Newspaper Page Text
i'
PAGE 4—The Southern Cross, February 15,1973
The Southern Cross
Business Office 225 Abercorn St. Savannah, Ga. 31401
rtev. 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
A Plea for Reason
It cannot be doubted that the vast,
vast majority of Americans
wholeheartedly endorse the President’s
action in seeking and securing a
negotiated end to the fighting in
Vietnam and that they would like to see
a similar end to military conflict in Laos
and Cambodia.
However, it is by no means certain
that a majority of Americans agree that
the war, at least from the time of its last
escalation in the Spring of 1972, was
immoral. The simple truth of the matter
is that the American people, like the
Vietnamese people were weary of the
war.
It is, of course, regrettable that everj
citizen was not moved to examine the
morality of war in this period of history
when the massive destructive power of
modem weaponry inevitably results in
the indiscriminate killing of innocent
civilians as well as armed enemies.
Perhaps more people would have been
so moved if the anti-war activists who
were so much in evidence on television
screens and in print had made honest
efforts to persuade them to examine
demonstrable facts surrounding the issue
and to draw their own honest
conclusions.
Instead, all too many of the war
protesters contented themselves with
merely denouncing and vilifying the
highest elected officials in the land and
demanding that everyone accept their
own evaluation of the war without
offering any factual evidence calculated
to persuade reasonable people.
This same kind of approach to highly
volatile issues now seems likely to retard a
reasonably swift resolution to the
question of amnesty for those who
refused military service during the
Vietnam war.
To define all who refused to take part
in the war when required by law to do so
in the same terms is the heighth of
dishonesty.
No one knows how many
draft-eligible men evaded service for
reasons having nothing at all to do with
conscience or moral considerations.
Many refused to serve simply and solely
because they didn’t want anything
interfering with their life-style, which
often enough was oriented to drugs and
narcotics. Others went in their stead -
and died in their stead. It will not be
easy to persuade the parents, brothers
and sisters, and children of those who
did serve to welcome back into society
those who deserted it for purely selfish
reasons.
On the other hand, we think that
once all American troops are home from
Southeast Asia and once all prisoners
have been released and are home, our
people will finally realize that the war is
truly over and that there is nothing to be
gained by continuing to penalize those
who refused to take part in it because of
their honest and deeply-felt
conscientious belief that to do so would
be to take part in an immoral action.
It is sometimes said that such
conscientious objectors were given every
opportunity to perform some alternative
public service. This is not entirely true.
If a man belonged to a recognized
religious group which was opposed to
the very concept of war, itself, all he had
to do was prove his membership in that
group and then he was offered
alternative service.
But, for others, who concede that war
can be justified under certain
circumstances, but who honestly, in
good conscience believed that the war in
Vietnam did not conform to those
circumstances, and refused to take part
in it, no such alternative service was
offered. For them, the only alternatives
were jail or flight. As a result, some sire
now in prison. Others are fugitives.
We think they should be allowed to
come home without penalty and that the
government which heretofore refused to
offer them the opportunity of serving
their country in work not related to the
war should not now exact such service of
them.
The fighting is over in Vietnam. Let it
be ended here at home, too.
Cast Your Burdens
•.. In Many Directions
Mary Carson
FROM A HANDICAPPED CHILD --
This is part of a letter written by a child
in a special education class in Jefferson
City, Mo., to state officials, President
Richard Nixon and Chief Justice Warren
Burger of the U.S. Supreme Court. It
was a reaction to the high court’s
decision on abortion. (NC Photo)
After Abortion Decision
-- What Now?
Reverend Andrew M. Greeley
Copyright 1973, Inter/Syndicate
v!vX*XivXiyXv;v
The Supreme Court abortion decision was, as
Justice White duly noted, a raw exercise in
judicial power which had only the slightest
grounds of constitutional legality. The Court
made up its mind that the brainwash
propaganda of the abortion supporters was to
be taken seriously, and, arrogant in its own
unlimited power, endorsed abortion on demand
with a judicial opinion that was an insult to the
intelligence of the American people.
Justice Blackmun’s stupid theory that the
right to privacy includes the right to kill unborn
children is of even a lower order of legal
intelligence than Justice Burger’s strange notion
that the government would become
“entangled” in religious problems if it aided
parochial schools.
Mr. Nixon’s “Minnesota Twins” may turn
out to be even dumber than the two southern
nitwits he tried to appoint to the court.
But whatever happened to the “new”
Supreme Court Mr. Nixon was going to give us,
a “conservative” court which would exercise
“judicial restraint?” The Burger court
apparently means more govenment by judicial
tyranny rather than less - and now not even a
tyranny rationalized by intelligent legal
opinions. The “new” court was appointed to
give a hard time to blacks and suspected
criminals. One supposes that it will get around
to doing that eventually; but thus far it seems
more interested in giving a hard time to
Catholics and unborn children.
I do not think Catholics have the right to
impose their moral positions on the rest of the
country. In fact only about a third of the
country would endorse abortion on demand
(though a much higher proportion would be
willing to endorse some kind of abortion). Nor
am I persuaded that all that many more unborn
lives will be snuffed out legally than were
snuffed out illegally before the decision. My
concern - like that of the dissenting justices - is
that the wishes of the majority of Americans
and many state legislatures were swept away
with one brisk wave of the judicial hand. The
Supreme Court was well on its way to
becoming a third branch of the federal
legislature before the “Nixon” court appeared
on the scene. It is now clear that the justices are
persuaded that they can do anything they
please with no more justification than the most
flimsy and insulting judicial opinions.
The whole concept of Madisonian democracy
is that no single unit of government should have
absolute power. The Supreme Court has
arrogated that power to itself - beginning with
the leadership of Earl Warren (that great civil
rights advocate who locked up Japanese
Americans in concentration camps during the
Second World War). Many of us were in
sympathy with the “liberal” decisions of the
Court and did not understand the threat to
American freedom involved in its usurpation of
power. President Nixon thought he was going
to restrain the power of the court by
appointing “sound” justices. It turns out that
he appointed a group of juvenile delinquents.
Probably only Congress can restrain the
abuse of judicial power, and it will have a long,
hard fight - while at the same time fighting a
president (and a budget director who presides
over the mess at Litton Industries) who thinks
he can govern without Congress. The elected
representatives of the people have their work
cut out for them.
Several weeks ago I asked readers to send me
their “cures for the blues.” Many wrote that it
made them feel better just to know that I get
depressed too.
One beautiful thought that kept recurring in
letters is the acceptance of the “blues” as part
of God’s plan. If in God all things work
together for good, then the “blues” too, are
part of that, and we should simply “praise the
Lord.”
The advocates of this theory mention that as
soon as they fully believe this, the depression
disappears. One mother commented, “I have
twelve children - eleven of them boys. Praise
the Lord!”
While the Rosary, getting to Mass, a visit to
church and inspirational reading were offered as
“cures for the blues,” many of the solutions
offered down-to-earth practicality!
Many suggested sitting down and considering
all the good things about your home and
family. But one wife turned this into an
extremely workable example.
She knows that when you’re “down” you
seldom evaluate the good points as thoroughly
as you tend to dwell on the faults. She says that
when she’s depressed over petty problems, she
stops to think what it would really be like
married to someone else . . .like Stingy Stanley
down the block, or Nosey Norton around the
corner.
“And when I wish my husband showed more
interest about the house, I think of Helpful
Harry who can quote supermarket specials with
gusto . . .and I’m again glad we are who we
are . . .together.”
Her letter reminded me of a neighbor we
once had who seemed so marvelous, until I
learned that he insisted his wife rotate his clean
underwear in his dresser, so that it would all
wear out evenly! I think of him every time my
own husband has to search for his underwear in
the clothes dryer.
I get many letters from men also, and a
monk living in a Friary wrote: “My first
impulse is to flip my lid and bring one up from
the floor. On second thought, however, I
simply arm myself with an axe and a saw, take
off for the woods and hack down a few burly
trees until my dander abates.”
The one mentioned most frequently was
“clean the stove.” One reader cautioned
though, not to leave the oven door open hoping
one of the family will admire it. “They’d
probably just fall over it.”
Here are some more of the most popular
ways to cure the blues.
Visit a friend. Her problems are probably
worse than yours anyway.
Bake a cake . . .to give away.
Do something thoughtful and generous, for
someone who needs help.
Invite company for the weekend; it makes
cleaning more fun.
Look through a seed catalog, and write a big
order.
If that doesn’t work, actually send the order.
Take a day off, and do something “you’ve
always wanted to do, but never had time.”
Reread old letters, or go through old
photographs.
Forget about your work for a while, and
really play with the kids.
Enroll in that school course that you’ve been
promising yourself “some day . ..”
If all else fails, fake a headache and go to bed
with a good book and read. When you’re
depressed, the family is better off without you,
and you’ll perk up after a nap.
Want to know my latest “cure for the blues.”
I save all the letters you’ve written. Just reading
them makes me feel good. One mother
graciously wrote that she’s never depressed on
Thursdays. That’s the day her paper comes and
she reads “One Mother’s View.”
Smile . . .God loves you . . .and so do I.
Our Parish
‘Some devil you turned out to be!”
ft:x*x*xx:x*x
Amnesty
Drive
^Joseph A. Breig
x-x-xvx-x-x-x’x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x^x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
Alleging that the overwhelming majority of
draft evaders and military deserters acted only
for reasons of high morality the Iowa Catholic
Conference has issued an appeal for total
amnesty for all of them, with no strings
attached. “Their decisions” (to run away)
“contributed to the awakening of the
conscience of a whole people.” says ICC. Thus,
in one stroke, the deserters and evaders are
canonized - which is the line they and their
propogandists have decided to take as they
begin the campaign for all-out amnesty.
Barefacedly, they flaunt themselves as morally
superior. They are the saints; by comparison
other Americans are moral slobs.
This is one more example of the insolent and
drooling sentimentalism with which we have
been afflicted in recent years by self-anointed
Holy Joes and Janes, in and out of the Church.
These are the people who weep for criminals,
aggressors and terrorists, but never mention
their victims. Their warped notion of “Christian
love” is one of granting forgiveness without
repentance, without humility, without reform
and without reparation. They are so spiritually
blind in their pride that they do not know that
this is an insult to God’s justice.
They are unaware that just as there cannot
be true justice without mercy, neither can there
be true mercy without justice.
ICC seems unaware that true conscientious
objection to war has been protected for
generations by American laws -- not always
perfectly, but better and better through the
years. In this matter, America has shown the
way. There is no such provision in most nations
-- emphatically not in any communist-ruled
nation.
Had the deserters and evaders really been
conscientious objectors, they need only have
pleaded their cases. What they did was to defy
the law and to leave their places in the ranks to
be filled by someone else, perhaps at the cost of
injury or death. They could have offered
themselves for noncombatant service - in the
medics, for instance - but they didn’t.
They fled; and now they want to recover
American citizenship without the
responsibilities of citizenship. Even now they
refuse to accept any form of service to
America. As long as that is their attitude,
amnesty should be refused.
In sharp contrast are the small band of men
whose consciences were so tender, although
confused, that they went to jail rather than give
even noncombatant service, feeling that even
that would be a contribution to war. For these,
amnesty should be swift.
Meanwhile, I for one am sickened by the
self-righteous posing of Canadians, Swedes,
Danes and many others who describe as
“immoral” the sacrifices made by Americans to
help South Vietnam’s people defend against
communist aggression.
How long, I wonder, would the Canadians be
free if they were not under the protective
umbrella of American military power? And if
Canada or Denmark or Sweden were to become
involved in war (which God forbid) would their
people be anything like as tolerant of deserters
and evaders as Americans have been? It is to
laugh.
Justice
And Peace
Rev. Joseph Dean
During the coming months American
Catholics will be hearing a lot about Justice and
Peace. The National Federation of Priests’
Councils will discuss proposals on Justice and
Peace at their annual meeting in Detroit next
month.
One resolution that has the backing of local
senates and association of priests is this: That
the National Committee on Justice and Peace
be authorized to draw up a -detailed proposal
for a sound, sustained, national engagement in
education and in action for a world without
war.
In the past few years, various resolutions
were passed regarding individual peace efforts
but were disconnected one from another.
World-wide peace is now seen as so important
to every human being that a unified, practical
Christian presentation is urgently needed for
men to work at, constantly, jointly, prayfully.
The national committee will also attempt to
bring to public awareness the urgent appeals of
Pope Paul for the effective participation of
citizens in public life that will result in new
structures for peace. These structures involve
both economic and political changes that in the
past were actually structures for war.
War needs techniques and technicians. Peace
needs techniques and technicians even more.
Making peace possible means providing
sufficient resources, both men and money, to
insure a whole framework for securing
international security.
The task for this national committee: to
stimulate and organize the democratic
participation of all citizens in public and
community life, in serving the common good of
society, that is, guaranteeing peace.