Newspaper Page Text
4
PAGE 4—The Southern Cross, March 1,1973
The Southern Cross
Business Office 225 Abercorn St. Savannah, Ga. 31401
Most Rev. Gerard L. Frey, D.D. President
*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 52.76 per year by Assement Parishes Diocese of Savannah
Others 55 Per Year
An Un-Christian Attitude
The Gospel narrative of the three-fold
temptation of Jesus in the desert by
Satan is the basis for the addage that
“even the devil can quote scripture” to
suit his own purposes.
There are people, too, who can
characterize anything as “Christian” if
it suits their purposes.
A case in point is the declaration last
week by anti-war activist Father Philip
Berrigan, that his charge that most
returning American prisoners of war
could be classified as war criminals
reflects a “basically Christian” attitude
toward the prisoners.
Nothing could be further from the
truth. Father Berrigan knows no more
than anyone else concerning the
behavior of the POW’s before they were
captured, and in publicly branding them
as “war criminals” has acted in a totally
irresponsible and un-Christian manner.
We have sometimes privately disagreed
with Father Berrigan’s allegations
concerning American participation in the
war in Southeast Asia. We have never
agreed with his methods of witnessing to
his disapproval of it. But we have
refrained from editorial comment
because we felt he had a right to his
opinions and to his manner of expressing
them as long as no one was harmed by it.
But to gratuitously and grievously
attack the reputations of men who have
suffered hardship and captivity over
many years as the result of doing what
they sincerely believed to be the
repulsion of unjust aggression against a
defenseless people is not a harmless
expression of opinion. It is a wanton
misuse of a right for which these same
men would have been willing to lay
down their lives « Father Berrigan’s right
to free speech.
Even granting the passion and honesty
of his opposition to the war, neither he,
nor any other individual, has the right to
set himself in judgement on those who
felt and acted differently than he did.
Jesus said “judge not, lest you be
judged. Condemn not, lest you be
condemned.” There is no place in the
Gospel exempting priests from that
injunction.
Civil Rights Aspect
The decision of the Supreme Court of
the United States in ROE V. WADE has
been fully reported and commented
upon. The threat it represents to human
life is manifest. I would like only to say
a word about the civil rights aspect.
It is neither alarmist nor melodramatic
to note with profound concern that a
decision which diminishes the protection
by law of the human life of one group -
persons in the first three months of their
gestation - might be precedent for
similarly denying protection of life to
other categories of people.
The majority opinion, with overtones
that inevitably recall the Dred Scott
decision, says that the unborn have never
been recognized in the law as persons in
the whole sense.
If this class of human being, the
unborn, can be subjected to killing
without due process, it is not an undue
extension to imagine mercy killing and
even genocide where whole groups are
found to be detrimental to the social
welfare. While this case does not involve
the government as executioners, it
exempts from prosecution the individual
executors. Our century is not without
precedence for programs to eliminate
whole groups.
In the minority of two, Mr.
Justice White’s dissent is eloquent:
The Court for the most part
sustains this position: During the
period prior to the time the fetus
becomes viable, the Constitution of
the United States values
the conscience, whim, or caprice, of
the putative mother more than the
life or potential life of the fetus;
the Constitution therefore,
guarantees the right to an abortion
as against any state law or policy
seeking to protect the fetus from an
abortion not prompted by more
compelling reasons of the mother.
With all due respect, I dissent.
— John E. Cosgrove, Director Division
for Urban Affairs U.S. Catholic
Conference, Washington, D.C.
Children’s Rights
... And Responsibilities
Mary Carson
I read an article recently about a sixth grade
girl who had done an unusually fine painting in
school. Her teacher praised her for the “best
painting in the class.”
The little girl was so thrilled that she ran all
the way home, burst in the back door calling,
“Mom, Mom - look!”
Her mother, however, was on the phone, and
told the girl “sh . .’
The girl went to her room, and never showed
her mother the paper, because she no longer
cared.
The story, written by Sister Janaan
Mantemach, OSF, makes the valid point that
parents should pay more attention to their
children, not brush them off. Parents should
share themselves and their time with their
children.
But, from the mother’s point of view, I have
some questions.
Why was the mother on the phone? Was she
amply whiling away time? Was she possibly
consoling an invalid neighbor? Or could she
have been getting a report from a doctor on
another child’s illness?
What about the little girl? Did she always get
just what she wanted, when she wanted,
without regard for anyone’s convenience?
Did she make an attempt to show the paper
to her mother, without forcing an immediate
interruption?
Or, in her exuberance, did she simply not
think?
I’d love to know more about that story, for
it seems symbolic of many parent-child
relationships, and often, unfortunately,
parent-child conflicts.
Yes, as parents, we do take on the
responsibility of “listening” to our children,
sharing in their joys, commiserating with their
sorrows. But we also have the responsibility of
teaching them to be thoughtful of others,
evaluating their own needs in light of the
importance of all the factors in a situation.
Sometimes, I think, parents can go
overboard, either way. But possibly, more
often, it is in the direction of giving too much
IMMEDIATE attention to everything.
The child learns to expect it, demand it, and
sulk when it doesn’t come.
Parents should be trying to train their
children to be mature. If you project that story
of the little girl to her adulthood, it becomes
absurd. Suppose that little girl becomes a
teacher and bursts into the principal’s
office . . .then sulks if he happens to be on the
phone.
Besides being absurd, it would be
out-and-out rude.
So why shouldn’t children be taught that
rudeness is unacceptable? How can our children
grow up to be reasonable adults if we don’t
gradually teach them courtesy as children?
My quick reaction is that as long as the
mother wasn’t rude to the child in return, she
was doing the girl a greater service by letting
her wait a minute, affording her an opportunity
to learn a bit of patience.
There are volumes written regarding
children’s rights . . .which I have the feeling
children are “born knowin’.”
But, as parents, we’re stuck with the job of
teaching them their responsibilities.
It seems to me that not everything in this
world should be decided from a child’s point of
.view. "
OUR PARISH
Are the Berrigans Et A1
Really Revolutionaries?
Reverend Andrew M. Greeley
Copyright 1973, Inter/Syndicate
Some of the Berrigan cultists who think I am
part of a conspiracy to attack their sainted
heroes have been demanding recently to know
how an Irish enthusiast like myself can possibly
oppose such fine products of the Irish
revolutionary tradition.
Let’s examine the case. There are really three
different kinds of revolutionary in the Irish
heritage. The first group are the politicians who
work most of the time within the system -
O’Connell, Parnell, Redmond, DeValera (after
1923), Davitt, and more recently Prime
Minister Jack Lynch. One may admire such
people or not, but one must admit that by and
large they have been successful. They built
modem Ireland; indeed, they accomplished the
economic and religious liberation of the Irish
people by relatively peaceful means before
1916 and would have also accomplished the
political liberation peacefully if it had not been
for the perennial stupidity of the British
government. Incidentally, if the political
revolutionaries' had been given a chance, the
Ulster problem would never have arisen - at
least not in its present seriousness.
Surely the Berrigan cultists would not
identify their heroes with such political
compromisers and operators. No one would
have accused O’Connell or Parnell, much less
DeValera or Lynch, of “incandescent purity.”
Then there were the gunmen, the real
revolutionaries. They were in the Whiteboys
and the Molly Maguires, in the Wexford armies
in ’98 (read someday what the Wexford
peasants did with prisoners), then the Fennians
in the last century, the Irish Volunteers in 1916
and, of course, in the Provo IRA today. Most of
them were and are psychopathic killers. There
may be an occasional genius like Michael
Collins or a mystical poet like Pearse. But when
revolutions get out of the classrooms and into
the streets and forests, the bogs and the hills,
the niceties of middle class ideology yield to
the grim, stupid brutality of the gunmen. There
may be a vague “cause” which justifies what is
happening, but the real appeal is now the thrill
of killing and being killed. Those theologians
who from the serene ivory towers of Princeton
and Union Theological preach the theology of
revolution should spend an evening with an
IRA gunman or two. That’s what real
revolution (as opposed to make-believe
revolution) is like.
Upper middle-calss Catholic radicals, who
like Daniel Callahan dedicate books to
revolutionary priests, would not want a gunman
in their houses or at their parties. They are
coarse, vulgar, brutal, unintelligent men. (Even
Michael Collins would have offended the
sensibilities of chic Catholic radicals.) Usually
they get killed; sometimes they win; but even
then they are quickly swept away by more
effective - and frequently more sinister -
leaders. Or, as in Collins’ case, they get shot by
their own men. (One psychopathic gunman did
manage to survive to rule a country, and it is
not a pleasant memory for anyone. His name
was Joseph Stalin.)
Surely the Berrigans are not gunmen. Indeed,
everything they stand for is opposed to the
tradition of the gunman. So they are not that
kind of Irish radical.
What remains? There is a third element in the
Irish revolutionary tradition - that of the
brilliant gestrue. It has not really flourished
since ’98 (1798), although there was some of it
among the poets in the Easter Rising. While the
Wexford peasants were brutally killing and
being killed, while the Ulster Presbyterians were
battling in the North (on the same side as the
Catholics in those days, incidentally), and while
the French were engaging in futile marches and
countermarches in the West, elegant and
educated Dublin Protestant aristocrats like
Theobald Wolfe Tone and the Emmetts were
delivering splendid speeches and offering their
lives in sacrifice for a free Ireland. The British
obligingly accepted a number of such offers,
but Ireland was no more free; and the literate
aristocrats left only beautiful words after them,
which were not much help during the Famine
or to Michael Davitt’s Land League or to the
Irish Volunteers or to the innocent people who
are dying in Belfast today.
If the Berrigan cultists wish to claim this
component of the Irish revolutionary tradition
for their own, they are surely welcome to it.
But the choice may not be just Irish; it may
be universal. He who wishes to change the
world must choose either the way of the
politician or the way of the gunman or the way
of the eloquent aristocrat. By and large the first
group seems to do less harm, both to
themselves and to others.
Questions
And Answers
Monsignor John F. McDonough
QUESTION: How many major world religions are there? When were they established
and by whom? In what part of the world are these religions chiefly found?
ANSWER: There are eight major world religions. They are:
CHRISTIANITY - Founded by Jesus Christ in 30 A.D. Practiced chiefly in Western
Europe and the Western Hemisphere. Number of members — 924,274,000.
ISLAM - Founded by Mohammed from 570-632 A.D. Practiced chiefly in Arabia and
the Middle East. Number of members — 493,012,000.
HINDUISM - No historical founder but was begun about 3200 B.C. Practiced chiefly
in India and Ceylon. Number of members — 436,745,000.
CONFUCIANISM -- Founded by Confucius in 557 B.C. Practiced chiefly in China,
Japan and Korea. Number of members — 371,587,000.
BUDDHISM - Founded by Gautama from 560-480 B.C. Practiced chiefly in China,
Japan and Burma. Number of members — 176,920,000.
SHINTO - No founder but was begun in the 6th century, A.D. Practiced chiefly in
Japan. Number of members — 69,662,000.
TAOISM -- Founded by Lao-Tzu (or Lao-Tse) in 604 B.C. Practiced chiefly in China.
Number of members — 54,324,000.
JUDAISM - Founded by Abraham from 2000-1500 B.C. Practiced chiefly in Israel,
^13J337JKKL
“We Need
Not Resolve”
Joseph A. Breig
“We need not resolve the difficult question
whether human rights will be violated if, in this
case, the death penalty is inflicted. Opinions
differ on that point. Therefore the death
penalty may be inflicted forthwith. It is so
ordered.”
What would we think of a court which
solemnly handed down a ruling based on that
sort of “reasoning?” Yet that is precisely the
incredible sort of decision given by the U.S.
Supreme Court in overturning all state laws
protecting the right to life of the unborn.
You don’t believe it? Turn, then to VI-3-B in
Justice Blackmun’s majority opinion (six others
concurring) and read it for yourself. Here it is:
“We n«ed not resolve the difficult question
of when life begins. When those trained in the
respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy
and theology are unable to arrive at any
consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the
development of man’s knowledge, is not in a
position to speculate as to the answer.”
In short, the seven justices brushed aside the
one central point at issue before them - the
question, “If abortion is permitted, are we
allowing the slaying of human beings?”
The court washed its hands of the matter and
decreed that the new life in the mother may be
destroyed if she can find a doctor willing to do
the killing.
“We need not resolve the difficult question,”
said the seven justices. It is exactly as if a court
were to say that a hunter need not concern
himself as to whether what he sees moving in
the forest is an animal or a man; he is free to
ignore that question and proceed to kill.
“We need not resolve the difficult question
of when life begins,” said the seven justices in
this unspeakably ignorant opinion - a decision
as ignorant as those in the past which denied
the humanity of Indians and black people.
“We need not resolve,” they said, and then
proceeded to give full permission for the
wanton killing of the new life any time in the
first six months -- and indeed in the last three if
a doctor will allege that a woman’s life might be
in danger, or that her health (physical or
mental) or her family situation might be
adversely affected.
Thus any physician who is not above
abortion is now legally free to butcher a baby
right up to the moment when it would
otherwise be born; and no state legislature can
do anything to protect the infant.
Said Justice Blackmun and the six others:
“The judiciary, at this point in the development
of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to
speculate as to (when life begins)” - but
throughout their opinion they betrayed the fact
that they were simply ignoring expert scientific
testimony concerning man’s knowledge today.
They had been informed about the findings of
such sciences as microbiology and genetics,
showing that human life begins at conception -
and that it is the life of particular human
beings, whose characteristics are programmed in
a genetic code which contains more
information than could be stored in 50
encyclopedia Britannicas. But evidently the
justices weren’t listening.
A Broken
Leg
Rev. Joseph Dean
An elderly farmer heard one of his workers
declare, “If I only had $200.00 just to spend on
my vacation, I would be perfectly content.”
Knowing that his own money had not given
him this inner peace, he told him, “Since I
would like to see someone who is perfectly
contented, I’m going to grant your desire.”
He gave him the money and left, but before
he was out of earshot, he heard him remark
bitterly, “Why on earth didn’t I say $500?”
The boss smiled, for he had made his point,
that money doesn’t make a person “perfectly
contented.” Why? Because true happiness is not
something this world can give.
It is found only in God. Contentment will
never be ours until we give Him first place in
our life! Sometimes we have to learn the hard
way as this incident points out. . .
A lady visiting Switzerland came upon a
sheepfold located high on a mountainside. Her
attention was drawn to a poor lamb lying by
the side of the road bleating in pain. Looking
more closely, she discovered that its leg was
injured. She asked the shepherd how it
happened.
“I had to break it myself,” he answered
sadly. “It was the only way I could keep him
from straying into unsafe places. From past
experience I have found that a lamb will follow
me once I have nursed it back to health.
Because of the loving relationship that will be
established as I care for him, in the future he
will come instantly at my beck and call.”
The woman replied thoughtfully,
“Sometimes we poor human sheep also want
our stubborn way, and as a result, stray into
dangerous paths until the Good Shepherd sends
sorrow and pain to arrest us. Coming then into
a closer communion with our Savior, we at last
are conditioned to hear His voice and follow
His leading.”
Are we being exercised and sanctified by our
trials to a new obedience? Can we testify with
the psalmist, “Before I was afflicted I went
astray, but now I have kept Thy Word.” Psalm
119,67.