Newspaper Page Text
■ \
4
4
4
(
r
'PAGE 4—The Southern Cross, December 13, 1973
•ms *
The Southern Cross
Business Office 225 Abercorn St. Savannah, Ga. 31401
Most P- * Raymond W. Lessard, D.D., President
/
Rev. Francis J. Donohue, Editt 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 601 E. Sixth St., Waynesboro, Ga. 30830
Subscription Price $2.76 per year by Assement Parishes Diocese of Savannah Others SS Per Year
Medical Society is Wrong
In our opinion, the Georgia Medical
Society (GMS) of Savannah has acted in
a high-handed and irresponsible manner
in attempting to torpedo the
longstanding efforts of a group of
Westside Chatham County citizens to
bring much needed medical services and
facilities into a 70-square-mile area,
embracing more than 35,000 people,
which presently has neither the services
nor the facilities.
Last night (Dec. 11), in response to a
recommendation by a Medical and
Dental Society committee, the GMS of
Savannah voted to disapprove of the
proposed West Side Comprehensive
Health Center (WCHC).
The action was high-handed in that it
was taken with almost no study
beforehand. It was irresponsible in that
it was taken almost two years after the
WCHC was organized, and with
absolutely no indication over that
span of time that the Medical Society
had any objections to what the WCHC
was trying to do.
In 1968 a survey of health needs in
West Chatham County found that “ . . .
there are neither the services nor the
facilities which could provide proper and
comprehensive health services for all
citizens of every age, income and need
on a day-to-day, routine basis” on the
populous West side of Chatham County
and portions of Savannah’s West side.
The survey further stated that “There
appear to be no services delivered in the
West Chatham area relating to the
crippled or handicapped children and
adults. There is little evidence that,
except at the lone doctor’s offices (there
are now three doctors in the area),
physical therapy or evaluative or
diagnostic efforts are available in the
immediate environs either for children or
adults which would relate to early
diagnosis of either physical, mental or
emotional conditions, or their treatment
once diagnosed.”
The survey concluded with this
observation: “ . . . total health services
must be judged on the basis of their
availability to people of all ages, incomes
and health requirements. When such
questions (the quality of health needs of
the West Chatham area) are broadly
framed, it must be concluded that the
total health services in West Chatham are
sorely lacking. There are neither the
facilities nor the medical and
paramedical people necessary to assure a
program of sufficient health
adequacy ...”
The survey was conducted by Eric Hill
Associates, Urban Planning Consultants
based in Atlanta and Winston-Salem, in
association with Stuart A. Wesbury, Jr.,
Director of Shands Teaching Hospital
and Clinic of Gainesville, Florida, and
George Rice, Executive Director of
Community Service Council of Jefferson
County, Inc., Birmingham, Alabama.
We believe that the survey’s findings
were valid when they were made and
that nothing has happened on Chatham
County’s West side during the
intervening five years to render them any
less valid today.
In 1971, a group of interested people
beginning with the women of St.
Anthony’s parish decided to look into
what could be done to bring needed
medical services into the area. In 1972,
through the cooperation of other
individuals and organizations on the
West side, the Westside Comprehensive
Health Center (WCHC) came into being.
It ought to be borne in mind that this is
not an organization of professionals - it
is comprised of everyday people who live
and work in the area.
They were able to identify the health
needs of the area and to design projected
means of meeting those needs well
enough that the Federal government,
through the Office of Economic
Opportunity (OEO), agreed to
underwrite a WCHC planning program
with a grant of $669,000. The
Department of Health, Education and
Welfare (HEW) has agreed to fund the
actual operation of a Comprehensive
Health program through 1974.
It should also be borne in mind that
from the very beginning of the WCHC,
the Georgia Medical Society of Savannah
has had a member physician on the
center’s board of directors.
But now, in late 1973, just when the
center is ready to begin construction of a
health facility, and after the expenditure
of a half-million dollars for planning, the
Medical Society has voted disapproval of
the center.
They voted that way in response to a
recommendation by a Medical Society
committee set up less than a month ago
when WCHC officials, their planning
finished and ready to begin a program of
medical services, went to the Society and
asked for its endorsement.
Within two weeks, this special
committee has apparently been able to
conduct a survey as competent and
complete as that of the Eric Hill
Associates, and has decided that
adequate medical services and facilities
already exist in the County and all that
is needed is motivation of the sick to
avail themselves of transportation to the
existing facilities and service.
However, one member of the
committee told us that the reason for
the committee’s existence is that “we
had no idea anything of this magnitude”
was going on until the WCHC’s director
appeared before the Medical Society to
ask for its approval. Committee members
were also disenchanted by the center’s
choice of a doctor to head its physician
recruitment program.
As we’ve already said, the Medical
Society had a member on the center’s
board from the very beginning, so if the
Society was ignorant of what was going
on it has no one to blame but itself.
The committee decision is the result
of the personal opinions of the ten
physicians and dentists comprising the
committee. It was taken completely
without reference to the facts adduced
by the Eric Hill Associates survey and to
recommendations made since 1968 by
the Metropolitan Planning Commission.
The vote of the Medical Society, of
course, was not unanimous and at least
some area physicians feel that there is
enough support for the WCHC among
members of the health community to
make operation of the center’s programs
possible in spite of the vote.
We certainly hope so. We also hope
some of the good doctors who feel
threatened by the existence of the
WCHC will take the time to do a little
traveling through Chatham County’s
West side and then ask themselves again,
“Are my colleagues and I really
concerned with the health needs of these
thousands of people, or am I much more
concerned about my own welfare?” If
they answer that question honestly, the
WCHC will get their endorsement the
next time it comes up for a vote. - FJD
OUR PARISH
“Who’s going to tell Monsignor
we updated the Christmas play?”
Let’s Give U.S.
Bishops A Hand
Mary Carson
A news item I read, concerning the recent
meeting of the U.S. Bishops, said that the
bishops received a report on the Communion -
Confession first issue with a burst of applause.
The thought of a large gathering of bishops
bursting into applause made me wonder just
what that report said.
The decree Rome issued last summer resulted
in a situation that must have been extremely
trying for the bishops. More than a dozen
dioceses adopted guidelines which required
children to make their First Confession before
receiving First Communion, yet other dioceses
made less strict regulations.
who should be involved in determining the
readiness of their children should be an ongoing
practice in every parish.”
And further on, “Whatever initiatives we
take should be in the direction of encouraging
more, not less, involvement of parents in the
decision of catechesis pertaining to the
reception of Penance and the Eucharist in
regard to their children.”
So it is clearly a parental responsibility. It is
not enough for parents to send children to a
Catholic school or to CCD classes in order to
discharge this responsibility. The parents must
themselves become involved.
Great tension and divisiveness developed.
The most extreme reactions included some
Catholic lay people accusing some bishops of
being in opposition to the Pope, and some
bishops taking the position that certain lay
persons were not supporting the teachings of
the Church.
According to the newspaper story, the report
stated children must be instructed in both
Penance and the Holy Eucharist before
receiving either Sacrament, and they also must
be free to receive either one first.
It didn’t seem to me that that simple
statement would be enough to get a round of
applause from a roomful of bishops. So I
obtained a copy of the complete report which
had been presented to the U.S. Bishops by
Bishop William D. Borders, Chairman of the
Bishops’ Education Committee.
After I read it, from the point of view of a
parent, I felt like cheering out loud!
Bishop Borders’ report gave a detailed
resume of Church law and past practices. It
concluded that the reception of either
Sacrament first is a decision that should involve
the parents.
The report states, “Assistance to the parents
It will not be easy to implement the
suggestions made in Bishop Borders’ report.
The first thing that must be done is to set aside
any bitterness or emotionalism that
accompanied the reception of the decree from
Rome.
Next, parents will have to go to their pastors
and CCD directors, offer to participate and
request the assistance they need.. .and these
parents will have to be actively involved in the
programs of preparing children for Penance and
the Eucharist.
I also hope that this parental involvement
will not be confined to Penance and the
Eucharist, but will spread to include all the
Sacraments, indeed to the entire religious
education of children.
Speaking as one parent, I’m confident it can
be done.
Parents can start right now by studying
Bishop Borders’ report. I will send a copy free
to anyone who sends me a stamped
self-addressed envelope.
In the meantime, I think all the parents in
the U.S. should give their bishops a resounding
hurrah, and especially Bishop Borders for his
magnificent report.
What One Person Can Do
Reverend Richard Armstrong
Some people aren’t content to have a sense
of purpose in their own lives. They do not rest
easy until they have inspired others to a similar
dedication. Michael O’Shea is one of those
people. *
Mr. O’Shea is founder of the Two Bridges
Community School on East Broadway, in New
York City. He has recruited eleven teachers,
most of them volunteers, to help him
accomplish his mission - teaching English to
Chinese - and Spanish - speaking adults.
Michael O’Shea nurtured his sense of purpose
for two years in Malaysia as a Peace Corps
volunteer. When he returned home, he became
interested in the plight of Chinese immigrants
in New York City. He found out that inability
to speak English was keeping them from getting
jobs. So he opened a school to teach English.
He paid the rent out of his own pocket.
Students flocked to the small store-front
school as soon as it opened. Mr. O’Shea realized
he’d need help. So he set out to convince others
to take on the challenge. Within a year, he had
recruited a faculty of eleven. Seven are paid.
One college student gets $6 a week for five
hours of teaching. The highest salary goes to
two teachers who put in 30 hours each per
week. They each get $40. School hours run
from 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Mr. O’Shea spent $3,000 of his own money
to start Two Bridges School. Friends helped a
little. Then a local group shared part of a grant
they had gotten. At the end of a year,
enrollment had reached 200 Chinese - and
Spanish - speaking students, ranging in age from
18 to 78.
One candle can light others. Michael O’Shea’s
example proves it.
Growing
Pains
Joe Brieg
He will inevitably grow older and (let us
hope) more judicious; but as now, nobody will
ever accuse Father Andrew Greeley, the
sociologist and columnist, of understatement.
In a mood which I can only call frantic,
Father Greeley and William McCready, his
colleague in the National Opinion Research
Center at the University of Chicago,
commented recently on two small samplings of
Catholic attitudes which they conducted in ’72
and ’73.
The decline in church attendance among
Catholics, they alleged “has reached
catastrophic proportions.” Which is to say,
ruinous, disastrous, calamitous. And as if that
weren’t sensational enough, our pollsters
added:
“The' changes in the past year may well
constitute the most dramatic collapse of
devotion in the entire history of Christianity.”
Which, my friends, would be a ringtailed
ripsnorter of a collapse, as anyone will realize
who knows anything about what the Church
has been through since Pentecost. But the
National Opinion Research Center sure does
like newspaper headlines.
On abortion, Greeley and McCready claimed
that their samplings showed Catholics
“overwhelmingly” approving of abortion “in
case of danger to the mother’s health, rape or
the chance of a defective child.”
Then they yanked the carpet from under
that statement by adding, “It should be noted
that the Catholics on our samples were
approving only the legal possibility of abortion;
they were not saying that they believe it is
moral.”
Apparently they didn’t ask people about
their moral position on one of the greatest
moral issues facing mankind today.. Nor did
they mention that many people (thanks to the
brainwashing they get from the newspapers,
magazines, radio and TV) still don’t really
know what abortion is.
It is a pleasure to turn from Greeley and
McCready to the bishops of France, who
recently issued a document on ministries in the
Church.
The . ishops re-emphasized the absolute
uniqueness of the ministry of priests and
bishops, but said that if that ministry is to be
seen in correct perspective, it must be viewed
“in relation to the common responsibility of
Christians with regard . . .to the plan of God in
the world .. .and to the various vocations and
multiple services of the baptized.”
Immense perspectives, the bishops added, are
opened by the current movement toward “a
Church based on the responsibility of all its
members.” This they described as “a road of
hope.”
Indeed it is. In all my experience in the
Church in America, I have seen no development
more heartening than the rallying of young
people to the pro-life banner -- young people
who realize not only that abortion is the brutal
and wanton killing of innocent human beings,
but that if it is not halted it will open the door
to a frightful contempt for all human life.
I do not buy the Greeley-McCready
alarmism. We are not “having a catastrophe.”
We are simply suffering the growing pains of
emerging from spiritual infancy into spiritual
maturity. Adolescence can be a difficult
time-but I would like to live to see the renewed
Church about the year 2,000 or 2,050.
American
Aristocrat
Rev. James Wilmes
Booker T. Washington, famed Negro leader
and great American, wrote, I will not let any
man reduce my soul to the level of hatred.
Washington had seen enough hatred in his
lifetime to know what it does to the
personality. Just as he would not allow anyone
to enslave his mind or body, so he would not
allow anyone to crush his soul to the level of
hatred.
His words, an early-day expression of
black-pride and self-respect, remind all of us to
think about what we will or will not allow
others to do to us. Ours is a time of easy hate,
of quick criticism, of instant self-righteousness.
Rarely before in history have so many been
busy discovering devils and inviting others to
hate them to the death!
There is only one word to describe these
steady souls who refuse to let others drag them
into hatred. They are aristocrats, who scorn the
petty hates and fears of petty men. They are
not snobs. Far from it! For they take the high
road of tolerance and friendship; and persist in
finding good even in the official enemies. They
have fellowship with the rejected and despised,
these true aristocrats. No one is going to tell
them with whom they may associate, nor with
whom they may not.
America is a curious society: a democracy
which cannot work without a hidden
aristocracy within.
The aristocracy is made up of those who will
not let any man drag them down into hatred,
law-breaking, fraudulent dealing, or evasion of
civic responsibility. Goverened by honest pride
and self-respect, they choose their own
standards and stand by them. They are our only
aristocracy!