Newspaper Page Text
BY CARDINAL WRIGHT
PAGE 3—September 20,1973
Religious Education Need Cited
ERIE, Pa. (NC) -- “The family is the
first and best school of faith and
morals,” said Cardinal John Wright in an
address at the dedication of the Gannon
College Pontifical Center for
Catechetical studies here.
The American cardinal, who is
prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation
for the clergy, also issued a plea for
priests, nuns and parents to unite
behind the institure.
The Gannon College catechetical
center is one of five now operating in
the United States. It is designed to train
religion teachers and parish religious
education coordinators, and it will offer
a master’s degree in religious education.
While he noted the need for
professionals in religious education, the
Vatican official stressed that the
primary role belongs to parents
themselves.
Nobody can be a better teacher than
parents, he said, because they love their
children and love motivates them to be
qualified teachers.”
“There is a titanic need to prepare
WASHINGTON (NC) - Several
officials of the U.S. and Canadian
Catholic bishops’ conferences discussed
their conference’s plans for the 1974
international synod of bishops, the Holy
Year and the United Nations Population
Year at a recent informal meeting.
At the meeting in St. Paul, Minn.,
Cardinal John Krol of Philadelphia,
president of the U.S. National
Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB)
and chairman of an ad hoc committee
charged with developing a plan for
preparing a conference response to the
synor theme, reported on steps taken.
Cardinal Krol said he had asked each
of the U.S. bishops to submit personal
pastoral reflection on the synod topic,
“Evangelization,” and encouraged them
to consult individuals and groups who
might be able to make a contribution to
the topic. National organizations have
also been invited to submit their
observations and recommendations. The
materials received from the bishops and
others will be discussed at the U.S.
bishops’ general meeting in November
and then a report will be drawn up.
The Canadian bishops have
designated their synod delegates and
have launched a multi-phase plan
involving diocesan preparation and
wide-ranging consultation in preparation
for the synod.
Discussing plans for the Holy Year,
the U.S. bishops noted that they were
interested in having celebrations at the
parish and diocesan levels and were
interested in pilgrimages to Rome. They
said they want to avoid having the
pilgrimages considered tourist trips and
hope to prepare a booklet to help
persons make the pilgrimages genuinely
spiritual events.
The U.S. and Canadian bishops
agreed on the importance of sharing
information on activities connected
with the Population Year and of closely
cooperating with the Vatican on the
matter. They said a meeting between
people and parents to teach our children
faith. We are not asking you to become
Ph. D’s in theology. We’re asking you to
interest yourselves in teaching the faith,
Cardinal Wright said.
“Nothing is more important today
than to guarantee the tradition of faith
is transmitted to the children.”
The prelate pointed out to the
audience of 600 that the Christian
parent is faced with ever increasing
dilemmas. Catholic schools have been
and will be obliged to retrench, he said.
In such times, he said, where law
excludes even a minimal amount of
religion from being taught within public
schools, catechetical institutes such as
Gannon’s are necessary to preserve the
faith.
One of the most significant advances
made in hope based on faith, he said,
was the publication by his Vatican
congregation of the General
Catechetical Directory, which provides
guidelines for teaching faith.
The cardinal noted, “I have smelled
the turn of the wind in the present
staffs of the two conferences might be
desirable.
U.S. bishops present were Cardinal
Krol; Coadjutor Archbishop Leo C.
Byrne of St. Paul and Minneapolis,
NCCB vice president; Archbishop John
F. Whealon of Hartford, and Bishop
James S. Rausch, general secretary of
the NCCB.
The Canadian delegation included
Bishop William E. Power of Antigonish,
president of the Canadian Catholic
Conference (CCC); Archbishop
Jean-Marie Fortier of Sherbrooke, CCC
vice president; Archbishop Henri Legare
of Grouard-McLennan; Bishop Remi J.
De Roo of Victoria, and Father Everett
J. MacNeil, CCC general secretary.
chapter of the Church’s history, and the
tide has turned.
“The water comes back, crashing
against the sides of the sea walls,
vitalizing everything . . .and bringing a
purifying water.
“Keep your swimming suits,” he told
the audience.
Earlier to the diocesan clergy
Cardinal Wright expressed happiness
over the five catechetical centers now in
the U.S. and the four others in the
process of fonnation. Besides the
Gannon Center in Erie, centers are in
Middleburg, Va., Cleveland, St. Louis
and Los Angeles.
The cardinal drew a parallel between
the situation after the Council of Trent
(1545-1563) and after the Second
Vatican Council, both times of
uncertainty and turmoil when the
explosion of theological writing
overshadowed the teaching of the faith.
He said he encourages interest in
theology - “any period, any nation” -
just so long as the water is not allowed
to get into the wine of the deposit of
faith.
Those who criticize the old
catechetical methods, the priests were
told, have a good point. The mere rote
learning does not appeal to Marshall
McLuhan’s generation.
Cardinal Wright quoted Auxiliary
Bishop William McManus of Chicago,
archdiocesan school superintendent, as
saying, at the world Synod of Bishops in
1971, that a major problem is the
“tendency to take sociology rather than
theology as the starting point for
teaching of religion.”
He said the General Catechetical
Directory, was meant to be adapted by
national hierarchies around the world
according to their own needs.
The aims of the general directory, he
told the Erie priests, are to form an
adult faith in individuals and
communities, to lead to an integration
between faith and life, to place
catechesis in a pastoral rather than an
academic setting with ecumenical
emphasis, and to envelop Christian life
with a sense of joy-which he said, seems
to have been lost in recent years.
Discalced:
Family or Stew?
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (NC) - The tile Ms. may create feelings of warmth or
alienation, but the tile Discalced Carmelite Sisters usually brings on a smile.
The cloistered nuns’ October bulletin from their monastery here provides an
insight as to why.
“As you can imagine,” the bulletin said, “we receive mail with unusual forms
of address. ‘Mr. Carmel,’ ‘Dear Mr. Sisters,’ ‘Mr. Prioress and all the Prioress
family’ are not unusual. An advertisement for recipes suggests ‘Stew a la
Carmelite’ and ‘Fish au Sisters.’
“The word ‘Discaled,’” the bulletin continued, “is the great stumbling block,
though. We’ve received ‘Discancelled,’ ‘Discalcified,’ ‘Disabled,’ and the most
recent: ‘Discaked Carmelite Nuns . ..’”
For those who are still wondering what “discalced” means, “a Catholic
Dictionary” defines the word as: “An epithet, ‘barefooted,’ applied to certain
religious orders and congregations which are distinguished by the wearing of
sandals.”
Synod Preparations Discussed
PRAYER FOR TOURISTS -- Tourists from all natural wonder on this plaque built into a retaining
around the world who visit the Grand Canyon are wall for an overlook. The verse is from Psalm 66. (NC
given this reminder of the source of the awesome Photo)
Positive Criticism Encouraged
CASTELGANDOLFO, Italy (NC) -
The Church has two kinds of critics,
Pope Paul VI said: Those who are
“oriented toward the truth” and those
with “no other interest in the Church
except to denounce her.”
He called the first kind positive critics
and the second kind negative critics and
said he wishes just about every Catholic
might belong to the first category.
The Pope was speaking Sept. 12 at a
general Audience at his summer home
here.
He said the Church’s positive critics
focus on “her true nature, beyond her
outward and human appearances, as the
Mystical Body of Christ.”
Such positive criticism “doesn’t hide
a thing,” he said. It “renders us all the
more passionate and loving toward
Christ’s Church, the more it reveals to
us the defects, inconsistencies,
sufferings and needs of the Church’s
human face.”
He wound up his discussion of
positive critics with the observation:
“We would be happy if just about all
who call themselves the Church’s
faithful children and loyal members
were critics of this kind.”
The Pope said negative critics are
“animated by a malign spirit,” ready
both to think evil and to rejoice at it.
YORK, Pa. (NC) - Mrs. Margaret
Angelo, a lay leader who aided 300,000
refugees died here Sept. 2. She was 82.
Bishop Edward Swans trom, the
executive director of the Catholic Relief
Service, concelebrated a Mass of
Christian burial.”
“She did an amazingly wonderful job
for the poor and displaced of Europe,”
Bishop Swanstrom said. “Only God can
really tell the good she did for people.”
Mrs. Angelo received the Pro Ecclesia
et Pontifice decoration twice. In 1943
she received the award from Pope Pius
XII for her Catholic welfare work in the
U.S. The papal award was in recognition
for her services as president of the
National Council of Catholic Women.
“Unhappily this pessimistic spirit is
fairly widespread today. It has no other
interest in the Church except to
denounce her deformities, true or false,
and to draw from them pharasaic
arguments to her condemnation and to
its own praise.”
Pope Paul VI presented her with the
award again in 1968. The Holy Father
'•ited her work in the resettlement of
refugees after World War II.
“Mrs. Angelo received thousands of
refugees and prepared them for
resettlement in the U.S., Canada and
Australia,” Bishop Swanstrom stated.
“She was like a mother to them. She
taught them skills so they could get jobs
in their new homelands. Mrs. Angelo
helped more than 300,000 people find
new homes.”
From 1953 to 1972 Mrs. Angelo
served with the CRS in Trieste. “Mrs.
Angelo volunteered to work for the
CRS and brought her family with her,”
the bishop said. Two surviving daughters
were serving with CRS in Trieste at the
time of their mother’s death.
Woman Who Aided 300,000 Dies
x
Privacy, an Inalienable Right?
BY BISHOP MARK J. HURLEY
(Third of four articles)
“The right to know,” or “freedom of information” must be measured against “the
right to be left alone” and “the fact that it is none of the government’s business.” A
private individual (and association) has a basic and continuing interest in not having
information about himself communicated to other people without his knowledge, or
contrary to his will. Such information may be detrimental, or may cause him pain or
discomfort. Particularly are the poor and the weak vulnerable, for often they cannot
sustain such revelation emotionally or even economically. Unwanted and unwarranted
publicity often inflicts unnecessary psychological and subtle pressures. Where then do
the contending social values override this private interest?
The U.S. Constitution in its Bill of Rights rejects specific invasions of privacy in the
matters of religion, speech, unreasonable search and seizure, self-incrimination. The
4th and 5th Amendments in particular delineate a sphere of privacy which must be
protected against governmental intrusion. Further, the Court has repudiated the mode
of action by government whereby investigative authority abridges the right to privacy
in order to determine if the right itself should be abridged in the public interest.
Similarly, the right to privacy extends to groups and associations.
“It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of
beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of ‘liberty’ assured by the . . .14th
Amendment” (Harlan, 357 US460). The inviolability of privacy in group association
may well be essential to the preservation of freedom of association itself.
But has not the new technology with its computerized databanks opened up new
loopholes, potencies, and challenges to both courts and legislatures?
The U.S. Supreme Court in a recent.case (Couch vs. U.S.) on January 9, 1973
wrestled with the problem of privacy. While it did not deal with the new technology, it
did perhaps lay foundations for future decisions.
By court action a tax accountant was required to produce a clinet’s records, books,
bank statements, cancelled checks, etc. “and all other pertinent documents pertaining
to tax liability of the above taxpayer.” The defendant claimed the right to privacy; the
court denied the plea, disallowing as “privileged” the relationship between tax
accountant and client, nor “as an invasion of privacy” the government’s regulatory
agency’s demand to see files once turned over to the accountant. The court decided
that in this case the claim to immunity and privacy leaps the proper bounds and
interferes with the legitimate interests of society in the enforcement of its laws and the
collection of revenues. Yet the court spoke language that would indicate its concern
for personal privacy.
“By its very nature,” the Court wrote, “the privilege (against self-incrimination) is
an intimate and personal one. It respects a private inner sanctum of individual feeling
and though, and proscribes state-intrusion to extract self-condemnation . . .(affirming)
“the right of each individual “to a private enclave where he may lead a private
life. . . .”
California court decisions are probably somewhat typical of other states’ judicial
decisions. The right of privacy is recognized under existing California law and has been
defined in a general sense to live one’s life in seclusion without being subjected to
unwarranted and undesired publicity.
The Office of Legislative Counsel of California (July 7, 1972) summarized the
matter in these words:
“1. The right of privacy was unknown to ancient common law.
2. It is an incident of the person and not of property . . .
3. It is a purely personal action and does not survive but dies with the person.
4. It does not exist where the person has published the matter complained of or
consented thereunto.
5. It does not exist where a person has become so prominent that by his very
presence he has dedicated his life to the public and thereby waives his right to privacy.
There exists no right or privacy for that which is already public.
6. It does not exist in the dissemination of news and news events, nor in the
discussion of events of the life of a person in whom the public has a rightful interest
nor where the revelation would be of public benefit, as in the case of a candidate for
public office.
7. The right of privacy can only be violated by printings, writings, pictures or other
permanent publications or reproHnrtions and not by word of mouth . . .”
Further, the courts have raised the question as to who controls the circulation of
personal information and who has access to legitimate records.