Newspaper Page Text
v
i
PAGE 4—The Southern Cross, November 7,1974
The Southern Cross
Business Office 225 Abercom St. Savannah, Ga. 31401
Most Rev. Raymond W. Lessard, D.D., President
Rev. 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 601 E. Sixth St., Waynesboro, Ga. 30830
Subscription Price $3.60 per year by Assessment Parishes Diocese of Savannah Other $6 Per Year
Speaking for the Church
(The following editorial appeared in The Catholic
Missourian, Jefferson County, Mo., diocesan
newspaper. It was written by Father Hugh Behan,
editor.)
President Ford’s press secretary,
Jerald F. terHorst, resigned in September
because he could not agree with the
President’s pardon of Richard Nixon. We
need more of that kind of honesty and
straightforward conduct in the churches,
including our own.
It is commonplace for theologians,
clergymen and teachers to dissent from
the Church’s teaching on a variety of
issues and to continue to claim to be in
good standing with the Church whom
they represent and with Jesus Christ in
whose name they speak.
The area of sexual morality, which
includes the questions of the objective
guilt of acts of masturbation,
fornication, adultery, birth control,
abortion, and the question of remarriage
for the divorced is the most confused
jungle in today’s Church. The biblical
witness to these issues is ignored or
denied outright. The Jewish-Christian
tradition, which our faith teaches us is
guided by God from error, is dismissed
as being outdated or unworkable in our
time.
The Roman Catholic Church claims to
be the authentic teacher in matters of
morals, demanding assent when the
Church teaches without claiming
infallibility. There has always been a
tradition of dissent in carefully
circumscribed situations. Allowance has
always been made for objective sin (that
action is wrong) and subjective
innocence or lessened guilt (you did a
wrong action but you may not be guilty
of sin). But today we have outright
denial of teaching and total rejection of
the Church’s authority and right to teach
on all of these subjects.
The time has come to ask what is the
result of the variety of teaching. There
will be a breakdown of one of the
Church’s fundamental missions which is
to continue the prophetic role and
proclaim the word of God. This role is
not easy today, but it never has been.
Christ pointed out that all the prophets
before Him were put to death. Popular
opinion does not guarantee the rightness
or wrongness of an action. (One hundred
fifty years ago, white Americans were
not generally aware of the immorality of
their views about Negroes).
Unity of the teaching ministry within
the Church as witness to the demands of
the Church’s ministry is stressed by St.
Paul over and over. Father Thomas
Dubay, a theologian at the Catholic
University of America, has pointed out
that moral theology needs to re-establish
dialogue with other disciplines like
dogmatic theology, Sacred Scripture and
with contemplative prayer. (Theological
Studies, September 1974, vol. 35, no. 3.)
That is sound advice.
The word, “orthodoxy,” meaning
correct doctrine in our usage, comes
from the Greek words meaning correct
worship. We need to restore that idea of
the Church which sees its beliefs, public
worship, conduct, preaching, teaching
and praying as a unit. We cannot claim
to be Christ’s Church if we celebrate and
believe the doctrines of Christ’s ministry
and reject their demands in our lives.
It’s time for the Church’s ministers
and scholars to correct their error or
take Mr. terHorst’s example and realize
that if we cannot agree with Christ, we
should not pretend to represent Him in
public.
We are also fully aware of, and have
defended in this column, legitimate
developments in the Church’s
understanding of the message of Christ
and of the Bible.
What we are talking about now are
those who have gone beyond the
boundaries of legitimate scholarship and
concocted a sexual morality based on
the line of least resistance and the
greatest possible popular appeal, without
regard to Christ, Bible, Church or
history.
Into Each Life
A Little Autumn Must F all
Mary Carson
Where I live autumn can be a magnificent
time. Crisp air. Vibrantly colored foliage. The
fragrance of harvested fruits.
But each year the first killing frost depresses
me. Finding blackened ruin in my garden where
there had been healthy plants the day before
makes me blue.
But no matter how much I’d like to hold on
to summer, I know it’s over. Nothing I do will
bring it back.
Rather than moan about the frozen plants, I
know I must accept that I enjoyed them while
it was their time to be, recognize that their
season is over, and anticipate the beauties and
joys of the coming winter.
The crunch of frozen grass underfoot is
invigorating. The first snow creates a hushed
splendor. There is a new beauty, if I but see
it. .. and if I’ll let go of the summer that is
gone.
And how similar to life.
Parents try to hang on to the time gone by
with children. When they’re toddlers we fondly
remember their baby days, and resist letting
them grow out of it. We say we wish they’d
grow up, but hold them back when they do.
Maybe it’s because we have selective
memories, recalling only what we want to, and
we fear change.
When I look at my frozen flowers, I don’t
remember the weeds, the insects, the drought
of summer. I remember only their beauty. I was
comfortable with the garden the way it was. I
knew what it was doing; knew what to expect.
While I try to anticipate the beauty of
winter, there is the unknown. How severe will it
be? How much ice? How much damage from
storms? Will much of the garden be ruined by
heavy frosts?
And I know I do the same thing with my
children. When I remember the infants, they
were tender, sweet bundles of fluff. I forget
their crying for middle of the night feedings,
sickness, worry. And I’m fearful of their
growing because it’s the beginning of losing
them.
Now they have grown to teenagers. I
remember their early school years, coming
home, seeking my advice. I forget that they
were looking for that advice every two minutes
through every hour of homework. I forget the
squabbles, the tears, and the endless childhood
diseases.
And deep down, I fear their independence,
their growing up, their growing away from the
family.
I know I have a responsibility to teach them
to be good people, to let their lives be a
contribution to the world. But I haven’t
finished yet. I’m not ready. Give me a bit more
time!
And so I fear their going away. I doubt I’ve
done my job well enough . . . I’m afraid they’ll
change and I won’t know how to cope with it.
Yet all it would take is a bit more faith. If I
fully believe about God the things I say I do, I
wouldn’t fear a new season in their lives.
God knows what talents He gave me as a
mother. He knows how well I’ve used them . ..
and deep inside, I know I’ve done my best.
God did not create a stagnant universe.
Growth and change are part of His plan. All life
is constantly developing.
If I try to stop my children from changing
and growing, I’m not doing my best, not
accepting His way of life.
" He said He’d be with us all days. I believe
that includes every new stage, every new
season.
A friend of mine showed me how that kind
of faith works. She said she used to worry,
especially when her children first began driving.
Then she realized her fear was accomplishing
nothing for the children, and eroding her.
She said, “God knows I’ve done the best I
could with what He gave me. The kids are on
their own. Now it’s up to them . .. and Him.”
That’s REAL peace of mind!
OUR PARISH
“I’m afraid all that love and community
has given you an ulcer.”
Theory Versus Practice
Reverend John Reedy C.S.C.
A candid, late-evening conversation with a
biship turned up a practical tension which has
not yet been dealt with openly.
This bishop is relatively young, open and
accessible, deeply dedicated to social service.
If you had to choose one of our inadequate
labels for him, it would probably be
“moderately-progressive. ”
He was talking about the role of pastoral
councils in relation to the traditional Catholic
pattern of centralized control from the
chancery.
Knowing his general outlook, I expected him
to support a pattern of gradual, but real
decision-making by a broad representation of
the Church community.
In practice, his policy was clearly and firmly
the opposite. While he favored the broadest
consultation with all segments of the parish and
diocese, he was inflexible in his judgment that
real control had to be exercised from the top
down, that the contribution of all these
representative bodies had to be advisory.
Therefore, if you accept the ground rules of
“them-against-us” controversy, he would be
judged reactionary, authoritarian, paternalistic,
distrustful, in conflict with the spirit of Vatican
II. . . at least with some of the wording of
council documents.
But, listen to his reasons.
“Our diocese,” he said, “contains large
groups of people living in harsh poverty,
decaying neighborhoods, served by degrading
institutions. We also have some very wealthy
parishes whose debts are paid up, whose people
are capable of real support for the poor.”
“The fact is that we are now getting
important, valuable support from these parishes
- immensely more than other church groups -
but we can do it only because we have our
fingers on control.”
His dedication was very genuine. “If a pastor
in one of those parishes won’t or can’t generate
this kind of financial support for the needs of
the poor community, he has to be replaced by
someone who can and will. The needs of the
poor and the responsibilities of the affluent are
just too urgent for compromise.”
And on parish councils. “Some of these
groups, even when they’re made up of good
people, simply don’t perceive this urgency, this
obligation. Nobody really likes to focus on
fund-raising, and from the perspective of a
suburban parish council, the extension of the
parking lot can seem just as important as
support for our schools and parishes which are
desperately wanted by people in inner-city
neighborhoods.”
“We want the involvement and perspective of
these councils, but if we’re going to get the job
done, we have to have the control. The councils
have to understand that their role is advisory.”
Now, I can formulate a whole battery of
theoretical objections to his position - that
such councils will not survive unless they have
real trust and authority; that theologically, the
work of the Church is to enlighten and inspire a
Christian response, not to manipulate
congregations; that, in time, the councils might
become just as enlightened and as efficient as
our present Church professionals.
I could offer all those arguments, but
practically, I think this bishop’s judgment is
accurate. Without the centralized controls, the
immediate effect would be a substantial drop in
the efficiency of service to those in need.
Moreover, if I were the one who had to make
that choice between providing effective, if
inadequate, help to those in need... or
building toward a long-range, uncertain Church
of full participation... I’d have an awful time
deciding against the immediate needs.
You can argue that my assumptions are
wrong, that democratic procedures could serve
just as efficiently as those centralized controls.
However, I’d bet that anyone who has been
closely involved in Church affairs for a long
time would disagree with you.
My point is not that the vision of Vatican II
is impractical. It’s just that the transition from
theory to practice generates many sticky,
ambiguous results.
And we have to appreciate this ambiguity if
we are going to move intelligently from a world
of rah-rah ideology to the real world of what
happens to people. Moreover, we need to
understand this ambiguity if we are going to
avoid an indecent, disloyal rash judgment of
our leaders.
Self-Actualization
Rev. James Wilmes
Just as the tree needs sunshine, water and
food, the Average Man feels incomplete and
depends on others to give him love, respect,
prestige and a sense of belonging. He finds
safety when his basic needs are gratified by the
real world outside himself. Once his inner
deficiencies are satisfied by love as well as a
firm scale of values, then he feels accepted,
loved and loving. A personal relationship with
the Lord provides the most important step.
Then he becomes a Self-Actualizing Person
who strives, not for satisfaction he lacks, but
for maturity and development of hidden
potentials so that he in turn can give help to the
Average Man. It is the difference between
preparing to live and actually living! The
Self-Actualizing Man acquires an independence
which permits a relative calm, and even
happiness in the face of hardships, blows and
frustrations which would drive the average man
to suicide. Some characteristics which
accompany this freedom of spirit and
independence are:
SELF-ACCEPTANCE: facing reality without
anxiety about reaching the ideal; taking life as
it is, rather than as we prefer.
SINCERITY: No pose, front, artificiality.
Really tries to improve improvable
shortcomings.
ALTRUISM: More extroverted than
introverted.. . Unselfish even to the foolish,
weak and mean since they have been far less
blessed.
HUMILITY: Willingness to learn from
anyone regardless of race, creed, degree of
education.
EMPATHIC: Capable of far deeper love and
more profound interpersonal relationship than
the Average Man believes possible.
SACRIFICIAL SIMPLICITY: Willingness to
accept the trivialities and conventionalities of
life with a good humored shrug (when no
compromise of principle is involved) rather
than hurt or fight people. Their subsequent
peace allows them to enjoy the basic beauties
of life, such as a baby, a flower, a sunset. From
this description, evidently there are few
Self-Actualizing people in the world. We remain
Average people unless we grow from within,
spiritually, from vitalizing principles. The
independence of Self-Actualizing People is
really the freedom experienced by those who
live for God alone, care not what man thinks,
and seek only all day, daily, to please Him.
Synod
Misreported
Joe Breig
In a joint commentary, the five U.S. bishops
at the World Synod in Rome suggested (among
other things) that at the next synod (in 1977)
better arrangements be made to inform the
communications media.
Clearly, the five did not place all the blame
for misreporting of the 1974 synod on the
journalists.
Still, one may ask how it happens that the
agency which serves Catholic papers (National
Catholic News Service in Washington) was able
to report accurately and intelligently, whereas
the general press didn’t.
The general press seems to be afflicted with
some sort of confrontation neurosis. Nothing is
news unless it involves conflict, dissension,
division. Reporters seem incapable of grasping
the thought that sincere and dedicated men can
discuss harmoniously the best means of
attaining ends which they all seek.
The general press told readers that various
bishops had called for more exercise of
authority at the level of the local Churches, and
that Pope Paul (cast in the role of the Bad Guy)
had brushed the idea aside, and had sternly
lectured the bishops who proposed it.
Typical of this erroneous reporting was Israel
Shenker’s roundup article for the New York
Times and its news service. One headline writer
boiled it down into “Bishops Propose, Pope
Disposes.” The notion given to readers was that
the bishops had wanted to do some intelligent
things, but the Pope arbitrarily and blindly said
no.
An impression was conveyed of an uprising
of bishops against the pope - or at least of
disgruntled bishops going home disgusted with
the Holy Father.
i\ow look at the reality. Pope Paul, in his
address concluding the synod, said it had been
“a very positive” meeting, and he warmly
welcomed the desire of local Churches for more
decision-making at home.
Rightly, however, the Holy Father cautioned
that care must be taken in order that this
widening autonomy of the Churches in the
various nations should not damage the unity of
the Universal Church, or obscure the doctrine
that the supreme head of the Church is the
successor of St. Peter as bishop of Rome.
Pope Paul also observed mildly that some
expressions of opinion at the synod needed to
be “better defined and nuanced, rounded out
and subjected to further study.” For example,
there had been an appeal for development of
“an African theology.”
Rightly understood - as an adapting to
African thought patterns of the methods of
conveying the Gospel message - this is fine.
Wrongly understood, it could be dangerous.
Therefore, Pope Paul emphasized that “the
Church either is Catholic or it is not Catholic”
- its teachings are the same everywhere.
As I say, National Catholic News Service and
the Catholic papers it serves informed readers
accurately. Is it too much to ask that other
news agencies and communications media strive
to do likewise?
What One
Person
Can Do
Reverend Richard Armstrong
When an artist loses her sight, what does she
do? Lucille Spiro-Smith learned to “see” with
her hands. The creativity she had expressed in
painting and designing children’s clothes found
its outlet in sculpture.
When she was 13, Lucille Spiro developed
uveitis, an eye inflammation. By 21, she had
lost the sight of both eyes. It was five years
before corrective measures enabled her to
regain 10 percent of her vision.
She says that in her five years of total
darkness, “I just turned to things I could feel.”
She began by learning to knit. “I had a desire to
express myself,” says the artist, “I was doing
mental creating.” She tried fingerpainting but
had no way of seeing the results. She began
“playing with clay, sort of feeling and enjoying
it.” Gradually she was able to make figures that
had meaning for her - and, as it turned out, for
her friends also. They encouraged her and,
under the guidance of a teacher, she developed
her skill.
The blind sculptress’s five-year marriage
ended with her husband’s death in 1956. Their
son was four. She continued with her sculpture,
expressing her love for motion and rhythm. She
created joyous figures of children at play - she
was at home in the world of children. “I like
their radiance and freedom,” she says. “I love
the fact that they’ve not been spoiled yet.”
Mrs. Spiro-Smith’s delicately molded
sculptures, cast in bronze, have been exhibited
in galleries and museums. She is currently
making jewelry - lively acrobatic-figure
pendants in alphabet shapes. Her favorite is an
exuberant “X.”
This artist, despite trouble, seems to have
drawn on a deep source of vitality and joy.
Artists or not, we all have such a source within
us.
<r
\