Newspaper Page Text
NEWSMEN IN PEKING
PAGE 3-March 30.1972
Rel. Freedom Questions
Bring “Evasive Answers”
WASHINGTON (NC) - Three
American news correspondents got a rare
chance to visit a Catholic church in
Peking during President Nixon’s China
trip -- and the priest they talked with gave
them a mixed picture of religious practice
cut off from the papacy, pledged to the
cult of Mao Tse-tung, yet still claiming
belief in Catholic doctrine.
Forrest J. Boyd, who covers the White
House for Mutual Broadcasting System,
described the church visit in the March 17
issue of Christianity Today, an evangelical
bi-weekly of 130,000 circulation
published here.
Boyd, a Presbyterian, said that he and
two of the Catholics among the newsmen
on the presidential trip -- Hugh Mulligan
of the Associated Press bureau in London
and Hearst columnist Bob Considine -
were taken by an interpreter to interview
a Father Mu Jun-hua on the last day of
their stay in Peking.
The two-page list of places to be
visited, which all the newsmen had been
handed when they first arrived, did not
include any churches. Boyd asked
permission to see one, and his request was
eventually granted.
“The word-for-word transcript of our
recorded conversation with the priest
shows how difficult it is to get
information, how evasive and imprecise
the Chinese are in their answers, and how
impossible it is to reach a definitive
conclusion as to how much freedom of
religion there really is,” said Boyd in his
article in Christianity Today.
Although he was told there are both
Protestant and Catholic churches open in
China, he added, he was unable to learn
how many or where, nor could he learn
anything about Christians reportedly
imprisoned.
Father Mu was said to be over 40, the
man in charge of Peking’s oldest and
biggest church where services are held
daily, to have been ordained in 1956 by
the now deceased bishop of Peking after
training in a French missionary seminary
in Peking.
Part of the recorded conversation as
reported by Boyd in the magazine:
Q. - Is your prayer book in Chinese or
is it in Latin?
A. - At present we still use the Latin.
Q. - Despite the fact that the church is
not connected with the Vatican anymore,
is the belief and the order of service the
same?
A. - The religious ceremonies, our
services are the same.
Q. - Has Father been out of China?
A. - No.
Q. - Does the government allow
complete freedom of worship?
A. - There is complete freedom for
religious belief. It is stipulated in the
constitution.
Q. - Why are there no altar boys, no
little boys to assist at the services?
A. - Well, the educational undertakings
in China have developed considerably,
and at the age of seven, the children go to
school. In order not to hinder their
education, the parents don’t want them
to come here, to be what you call them,
altar boys.
Asked if he was aware that a famous
American bishop named James Walsh had
been a prisoner in China for some 20
years and had been released in 1970,
Father Mu replied that he had read an
item in the newspaper on the imprison
ment and later an item about the release.
“He used the priest’s cloak with
religion and carried out espionage
activities for the CIA,” the Chinese priest
added.
Q. - Does Father believe that?
A. - Yes.
Asked about Catholics imprisoned at
the time of the revolution in the late
1940’s, the preist said that “people with
ulterior motives” who had “spread
slanders” were arrested “not because of
their religious belief but because they
have carried out counter-revolutionary
activities. That’s why they were arrested.
And in our country there is full, complete
freedom of religious belief.”
Q. - Do the Chinese priests marry now
since the liberation?
A. - No, they do not marry.
Q. - How many come to church?
A. - If they come in big numbers, as
many as 500. But in times when there are
a very few people, just a few.
Q. - Mostly old people?
A. - More old people, and fewer among
the young people.
Q. - Do you know if there are any
Protestant churches in Peking?
A. - There are.
Q. - Do you know how many or what
the names are?
A. - We don’t know, but we know that
there are.
Q. - Father, do you feel as close to God
as, let’s say, a priest in Germany who has
his allegiance to the Vatican, or do you
feel like you are choosing a different way
to God?
A. - I believe in the Catholic doctrine,
and as you know, we love our great
leader, Chairman Mao, our motherland,
and also are led by the Communist party.
We regard this as proper. Those are the
things that we should do. And we regard
those foreign priests who have carried out
the work of subversive activities or
instruments toward the Chinese people,
those acts are not in conformity with the
Bible. We regard that what we have done
is more in conformity with the doctrine
of the Church as well as the Bible.
Boyd asked Father Mu how he feels
about serving the purposes of a
government whose announced doctrine is
atheism and whose leaders don’t believe
in the existence of what the priest says
Mass for. The answer was:
“Well, the Communists are atheists,
but this will not hinder us from our
contribution to the construction of
socialism. There are policies as
formulated by the Communist party that
provide for those people who believe in
religion, provide a freedom of religious
belief, so in this way we can construct
socialism together with the people of the
whole country.”
POPULA TION CONTROL
‘Flak’ On Abortion
For Govt. Commission
BY LOUIS A. PANARALE
President Nixon’s population policy
commission had stressed that it did not
want to put too much emphasis on the
role that liberalized abortions would play
in slowing down populatin growth. But
when the dust began to settle from the
initial outcries of protest over the
commission’s report, the abortion
recommendations appeared to be the
commission’s biggest headache.
The commission seemed to anticipate
at least some of the controversy over this
issue when in Part Two of its report it
admonished that “abortion not be
considered a primary means of fertility
control.”
The commission, formally known as
The Commission of Population Growth
and the American Future, had also
recommended sex education programs,
contraceptives for teenagers, and
voluntary sterilization.
But the anti-abortionists - possibly
because they operated from strongly
organized bases -- made their voices sound
the loudest as soon as the report was
made public.
The first, and one of the strongest,
statements came from Msgr. James
McHugh of the U.S. Catholic
Conference’s Family Life Division who
scored the report and said it should be
treated with “benign neglect.”
Then came other opposition.
Anti-abortion groups in Pennsylvania
issued what they called their own
“national minority report” in response to
the population policy commission’s
report.
Women Concerned for the Unborn
Child, a Pittsburgh organization and
Pennsylvanians for Human Life, a
Harrisburg group, rejected the concept
that population control means economic
betterment for families.
“Population control is a means for
rulers to control the population,” their
report stated. “And when the issue is
considered in terms of modern
technology, population control becomes
a way to increase the wealth of a few
individuals and corporations.”
Dr. Joseph R. Stanton, president of the
Value of Life Committee (VOLCOM),
described as a non-sectarian
Massachusetts corporation, wrote a letter
of protest to President Nixon.
Stanton said the commission’s
recommendations on abortion “are
blatantly and deliberately propagandistic.
They should be so recognized and
repudiated forthwith.”
Saying that “an overwhelming majority
of Americans” share VOLCOM’S
position, Stanton asked President Nixon
for “instant rejection of the purported
findings and the sweeping propagandist
abortion recommendations.”
Another letter to the President came
from George H. Williams, national
chairman of the Americans United for
Life, a Washington, D.C. corporation
which also describes itself as an interfaith
group.
“The commission is gravely mistaken
in assuming that in sanctioning abortion
as a back-stop to contraception it can
calmly proceed to the ‘improvement’ of
‘quality of American life,’ ” Williams said.
The National Right to Life Committee,
Washington, D.C., issued a statement
criticizing the commission for giving
recommendations on abortion “in an
irresponsible and high-handed manner.”
“Unwanted unborn children of less
than 24 weeks’ gestation, we are told,
should be destroyed in order to improve
the ‘quality of life,’ ” the Statement said.
The Right to Life Committee said the
commission report “does not even make
an attempt to balance the pros and cons
of the abortion debate as it exists in our
society.
“The arguments chosen are common
pro-abortion propaganda - that abortion
laws are but another example of
19th-century Comstockery, that a woman
has an absolute right over her body, that
the New York abortion law is a glowing
success, etc.” (NC News)
A SMILE CAN’T HURT: The radiant smile and friendly attitude of this little girl in
Tahiti was too appealing to keep to ourselves. We sent it out in the hope it will
brighten the page on which it is used. NC Photo, courtesy John Taylor World Council
of Churches.
ON BEHALF OF PEACE AND JUSTICE: In these times when political campaigns are heating up, the Social Concerns Department
of the School Sisters of St. Francis of Milwaukee is doing a bit of campaigning on its own. The nuns are distributing “ASK ME”
Want Peace, Work for Justice.” buttons to promote the 1972 theme of Pope Paul VI. In photo, Sister Joan Puls (left) pins one of
the buttons on Sister Rosalita Hurley. The message is as good as any political promise. NC Phote by Tom Lorsung.
SECRETARY OF U.S. BISHOPS
Complete Busing Moratorium
Mistake, Bp. Bernardin Says
WASHINGTON (NC) - The general
secretary of the U.S. Catholic Conference
(USCC) said that a complete moratorium
on school busing “would be a serious
mistake.”
In a statement on President Nixon’s
busing moratorium, Bishop Joseph L.
Bernardin said that busing should not be
“employed indiscriminately” and he said
that the USCC would support efforts to
improve the quality of education and
equal education opportunity.
Bishop Bernardin said the USCC is
studying the administration proposals and
will make a detailed statement on it.
His statement, the bishop said, was
intended to point out “certain principles
which form the basis for the conference’s
approach to this entire matter.”
Bishop Bernardin said the bishops have
called the question of race relations
“fundamentally a moral issue” and, he
said, the conference hopes that “the
moral dimensions of public policy will be
at the fore” in the controversy over
busing.
“One Cannot give a simple yes or no
answer to the question of busing,” Bishop
Bernardin said. “In some cases it may be
the only effective instrument by which
justice in education can be secured for
children of all races. For this reason, it
would be a serious mistake to rule out
busing entirely.”
The bishop pointed out “caution
should be exercised not to undermine the
position” of persons attempting “to deal
with the problems of racial separation
and quality education in the schools.”
Acknowledging that busing “is not the
total solution to racial and educational
problems” Bishop Bernardin said that “in
particular situations busing may be an
extreme and counterproductive measure
and should not, therefore, be employed
indiscriminately.”
In an apparent reference to the
president’s proposal to increase aid to
poor schools, the bishop said the USCC
“is committed to quality education and
equal educational opportunity” for all.
The conference, he said, “would naturally
be in favor of any legislation which does,
in fact, help to achieve these goals.”
Bishop Bernardin pointed out that
Nixon had said that decisions on busing
should be taken for the right reasons.
“The best right reason,” Bishop
Bernardin said, “is the right of every child
to quality education.”
The full text of Bishop Bernardin’s
statement follows:
President Nixon’s proposals for a
busing “moratorium” and efforts relating
to quality education for the
disadvantaged are complex, and their full
implications are by no means
immediately clear. The U.S. Catholic
Conference is studying the legislation put
forward by the administration and
expects to make its views known, in
detail, at a later date. In the meantime,
however, there are certain principles
which form the basis for the Conference’s
approach to this entire matter and which,
one hopes, will also be respected in the
development of government policy.
The Catholic bishops of the United
States have previously pointed out that
the question of racial relations in our
country is fundamentally a moral issue.
This is as true in education as in any
other area. The conference trusts,
therefore, that the moral dimensions of
public policy will be at the fore in the
continuing national debate over the best
means to achieve quality education and
i
equal opportunity for every child.
The Conference is committed to the
principle of quality education and equal
educational opportunity for every child
in public as well as non-public schools,
provided these schools conform with
existing civil rights legislation. Raising the
quality of education and guaranteeing
equal education opportunity, especially
for the disadvantaged, are the duties of
government. Thus, the Cqnference would
naturally be in favor of any legislation
which does, in fact, help to achieve these
goals.
One cannot give a simple yes or no
answer to the question of busing. In some
cases, busing may be the only effective
instrument by which justice in education
can be secured for children of all races.
For this reason, it would be a serious
mistake to rule out busing entirely.
Furthermore, the federal government
obviously must take into consideration
the effect of its policies and programs on
good faith efforts now being made in
various parts of the country to deal with
the problems of racial separation and
quality education in the schools. Caution
should be exercised not to undermine the
position of the many educators, public
officials and private citizens who have
been seeking to bring about equality in
American education.
It is evident that busing is not the total
solution to racial and educational
problems in the nation’s schools. It is also
true that in particular situations busing
may be an extreme and even
counterproductive measure and should
not, therefore, be employed
indiscriminately.
As President Nixon has said, our
nation’s citizens, in taking a stand on
busing in a particular situation, should be
guided by right reasons. The best right
reason is the right of every child to
quality education.
v >