast of it. I merely described it as
a reality which the hairy ones might like to take
into account.
Other letters accused me of denying the
image of God in bearded people and black
people. One reader demanded to know whether
“the familiar image of God” in my mind is a
well-trimmed and shaved white man.
The answer, of course, is yes. That’s the
FAMILIAR image of God; the image with
which I am best acquainted. When I (and
Chesterton) say that it is more difficult to see
the image behind a beard or a black face,
obviously we are saying the image is there but is
not familiar. We are also saying that we must
see it although seeing it is less easy. We are
simply stating a fact of everyday experience.
I said that when I am talking with one of the
hairy ones, all I see are whiskers and hair. That,
surely, is a pardonable exaggeration in order to
make a point - the point that the hair does get
in the way.
Let me now define more precisely. I am not
prejudiced against reasonably long,
well-groomed hair, moustaches or beards,
although I prefer clean-shaven men. What I was
talking about was hair hanging around the
shoulders or down the backs of men, along with
whiskers that wildly hide most of the face.
One reader alleged that I had said that only
shorthaired men can be Christ-like. How she
managed to read that into what I wrote, I
cannot imagine.
As for Christ having had a beard and long
hair, I can only say that probably he did, and
therefore looked like other men of his time and
place. He did not adopt any bizarre fashion to
set himself apart from others. Had he been
shaven among the bearded Jews, he would have
made it more difficult for people to see the
image of God in him.
I
t