Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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 >