Newspaper Page Text
*
\
>
PAGE 4—The Southern Cross, November 21,1974
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
Pray for Unity
Perhaps the greatest danger facing the
future of ecumenism in the United
States is the frustration of some over the
continuing divisions which find Christian
churches still separated one from
another along lines of doctrine, tradition
and practice.
One need not be very old to
remember the deep animosities which
once marked the relationships, or rather
the lack of relationships which existed
between the Roman Catholic Church
and its separated sister Churches.
To a great extent, the problem had its
roots in the practice, on both sides, of
perpetuating historical notions of one
another which were no longer valid, if
they ever had been.
Many, if not most, Catholics were
raised to see Martin Luther and the other
great figures of the Protestant
Reformation as the worst of orgres.
Many, if not most, Protestants were
taught from their childhood that the
Roman Catholic Church represented the
corruption of all that was best in the
church of Apostolic times.
Great political upheavals wracked the
Europe of Reformation times. Catholic
rulers persecuted religious dissidents and
Catholics found their lives and liberties
threatened by Protestant rulers.
Memories lingered long -- too long - so
that although times changed and
governments became more tolerant of
those whose religious beliefs differed
from those officially espoused by the
majority of citizens, religious leaders and
Christians in general did not.
Nevertheless, in recent times, anyway,
men of good will have been trying to
break out of this trap into which a
fossilized concept of history and the
misunderstanding which flows from a
lack of communication had led the
world of Christianity.
Men and women of many different
Christian traditions, apalled at the
festering wounds afflicting the Church
for which Christ had prayed, “That they
may be one, Father, as I in Thee and
Thou in Me,” sought to learn what ought
to unite them instead of only what still
kept them apart.
A great deal has been done, over
many, many years to strengthen the ties
existing among Protestant churches and
between them and the world of Eastern
Orthodoxy. The greatest witness to these
long standing efforts has been the
creation of the National Council of
Churches in this country and the World
Council of Churches. Through these
organizations and the dialogue and
collaboration they have produced, the
tensions which first brought about their
separation from one another have been
greatly ameliorated, and they have been
able to present a more or less common
front to the moral and social issues
confronting mankind.
It really was not until Pope John
XXIII convened the Second Vatican
Council and invited observers from the
world of Protestant Christianity, Eastern
Orthodoxy and various non-Christian
religious bodies that the Roman Catholic
Church began to move into the
mainstream of ecumenism. Its
commitment to the cause of unity
among the world’s Christians and
collaboration with all men of good will,
everywhere, is best epitomized by the
Council’s Decree on Ecumenism which
was adopted ten years ago.
To commemorate the issuance of that
decree, the Diocese of Savannah will
host an ecumenical prayer service next
Sunday evening at the Cathedral of St.
John the Baptist at 7:30 p.m.
The prayer of Jesus for His Church is
still, to a large extent, unanswered. It
will be realized only under the guidance
of the Holy Spirit, and that will only
happen when Christians are united with
all the longing of Jesus, Himself, in
prayer that it may be so.
Come Sunday evening. Raise your
voices in prayer and song with men and
women who are your brothers and sisters
in Christ, acknowledging that “The
Church’s One Foundation is Jesus Christ,
the Lord ...”
— F.J.D.
Out of Duty,
Or Out of Love?
Mary Carson
Several weeks ago I mentioned tha
occasionally my husband and all eight of mj
kids have other things to do in the evening am
I wind up doing the dinner dishes all alone.
A nun wrote to me and told me that was
inexcusable. She grew up in a family of nine
children and they each had a definite day for a
turn at the dishes.
I appreciate Sister’s comment because she
made me think a bit about why my family is
different in this respect.
I did try a schedule of assigned chores for a
number of years when my children were
younger. There were times when getting the
kids to keep to the schedule made me feel more
like a warden and a bookkeeper than a mother.
My teen-age daughters make out shopping
lists and offer to go to the store when they
notice groceries are needed.
Sometimes my husband drives me to a
speaking date in a distant city on a Sunday
morning. We have come back in the evening to
find the house tidied, laundry running, the
kitchen in order, and dinner cooking ... all
without having left any specific orders.
There are times when the kids goof-off.
Sometimes I’ll be up to my eye-balls in work
and find several of them watching TV.
But when I ask for help at a time like that, I
believe there is a recognition on their part that
the fault is primarily a lack of observation of
the needs of others.
So I’ve given up on rigid schedules and have
tried to teach my children a different sense of
responsibility. I do want them aware of their
obligations to family, school work, and friends,
as well as their freedoms and privileges.
But rather than assign chores, I’d prefer they
learn to SEE what needs to be done, without
being told, and when that’s more urgent than
whatever they are doing, simply take over on
the chore.
I want them to look on chores as an
opportunity to give of themselves. I want
failure to do chores to be seen as a lost
opportunity for kindness. They can’t do this if
chores are done to avoid punishment.
People conditioned to what their job IS
often reject anything that’s NOT. Nothing
irritates me as much as “Don’t expect me to do
that. That’s not MY job.”
I’d much rather they learn to give freely on
their own initiative out of love than to do only
what they must out of fear.
Sound too idealistic?
Our sons painted the house for us last
summer because they noticed it needed it.
My system doesn’t always work. But I
believe it works better than rigid schedules.
There are times when one child is helping more
than others . . . but in the long run that levels
out.
And there definitely is a special pleasure in
having the kids do something without being
told. I guess that’s really the essence of it. I
take an added risk of being disappointed at
times, but I feel it’s worth it to get that special
expression of love.
That’s not to say love didn’t exist in Sister’s
family when she was growing up. Obviously it
did or she wouldn’t be dedicating her life today
to the service of others.
It’s just that today, parents like me are trying
for something extra. In a way I guess it’s the
same as the Church today, compared with years
ago.
Today the Church encourages us to do things
on our own because we see they should be
done, not because it’s a sin if we don’t.
I’m sure it gives God a special pleasure when
we come through.
A SAWMILL IS BUZZING and an
area of Appalachian poverty is being
restored to economic and social vigor.
With money from the Campaign For
Human Development, an Industrial
Council can extend credit to small
businesses and light industry such as a
pallet factory that purchases lumber
from this sawmill. The annual collection
is this Sunday.
Response to Hunger
Personal and Public
Reverend John Reedy, C.S.C.
Many good people today are afflicted with a
kind of moral paralysis whose symptoms are
bewilderment, inertia, a sense of powerlessness
regarding the effects of our actions.
Such paralysis is selective in its attack on our
lives. In personal relationships - marriage,
friendships, simple business integrity - we can
usually recognize and determine the honorable
course of action.
However, when it comes to our social
morality, the impact of our conduct on
patterns, we have a real problem. Recognizing
the horrors of war, racism, economic injustice,
we simply cannot foresee or control all the
effects of our individual actions on the complex
web of social and political policy.
is unchristian, immoral, for us to continue to
consume extravagantly while a significant
portion of the human race is suffering from
malnutrition, while hundreds of thousands, face
the real possibility of starvation.
If our restraint has no direct effect whatever
on bringing food to these people, it would still
be indecent for us to recognize such human
need without trying to identify in some way
with the survival struggle of these people who
share the earth with us but who happened to be
bom on the wrong continent.
In fact, our restraint will have an effect - not
as immediate as if we could take our plate from
the dinner table and hand it to a hungry man -
but an effect, nevertheless.
One such problem, the world food crisis,
reveals an important distinction which offers
some release from this paralysis. This
distinction will not solve all our problems, but
it can provide a partial answer to the question,
“How, in the name of God, can my behaviour
influence national or international
relationships?”
The food crisis is a powerful example
because we can easily translate this demand
into personal morality. While we might be
confused about the course of justice in
weighing the conflicting claims of Israel against
those of the Palestinian refugees, we can have
no confusion about the Christian response to
those pictures from Africa of gaunt, despairing
faces. . . those pictures of children with
monstrously swollen bellies.
Here there’s no conflict of rights to be sorted
out. These people have a right to food. It’s that
simple.
But what do I do about Secretary Butz who,
in a Wonderland kind of logic, suggests that I
might help these people most effectively by
eating more beef? How do I confront the real
problems of the cattlemen who are slaughtering
calves, not out of vindictiveness or greed, but
out of a concern for their own economic
survival?
Here is where we need to make a real
distinction between the personal actions we can
control and the social policies which we might
influence but cannot control.
Whatever problems exist in the logistics of
production and distribution, we KNOW that it
Regardless of the problems of distribution,
the facts are fairly simple. For the near future,
there is only so much food available to serve
human needs. If we Americans continue to
consume a disproportionate share, others will
continue to live with hunger.
My personal responsibility is clear and
obvious. As a Christian, under the Lord’s
command to feed the hungry, I must begin to
impose conscientious restraint on my
consumption.
The other part of the distinction is to
recognize that I can’t understand and control
all the intricacies of national policy, of
distribution, of agricultural production.
It’s important to recognize that I can’t fully
grasp or fully control all those factors. I might
support particular social judgments (for
example, that Secretary Butz should be
bounced from his job) but that is clearly an
ethical decision different from my restraint in
consuming material resources.
In many social evils, there are personal
ethical responses which are clear and
appropriate regardless of whether they succeed
in changing the social situation. There are other
responses which depend on expert knowledge,
on skill in public administration. In these
matters, all we can do is provide guidance to
our representatives on values and priorities.
Such a distinction will not solve all our
problems but it can release us from the
paralysis which prevents us from doing
anything.
What One Person Can Do
Reverend Richard Armstrong
YETTA GALIBER, SOMEONE WHO SAID YES’
A woman in Washington, D. C., refused to
accept the situation in which boys ripe for
trouble permanently walk the road of recurring
crime and punishment. Too often in her work
with Juvenile Court, Yetta Galiber had seen
poor city boys move from misdemeanor to
felony. “Eighty per cent of children who are
locked up,” she says, “have a learning
problem.” She started there.
As director of the District Information
Service for Handicapped Children, Mrs. Galiber
is in touch with youngsters who are physically,
mentally or emotionally handicapped. These
are the poor learners, who often run afoul of
the law. She knew there were men in Virginia’s
Lorton prison who were capable of tutoring
and motivating many of them. So she arranged
for a group of prisoners to do volunteer work
with troubled and troublesome children in the
city.
Today, 60 children whose handicaps had
excluded them from city schools are now able
to attend, with the aid of Lorton residents. And
the program has significantly slowed the flow
of “special school” children into bigger trouble.
“My guys understand,” she says.
There are 40 men involved now - and they’re
paid. Mrs. Galiber, they say, treats them as
individuals with a future. She arranged for
enrollments at Washington Technical Institute.
Eight have graduated and hope to go on to get
B. A. degrees. A few men have left prison but
continue their work.
“If given the opportunity to function in
society, 98 per cent can do so if someone
believes in them,” says Mrs. Galiber as she
speaks warmly of “her guys.” “And I really
believe in them.” They gave her a gift inscribed,
“ . . . the one person who said ‘yes’ when the
rest of the world said ‘no’. Your sons.”
For a free copy of the Christopher News
Notes, “There’s Nobody Like You,” send a
stamped, self-addressed envelope to The
Christophers, 12 East 48th Street, New York,
N.Y. 10017.
What
Is Boston
Saying?
Joe Breig
Somehow I doubt that racial prejudice is the
chief cause of the school-busing troubles in
Boston. I suspect that the deepest cause is the
deafness of people in authority to the voices of
the people.
The people, I think, are sick and tired of
being pushed around by sociological federal
bureaucrats and insensitive federal judges.
They are sick of laws and lawyers who treat
human beings like pawns rather than like free
citizens with minds and rights of their own.
My point was well expressed, in another
context, by Episcopal Bishop Robert Atkinson
of West Virginia. Various observers were voicing
bewilderment over the fact that a dispute over
public school textbooks should have escalated
into mine shutdowns, fire-bombings and
assaults on individuals.
In response, Bishop Atkinson - who is a
member of a textbook review committee -- said
this: “It may be that what we have here is a
deep-seated frustration over other matters --
over feelings of helplessness, powerlessness and
scorn .. . And this textbook thing came along,
and it was something tangible they could get a
handle on.”
That, I think, is in large part the situation in
South Boston - and in many other places about
many other concerns as well.
Mr. Paul Briggs, the highly regarded
superintendent of schools for the past 10 years
in Cleveland, 0., has said that in his judgment,
busing is the least acceptable, and least
successful, method of integrating schools
racially.
I think Mr. Briggs probably is right. Parents,
black or white, are angered when their children,
in the name of federal sociological
experimenting, are hauled around like cabbages.
Certainly we must act persistently to insure
that black children are given equal educational
opportunity with white children. But is school
busing for racial balance the way to accomplish
this? Indeed, should integration be forced on
people by law at all?
I wonder. Of late, we have seen black
Americans turning away from integration,
toward separateness and toward vigorous
assertion of their black culture and heritage.
In the Church, we have seen the springing up
of organizations of black priests, black nuns,
black laity. In response to black requests, the
U. S. bishops created a National Office of Black
Catholics.
Similarly, the Spanish-speaking and others
are asserting themselves and their special
heritages. And a similar turning back to
ancestral roots is occurring among many of
Polish descent, Slovak descent, and so on.
Indeed, all around the world, nationalisms
are more and more assertive, just when we had
been assured by the theorists that we were
becoming “one world.”
In no way, of course, am I condoning
violence against innocent people - not in
Boston, not in the Middle East, not in Northern
Ireland, not anywhere. I am only saying that
our sociologists and bureaucrats and law-makers
and judges should start putting their ears to the
ground.
Too Eager
To Please?
Rev. James Wilmes
It is obvious enough that we have to please
other people if we are to make our way through
the world with any kind of success. But there is
such a thing as being too eager to please, and it
leads to many kinds of inner tension.
Think of the stresses and strains produced
when we try to keep everybody
sweet-tempered, act so diplomatically that no
one will be provoked, and shape every venture
so as to guarantee success! It is enough to drive
anyone to distraction, to say the least. The
person who says what seems wisest at the
moment, and does what seems best, and then
accepts the consequences and the criticisms, is
doing all one can. No outsider can possibly
know the details of a plan or project as it is
known to the insider. Outsiders are, therefore,
in no position to judge. Do not let them run
you ragged with their adverse comments! Just
remember the old saying, “Never show a fool a
thing half-done.”
In the long run, we please others best and the
most, when we please God first, and let the
chips fall where they will. Now often in
ordinary affairs, an apparent failure turns out
to be the greatest wisdom, such as “Seward’s
folly,” his purchase of Alaska a century ago at a
bargain, though the millions then seemed
enormous.
Those who strive for instant praise from
others, at the cost of their own integrity, need a
pigeon hole in the back of the mind marked
“What of it”? There let them shelve those
criticisms which can’t be avoided while work is
in progress, and then get on with what they are
doing. We cannot please everybody, so why
try?