Newspaper Page Text
t
4
PAGE 4—The Southern Cross, August 23,1973
The Southern Cross
Business Office 225 Abercorn St. Savannah, Ga. 31401
Most Rev. Raymond W. Lessard, D.D., President
^ ev - Francis J. Donohue, Editor John E. Markwaiter, 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
Christians
The call to live a Christian life is
nothing startlingly new, and thus when
the subject is brought up, there may be a
natural tendency to let it go in one ear
and out the other without stopping to
give it much thought. But in view of the
importance of the idea and of the times
in which we live, it cannot be assumed
that the message is so well understood
that it does not require repeating.
There have been a number of
references to it, for example, in recent
weeks. Two weeks ago, Pope Paul VI,
speaking at a general audience in his
summer home in Castelgandolfo, Italy,
asked, “Is it possible, times being what
they are, (to live) a Christian life which
is authentic, strong, happy and capable
of synthesizing loyalty to the gospel and
living in the modem world?”
His reply was: “Yes, it is possible . . .
it must be possible.”
And last week at the national
convention of the Knights and Ladies of
Peter Claver held in Louisville, Father
John La Bouve made the same message
the central point of his talk to the
delegates. A person must be “more than
a Sunday Christian,” he commented, and
“all who profess the faith have to do
their very best to give witness to that
faith, each in his own way and according
to his capacity and situation.”
Pope Paul was asking the question
that all of us must ask from time to time
in order to stop and think if we can act
as Christians today, and if we are indeed
living as Christians. Father La Bouve’s
point was that we must do more than
say we are Christians, we must put it
into practice in our lives.
There is a very poignant reason why
the Christian way is so sorely needed
today. We only have to look at things
around us to tell why. And even though
these modem times may not be more
in Society
un-Christian than times past, there is in
fact in the world today a certain
un-Christian atmosphere that calls for
improvement.
There is, as Father La Bouve pointed
out, a “general disruption in society.” It
can be seen in such things as the
Watergate incident, the threats being
made on life and on the value and
dignity of human life, violence at home
and abroad, distrust among peoples,
poverty and hunger, and hatred and
prejudice.
We, as individuals, may not be able to
resolve this dismption. But as individuals
and as members of a community of
Christians we can do our part by
reasserting the basic Christian principles
and by making them the foundation of
our lives. These principles are love,
justice and respect for human dignity.
We can make these things real in many
ways: in our work; in our family life; in
our relationships with friends and other
people; in the exercise of our duty as
citizens; and, if we are able, by
influencing others and by becoming
actively involved in our community.
Regardless of the way, there is one
thing we all can do - and this again is
nothing new. We can give good example.
We can live a Christian example
according to our “capacity and
situation.” By doing so we can have an
effect on the people with whom we
come into contact.
It must be recognized that living the
Christian life is not easy, and Pope Paul
made a point of this, too, when he said:
“Christian life, for those who wish to
live it authentically, is difficult.” It is
indeed difficult, but the alternative is no
answer either. Christ is the example we
have to follow and he did not give us an
alternative.
(The Record -- Louisville)
More - on Understanding
Your Teen-age Children
Mary Carson
A few weeks ago I wrote that I now have six
teen-agers among my eight children. I outlined
some of my frustration in communicating with
them during this difficult age and I must have
struck a responsive chord in the hearts of other
parents of teen-agers.
I received letters from parents telling me
about similar problems with their children. (I
haven’t gotten any letters from teen-agers yet
but I bet I will.)
In reading these letters I have come to the
conclusion that the generation gap is actually a
communication gap caused by teenagers saying
one thing when they really mean something
else.
To help parents understand their teen-age
children I have compiled a list of common
expressions used by teen-agers, and what is
meant by these phrases.
For example:
From a daughter: “My mother HATES me.”
Meaning: My mother told me I’d have to
lengthen my skirt .. .just because SHE thinks
my underwear shows.
From a son: “My father HATES me.”
Meaning: my father won’t buy me a car, and
insists I can’t afford it myself. I MAKE $10.00
a week.
From either: “My parents won’t let me do
ANYTHING.”
Meaning: couldn’t get permission to go to an
all-night beach party.
From a daughter: “I have to do ALL the
work around our house.”
Meaning: my mother asked me to clean up
my room . . . TWICE this month!
From a son: “You never respect my
PRIVACY.”
Meaning: my mother didn’t knock first when
she came into her room, and found me lying on
her bed, talking on her phone.
From either: “You’re always picking on
ME . . . and always playing FAVORITES with
HIM.”
Meaning: my older brother was allowed to go
to the movies, just because he asked permission,
checked the rating, had it approved by my
parents. He did mow the lawn and clean up the
garage . .. but I didn’t have TIME to do
anything.
From either: “My parents are a couple of
STIFFS.”
Meaning: they have this hang-up about
morals and manners.
Of course, I haven’t been able to translate
everything. One letter told of a daughter
coming home from the first day of high school.
She said, “Mom, there’s something WRONG
with me.”
Concerned that her daughter had run into a
real problem, the mother asked, “Why? What
happened?”
“I’m the only kid in my whole class who
LIKES her mother.”
I wonder what she meant by that? Maybe
some teen-age reader will write to me in care of
THE SOUTHERN CROSS, P.O. Box 232,
Waynesboro, Ga., 30830 and explain it to me.
OUR PARISH
liv
'ING PRAYER
EXPERIENCE
WEEK-END
OFFERING
f 2ST.OO
‘It includes snacks and use of
the pool.”
The Critic’s Job
Reverend Andrew M. Greeley
Copyright 1973, Inter/Syndicate
The beginning of the letter made me
suspicious: “As a fellow priest author . ..” I’m
wary of someone who tries to establish an
intimacy with me in the first line of a letter by
claiming some sort of common
identity-especially when the identity is one I
never use in my own self-definition (I am not a
priest-author; just a priest).
I was even more wary because I couldn’t
remember ever having heard of the letter writer.
My wariness was well founded; it was a vile,
patronizing, envious letter. It ended with a
comment characteristic of such letters,
“Everyone says you’re resentful of criticism so
you probably won’t like this letter.” I was
willing to concede the point: I didn’t like the
letter one bit and, what’s more I am sure that
no one who received a letter like it would have
been pleased either. My only disagreement with
the author was that what he had written was
not criticism at all. It was a sick self-revelation
of an angry and resentful man, a man who was
totally unaware that there might be a
distinction between his resentment and rational
discourse.
Unfortunately, there is very little criticism in
the American Church today. I define criticism
as closely argued, intellectually disciplined
analysis of another person’s work which
relentlessly seeks out the weaknesses in his
assumptions, his reasoning, his evidence and his
conclusions. Glance through the book review
sections of the major Catholic journals, the
editorials in the Catholic press, columns written
by left-wingers such as Peter Steinfels or
right-wingers like Paul Hallett (when they are
sitting in judgment on others’ work) and see
how much that purports to be criticism, really
is. What one encounters in such sources (and
particularly in book reviews) is self-display,
anger, and envy.
If one happens to be familiar with the work
of the man being “criticized” one frequently
finds it very hard to recognize the man or his
writing in what is being described. I remember
being appalled at the first review of my first
book (written by Dorothy Dohen in THE
CRITIC-or was it BOOKS ON TRAIL in those
days?). It was not particularly hostile (though
obviously the author was a bit displeased that
she had not written the book), but it had
almost nothing to do with what I had written.
I’ve gotten used to the phenomenon since then
and almost take it for granted.
It didn’t take me long to discover that one
rarely encounters criticism, only self-styled
critics who are interested in displaying their
own superiority. I found consolation in the
thought that I wasn’t being singled out for
special treatment; every author who publishes
much is accorded the same response,
particularly by those who would like to write
but don’t or can’t. I defy anyone to trace any
connection between the popular reviews of the
work of Eugene Kennedy or Raymond Brown
and what these men have actually done.
It is not a Catholic phenomenon. Read the
review sections of the NEW YORK TIMES or
the NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS, or
COMMENTARY and see how much preening
arrogance there is and how little criticism.
Yet criticism is indispensable. I would not
hire for the Center for the Study of American
Pluralism a junior colleague who would not be
committed to devastating critiques of early
drafts of my work. I would not want a student
in a seminar who would not strongly disagree
with what is being said or done. I would not be
pleased with an editor who would not go over
my articles or my books with a fine tooth
comb. I would not want to work with an
associate who would not challenge every
weakness in my methodology.
An uncritical colleague or associate or
student or editor is unprofessional. Such people
have the responsibility to criticize built into
their professional roles. Not to criticize is
irresponsible. Not to seek criticism is foolish.
How else are you to improve your work? That
there is so little criticism in the American
church is most unfortunate.
But of course criticism is very difficult. To
follow someone else’s line of reasoning and
engage in disciplined argumentation with him
requires that one abandon envy, self-display,
self-indulgence and force oneself to think
clearly and precisely. Not many people like to
do that. Indeed, sometimes I think that not
many Catholics who engage in what purports to
be intellectual discourse are able to think
clearly or precisely-or even to think at all.
Praying While Working
Rev. Joseph Dean
We can pray our way into our work or we
can work our way into praying. Either way, we
must develop a life of prayer within the
framework of our God-given duties. We have to
find a way of communicating with God by
means of the calls upon our time and energy
and patience, and not in spite of these calls.
Our purpose is to work out a way of praying
which directs every effort to God and to work
out a way of directing efforts so that everything
becomes a prayer. By the first I mean saying a
prayer before each important duty, reminding
ourselves we are acting while in the presence of
our loving Father. By the second, I mean
making a spiritual thing out of the work itself.
How? Well, I can say, “If this morning is going
to have any value, it must be spent in a way
which shows that I accept every moment of it
as coming from God’s hand. It is not so much
that I must .sanctify my work, as I must let it
sanctify me.”
It may or may not mean that I shall continue
to be consciuous of God’s presence, but at least
it should mean that I spend the time more for
Him than myself. For instance, when a person
comes to the door, and interrupts what I am
doing, I can recognize him as a representative of
Christ.
Actually all methods of prayer can be
combined together in various ways. The very
desire to live and to work in the presence of
God, even if that desire is blocked at every
turn, beings its own technique. It is the
attraction, the desire, rather than any
resolution which eventually causes the person
to express prayers of thanks and love
throughout the day. Then, prayer-thoughts
begin to spring to the mind of some people just
as naturally as swear-words spring to the lips of
other people.
We have to train ourselves by deliberately
wedging into the chinks of our busy days these
rather angular shafts of love. After a time these
shafts of prayer will become more and more
normal and affective, that is, breathed from the
heart.
To begin to obtain such an attitude of mind
and such a habit of attraction, we can request
of the Master of prayer, Jesus Himself, the
insight, the grace, the power to do so. After all,
He did say, “Ask and you shall receive. Seek
and you shall find.”
“Grown
Uplessness”
Reverand James Wilmes
One of the quirks of human nature is how
small some big people are. By “big” we mean
having reached their growth. By “small” we
mean having yet to grow up. Sometimes you
wonder if they will every grow up. You look to
them for adult behavior, but all you get are
childish reactions. They are afflicted with what
someone has called “grown-uplessness.”
The signs of this stunting include an
absorbing interest in their likes and dislikes,
prejudices and fixations, physical aches and
pains. They are cruel in their judgments
without meaning to be. Stingy in their giving,
pleasing themselves expensively but
with-holding from good causes the wherewithal
by which to carry on.
Saddest of all, these “small” people are too
often eager to find faults and overlook virtues
in others, though never in themselves. They
would cast ot the mite in their neighbor’s eye,
never sensing the beam in their own.
And the corrective? Unfortunately, it must
come from within, or it never comes. The most
any outsider can do is to try to sharpen the
blunted growing edge by pointing out how
much these people are losing in life. Losing by
missing, by being by-passed. For indeed, the
busy world of mature men and women as they
move ahead in generosity, good will and faith,
pass these small people by. For what have they
to contribute except objections? What have
they to build but obstructions?
Kueng
Dangerously
Wrong!
Joe Breig
Father Hans Kueng, in his book, “Infallible?
An Enquiry,” disputes the teaching of the First
Vatican Council (and of the Second also) on
the infallibility of the teaching authority in the
Church in matters of faith and morals. Rather
petulantly, he rejected a condemnation of his
view, issued by the Holy See.
I have no wish to enter into the discussions
of theologians about Kueng’s notions (for
instance, the criticisms of Father Karl Rahner).
But I believe I am competent to offer some
thoughts in the name of the countless
Christians who, through the centuries, have
tried to walk with Jesus Christ, and will do so
in times to come, to an end of time.
The Keung argument boils down to saying
that the pope (and the pope with the other
bishops) is not surely protected from error
when solemnly defining, for all the faithful, a
truth in faith or morals. The teaching authority,
he alleges, can err - can teach falsely -- can
mislead us.
In place of the specific and locatable
inerrancy defined by First Vatican and
reiterated by Second Vatican, Kueng would
substitute a vague, floating, cloudy,
indeterminate “indefectibility” of the Church
as a whole.
In Kueng’s view, there are no definite
infallible teachings upon which one can put
one’s finger; there is only a long-range abiding
in truth of the whole Church. Sooner or later,
the Church returns to truth.
Now to the point. Of what earthly or
heavenly use would such a “sooner or later”
indefectibility be to any of us, or all of us, in
our striving to know truth and embrace it; to
know and do the will of God? Of what use
would it have been to our forebears? And of
what use to those who will come after us?
For a practical example: the teaching
authority condemned a once widely spreading
heresy which held that marriage is from the
Devil, and reassured us that it is a sacrament -- a
special means of special divine graces for
husband and wife, and for children; therefore
for all of human society. But if we accept
Kueng’s notion, maybe the teaching authority
taught falsely; maybe marriage is wicked, and
sooner or later the Church as a whole will so
discover. Where would you leave us and our
parents and forebears back to Adam?
Again: against one or more of the heresies,
the teaching authority (in short, “Rome” to
which Catholics have always appealed for
ultimate guidance) infallibly taught that Jesus is
the infinite almighty God whom we are bound
in conscience to worship and love; and that he
is also our beloved human brother who died to
free us from enslavement under sin. But what if
the pope and bishops erred? What if Christ was
merely a man; why should we obey his
teachings and commandments, which might be
erroneous?
What if, in such vital matters, the “whole
Church,” on its “indefectible” way through
time and space, hasn’t yet arrived at the truth -
and maybe won’t for a million years, or a
million million? What good is that sort of thing
to us when we need answers here and now for
right living?
Indeed, how, in Kueng’s philosophy, would
we even know that the Bible as we have it is
God’s inspired word, seeing that it was
assembled for us by the Church’s teaching
authority?
It would be difficult to imagine a more
mistaken and dangerous notion than this one of
Father Kueng’s.