Newspaper Page Text
■ t
PAGE 4—The Southern Cross, June 6,1974
The Southern Cross
lutintt Offic* 22S Ab«rc*rn St. Savannah. Ga. 31401
Most Rtv. Ray mono W. Las sard, O.O., RnsMant
Rev. .Rrancts J. Oonohoe, Editor John E. Markwaiter, Manayinf EOtto*
Second Class Postage Paid at WaynesOoro, Ga. 30S30
Send Change of Address to P.O. toe 10027, Savannah. Ga. 31402
Published weekly except the second and last weeks
in June, July and Auyust and the last week in December.
At 001 E. Sixth St.. Waynesboro. Ga. 30030
Subscription Price 02.70 per year by Assement Parishes Diocese of Savannah Others OS Per Year
Well-Deserved Tribute
PRIESTS-USA, national news
monthly of the National Federation of
Priests’ Councils (NFPC) has paid a
well-deserved tribute to the “vigorous
leadership” demonstrated by the bishops
of the Southeastern United States
(Region IV) at their April meeting at
Marriotsville, Maryland.
In this month’s issue the priests’
monthly lauded the bishops for their
“unique action” of making decisions by
consensus of all the participants at the
meeting, instead of following the
standard practice of voting secretly in a
bishops-only executive session.
Priests, Sisters and Laypersons from
each diocese in the region, including the
Diocese of Savannah, were included in
the meeting as active participants.
The meeting was held April 22-24 at a
Spiritual Retreat center in the Maryland
countryside outside Baltimore, and
during those three days, living and
working together in an atmosphere of
easy informality from early morning to
late in the evening, a spirit of true
community was experienced by all. (We
were there, so we know.)
For most participants, it was
undoubtedly a unique experience. Not
only were the thoughts and opinions of
everyone heard with mutual respect,
they were actively solicited, and formed
the basis for seven published proposals
for action.
Those proposals (SOUTHERN
CROSS, May 2, 1974) were, of course,
important. But in our view, of much
greater importance were the bonds of
trust, understanding, respect and
friendship forged among the
participants.
Perhaps Father Richard A. Reissmann
of Wilmington said it best in a statement
made to PRIESTS-USA:
“I had the unique feeling that I was in
the midst of a landmark meeting.
Nowhere before had I experienced such
a closeness among God’s people.”
Unfortunately, not all of the meetings
held in the other eleven regions of the
nation were as open or conducted with
such candor.
It is our hope that the assessment of
PRIESTS-USA and the statements of
many of the Region IV participants will
encourage bishops all over the nation to
invite the active participation of their
clergy, Religious and laity in future
meetings.
It is our firm and unwavering
conviction that if they do, they will
never regret it. They will be thankful for
a truly wonderful experience of the love
of Jesus Christ and the working of the
Holy Spirit.
-FJD
Ecumenical Harmony
And the Abortion Debate
Reverend John Reedy C.S.C.
It’s fascinating, though sad, to see how the
abortion debate carries us back 20 years, past
all the growth in civility and communication
associated with the ecumenical movement, to a
kind of religious warfare we thought we had
outgrown.
In the past, I’ve commented on what I see as
excesses of rhetoric and attribution of motive
on the part of those who oppose permissive
laws on abortion.
Just recently, a May 18 editorial in THE
NEW REPUBLIC echoed similar excesses, the
kind directed against Catholics 20 years ago bn
a whole range of public issues.
THE NEW REPUBLIC, a very respectable
voice of doctrinnaire liberal position, reviewed
the abortion debate in terms which suggested
that it is only a power-play of Catholics against
the field - which it is not.
It suggested a comparison between the
abortion issue and the struggle, which was
supported by many Protestant groups, to
prohibit the sale of liquor by means of a
constitutional amendment. (There are
legitimate comparisons here in that both issues,
while involving religious convictions, deal with
legitimate social issues; also, in that neither
drinking nor abortion is likely to be stoppd by
legal restrictions. Obviously, I don’t regard the
two issues as comparable in moral seriousness.)
THE NEW REPUBLIC seems to be highly
selective in choosing Catholic sources to
buttress its convictions and to suggest that the
anti-abortion campaign is a reckless effort
which will “create unprecedented religious
antagonisms” in a struggle that will go on for
decades.
Personally, I have serious doubts about the
probability of achieving any constitutional
amendment on this matter. And I have grave
concern about the probably harmful effects of
a law which might be unenforceable a law
which would reestablish the slimy industry of
outlaw abortions.
Nevertheless, people like the editors of THE
NEW REPUBLIC are doing a disservice to the
nation in failing to recognize that concern for
society’s protection of life is a legitimate legal
issue, not just an effort to impose an
ecclesiastical morality on the whole society.
Would they suggest that those who oppose
capital punishment are simply trying to impose
their personal religious convictions on the
whole society ... or that those who opposed
the war in Vietnam were doing the same ... or
that those who endorse our national concern
for the survival for Israel are doing the same?
One can argue that laws governing sexual
conduct between consenting adults impose
conscience standards on conduct which has
little significance for the civil society.
One might also argue the same point on laws
which restrict commercial activities on Sunday.
But the way in which citizens want their
society to protect life is clearly a legitimate civil
issue. My own response as a citizen to the
options available to me will not be delegated to
the committee of Cardinals who testified before
Congress. My religious convictions regarding the
morality of abortion concur with theirs; my
judgment as a citizen on the desirability of a
particular law is my own.
It is a low blow for THE NEW REPUBLIC to
suggest that a citizen should suppress his
concern for his government’s policy on the
protection of life simply because his judgment
might contribute to religious antagonism.
This particular debate has already seen
abusive rhetoric and rash judgment of
motivation on both sides. The legal question is
much more complex than is the moral
judgment on abortion. The social problem is
not going to be resolved by the isolated passage
of any single law.
It’s pretty obvious that a significant portion
of our nation is dissatisified with the position
formulated by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Another significant portion would be
dissatisfied with any of the proposed
constitutional amendments.
Clearly, the only recourse is a painful effort
to work out a compromise which will express
the most legitimate civil concerns of most of
the citizens.
That effort is not helped by rhetorical
over-kill by anti-abortionists; on the other
hand, we should be able to expect something
better than such over-kill from the editors of
THE NEW REPUBLIC.
OUR PARISH
“Now that you mention it—all the
hymns do end with A-MEN!”
Reflection on My
i
Twentieth Anniversary
Mary Carson
Twenty years ago today, my husband and I
were filled with optimism as we declared our
vows. We listened to the priest as he read an
exhortation which said we KNEW
“disappointments,” “failures,” “pains,” and
“sorrows” are mingled in every life and were to
be expected in our own.
But we didn’t know.
For, had we really understood all we would
face, I don’t think either of us would have had
the courage to get married.
We envisioned mostly “better,” “richer,” and
“health.” Our “happily ever after” dreams as
newlyweds contained little understanding of
real life, and no grasp of why “joys and
sorrows,” “hopes and disappointments” are
linked to each other in that exhortation.
All the “good things” could have been
grouped; all the “bad things” listed together. In
our minds as newlyweds, it would have made
more sense. When I considered “joys” and
“sorrows,” they were separate instances. . .
unrelated.
It is only now, looking back after twenty
years, that I begin to grasp the greatest joys are
often the outgrowth of sorrow. Success is
better appreciated when you’ve known . . . and
overcome . . . failure.
We evaluate by comparison. Today is a
brighter day than yesterday. But we can know
that only if we have seen a cloudy yesterday. If
every day were equally bright, the splendor
would be lost in sameness.
If I could offer one observation to a young
couple contemplating marriage today, it would
be that only a permanent commitment keeps
you trying rainy day after rainy day. If the
vows last only to the first disappointment, how
can you experience the revitalized hope of that
disappointment overcome?
After twenty years of marriage there are still
some things I don’t understand. The expression
“two in one flesh” is sometimes used to
describe the union of husband and wife. Yet
even in our most intimate moments we are still
two individuals.
I see “two in one flesh” in our children, for
they ARE both of us. And here, too, there are
joys and sorrows. It is ecstasy to see our
strengths recreated . . . and agony to find the
repetition of our faults.
Today, as we look at our marriage, it seems
that the union of our spirits is more important.
This is a more enriching, more beautiful, more
lasting relationship . . . for two minds work
together to conquer failure and turn it into a
mutual success. Two hearts bear the pain, and
achieve a united pleasure. Two spirits know the
sorrow of their separateness, but, when merged,
come closest to perfect love.
When two hearts, working together, share a
burden, it divides the load. Yet when two
spirits, united into one, share a joy, it multiplies
the pleasure. Spiritual arithmetic. . . The
uncanny way of growth in marriage. Were it not
for that union of spirit, the heartaches would
multiply . . . the joys would wither.
Our wedding took place twenty years ago.
But our marriage began subtly,
imperceptibly ... so gradually that I do not
know just when . ..
Our marriage began with that growth,
working together, for the enrichment of us . . .
not till death do us part . . . but for all eternity.
I’m glad it did.
A Friend
Rev. James Wilmes
A little card enclosed in a letter was entitled
simply, “Portrait of a Friend.” It may be old
but it has a modern ring, for some things are
ever as new today, and friendship is one of
them.
“When things don’t come out right, he comes
right in .. . When none of your dreams come
true, he is ... He never gets in your way except
to make it clear to you ... He is in your comer
when you’re cornered ... He turns up when
you get turned down ... All he wants in return
for his helping hand is your handshake ... You
can do anything you want with his friendship
except buy it or sell it. . . He makes you
realize that having a real friend is like having an
extra life.”
Inexhaustible are the ways of expressing the
dimensions of friendship. Such little cards and
slogans get passed along for they meet a deep
human need. That need is not merely a need to
praise friendship. The human need is rather to
recall time and again how to be a friend to
those about you. Cardinal Newman suggests
how we might express appreciation for true
friends:
“How good has God been to me to give such
kind friends! It has been so all through life.
They have spared my mistakes, overlooked my
faults. O loving Friends, should you know
anyone whose lot it has been to help you act,
by his writings or words, if he has ever told you
what you knew about yourself or did not
know, had made you feel there is a higher life
than this daily one and a brighter world than
you see, or encouraged you or sobered you or
soothed the perplexed or opened a way to the
inquiring, if what he has ever said or done has
made you take interest in and feel well inclined
toward him, if he has read to you your wants or
feelings and comforted you by the very reading.
-- REMEMBER such a one in time to come,
though you hear him not, AND PRAY FOR
HIM, that in all things he may know God’s Will,
and at all times be ready to do it.”
Israelis
Erred, Too
Joe Breig
As the Vatican truly said, it was a
“subhuman atrocity” for Arab guerrillas to
seize a school in an Israel village, hold 90
children hostage, escalate insanely the
conditions for freeing the youngsters, and
finally to kill 16 or more of them when Israeli
soldiers (who had no other choice) rushed the
building.
Yet it does not seem to me that the Israel
government acted morally or wisely - or even
expediently - in reacting with mass bombings
of Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon.
I do not seriously doubt that the guerrillas
had infiltrated from Lebanon -- and probably
from one of the refugee centers which the Israel
air force selected for retaliatory bombing. I am
conscious of the political problem -- the
pressure exerted upon the government of Israel
by citizens whose anger has been rising because
of the Lod airport massacre, the wanton
slayings at the village of Qiryat Shemona, and
other butcheries. And I realize that guerrillas
have been ruling Palestinian centers, and
defying the Lebanese government.
Still, retaliatory bombings are not the
answer. They are no solution. There can hardly
be any question that innocent persons were
killed and wounded in the Israeli bombings -
including children who have had no more to do
with the violence in the Middle East than had
the Israeli students who were cruelly terrorized
and slain in the village of Ma’alot.
Terror followed by counter-terror, followed
by counter-counter terror, followed by
counter-counter-counter terror, accomplishes
nothing except to create more hatred, and to
make more impossible the Middle East peace
which is desperately needed not only by Israel
and the Arab nations, but by all humankind.
We see the same sort of thing in Northern
Ireland - killing and wounding of peaceable
Catholics, followed by bombings and shootings
of peaceable Protestants, followed by
counter-attacks, counter-terrorisms which bring
counter-counter terrorism . . . and so on. We
saw it in World War I, when the Allies imposed
cruel and unreasonable peace terms upon the
Germans, only to bring on World War II.
England, France and America learned that
lesson, and through generosity to a defeated
Germany, Italy and Japan brought peace.
Terrorism is a hideous problem in our world
today. And so is counter-terrorism when it is no
more selective as to its victims than the original
terrorism. Israel, I believe, acted hastily and
wrongly. And even apart from morality, the
bombing raids were a political mistake at a time
when Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was
trying, with preternatural patience, to get the
Syrians to sit down and talk peace terms.
What One
Person
Can Do
Reverend Richard Armstrong
Who upholds your legal rights if you’re
mentally ill or retarded, isolated in a state
institution and forgotten by the outside world?
The answer, for a few, has been Dr. Morton
Birnbaum of Brooklyn, New York.
A graduate of Columbia Law School and
New York Medical College, Dr. Birnbaum,
practices medicine by day and law at night. For
15 years, he has used the money he earns as a
doctor to stand up for inmates of state schools
and hospitals.
In the American Bar Association Journal in
1960, Dr. Birnbaum set down the premise for
the first time in legal medicine that anyone
confined to a mental institution has the right to
adequate care and treatment. By instituting a
series of test cases to expose the plight of the
mentally ill, he became known as “a medical
Don Quixote, his lance aimed at the windmills
of an indifferent public and bureaucracy.”
“Society has an ingrained prejudice against
them,” he says of the mentally ill. “Often, just
to get them out of the way, they’re warehoused
in hospitals. They’re rejected by everyone, even
the law and medicine.”
There have been some victories. One patient
who had been illegally committed was
discharged and won a $38,000 judgment against
the hospital after a 10-year court battle. “He
returned to his home town,” related the doctor,
“got a-job as a hotel clerk and up to now has
never missed a day of work.”
Dr. Birnbaum is involved in three suits on
behalf of state hospital patients. “Even if the
Supreme Court rules against us and just writes
an opinion,” he says, “the whole sorry mess
will be out in the open.”
Changing the world is never an easy thing to
do. But the Morton Birnbaums of every era
have determinedly kept at it. May their
numbers increase.