Newspaper Page Text
'
PAGE A GEORGIA BULLETIN THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1964
the
Archdiocese of Atlanta
ORGIA
LETIN
SCRVINO GEORGIA'S 71 NORTHERN COUNTIES
Official Organ of the Archdiocese of Atlanta
Published Every Week at the Decatur' DeKalb News
PUBLISHER - Archbishop Paul J, Halllnan
MANAGING EDITOR Gerard E. Sherry
CONSULTING EDITOR Rev. R. Donald Kiernan
2699 Peachtree N.E,
P.O. Box 11667
Northside Station
Atlanta 5, Ga.
Member of the Catholic Press Association
and Subscriber to N.C.W.C. News Service
Telephone 231-1281
Second Class Permit at Atlanta, Ga.
U.S.A. $5.00
Canada $5.00
Foreign $6.50
Brotherhood Week
Brotherhood Week is upon us
and we are often asked what
contribution can we make to it.
What is the problem? Simply
put it is that achieving peace
between Americans. More tech
nically it could be called the
search for civic peace, in an
area which has been, and can
again be, the scene of tension
and strife.
The early efforts towards the
easing of religious and racial
tensions fell victim to an over
simplification. In the beginning,
the suggestion was made that
each party should give a little
and then peace would be achieved.
It was said that if you give a
little, and we give a little then
we can reach an understanding.
Such a simple prodedure struck
the practical American mind as
quite sensible. But its apparent
simplicity was soon seen to be
dangerous, because of what each
party was asked to give.
For instance if, as a Chris
tian, we were asked to give up
Christ, in order to achieve peace
with the Jews, or if as a Ca
tholic we were asked to drop
the Pope because he was a source
of friction with the Protestants,
what we would be being asked
to do is to give up Christianity
for a civic good; we would be
asked to stop being a Catholic
in order to promote peace in
our community. On the other
hand, if we asked the Jews to
become Christians, which we
would be doing if we asked them
to accept Christ as the Messiah,
or if we asked the Protestants
to become Catholics, for that is
what we would be doing if we
demanded that they accept the
Pope, then we would be asking
them to become what they are
not.
Let us not be misunderstood.
While recognizing and defending
the plurality of a civil society
we cannot obviously advocate a
permanent religious plural
society. Rather our task is to
find a basis in a pluralistic
civil society for the several re
ligions which in fact exist.
The nature of religious com
mitment is such that there are
certain basic things that are
held as essential, not only to
the commitment, but to the very
relationship between God and
man. These things are so basic
to one’s religion that if they
are abandoned, then religion it
self is abandoned, and with it
the bond with God is broken.*
To sacrifice one of these basic
things for any reason, as long
as they are held at the command
of conscience, is to sin. It is
fundamentally blasphemous to
throw away an essential element
of one's religion for any other
mere human good. If this is the
price of civic peace, then the
price is too high, and a con
scientiously religious person will
have to bear the brunt of
the tensions which still exist.
It was this implicit blasphemy
which kept Catholics from giving
wholehearted support to the early
efforts towards religious co
operation. It was the fear of a
sacrilegious denial of the Faith
which caused them to look with
suspicion upon the Catholic pio
neers in this field.
But it was the fact that this
oversimplification is not es
sential to the easing of religious
tensions which kept these pio
neer Catholics in the work. They
saw that the real solution must
lie in somehow letting each man
keep his fundamental com
mitment, while at the same time
removing the causes of the
tensions. Fidelity to oneself was
the first step and understanding
of the other per son was the second
step. An agreement to accept
our differences, to respect each
other’s commitment as sincere
is the final step.
This way is harder and longer,
but it is the only way in which
the first efforts towards unity
can be made. It is the only way
in which real civic peace can be
achieved. Inthis, as inall realms,
peace is the work of justice.
GERARD E. SHERRY
Embargo On Beatles?
The English enemies of the
American crewcut exponents ar
rived in the United States last
week much to the delight of
thousands of ever-loving teen
agers. The thunderous welcome
at the airport was repeated at
the television show and
wherever they were billed to
give a (sic) concert. Criticism
has ranged from the quality of
their singing to the cut of their
hair and it is difficult to find
adequate words to describe
either of these curious pheno
mena. Music critics have become
fashion experts and vice versa
during this invasion of the young
Britons.
Anglo - American relations
have suffered a number of crises
since the War for Independence
and will undoubtedly survive this
unusual cultural exchange pro
gram. For that matter, we need
to take a hard look at some
of the products we have export
ed to foreign audiences before
we suggest anything like an em
bargo on the Beatles. Some of
our hip-twisting, rock ‘n’ roll
ers of recent memory gave other
peoples a different image of
America, to say the least.
All of this brings to mind the
wonders as well as the worries
of worldwide communications. It
is no longer possible to shut
out--nor should it be--the in
fluences whichare at work every
where. What is possible, how
ever, is to address ourselves
to the true values of culture
exportation as against a sicken
ing musical exploitation. We need
to look behind the Beatles, not
under their shaggy hair, to find
reasons for the latest entertain
ment craze. Perhaps the further
we look the better we will be
musically, at least.
BOSTON PILOT
■mi cot/QO
SLAIN MISSIONEftS
Last Full Measure
LOVE AND FREEDOM
Lenten Paradox
BY REV. LEONARD F.X. MAYHEW
Lent comes on us like an annual shock. No
sooner is Christmas past then people begin ask
ing when Easter is. We mentally estimate the
six and a half week previous date of Ash Wed
nesday but, in spite of our calculations, the Len
ten regulations read on Quinquagesima Sun
day always seem to arrive sooner than we expec
ted. The inexorable immediate result is a con
centration on the laws themselves — on meat
less secondary meals and who has to abstain
and ‘what about vegetables cooked with a piece
of meat?*. Not to mention the problem of what to
give up arid of resolutions, sometimes rashly un
dertaken and later guiltily set aside or buried
in willing oblivion.
Lent brings to the fore the
most fundamenta 1 question of
Christian moral philosophy: the
relationship between freedom
and obligation, between law and
love, the paradox of obligatory
love. The heart and soul of
Christian morality is love and
freedom. Love, Christ taught,
is the sum of all moral good.
But, love is the most personal,
the most free response a man
■ can make 1 to another. Love means responsible,
free choice which deliberately takes to itself
the good and the true, clearly seen and prefer
red to all else.
HOW THEN can there be laws? Does not the
law, with its threat of sanction upon the diso
bedient, destroy freedom, expel love? How can
there be a law to worship God, if true worship
must be loving? How can there be a law to do
penance, if true penance must begin with “re
nding our hearts"? Lent makes these very
acute questions. Over-simplified even further-
and with a twist of pessimism added, we can
ask how many people would fast and abstain (or
attend Sunday Mass, for that matter) merely on
the exhortation of the Church and without the
force of the law and the fear of sin as motives.
There are two approaches to the answer. First
of all, any society must dictate certain reason
able and practical regulations for the proper
order and benefit of its members. The Church is
a society, a body. It must make a practical ap
plication of previously existing divine laws (for
example, to worship, to do penance, to receive
the Sacraments) to the circumstances of its mem
bers.
ALL THIS is true but it is not the final ans
wer. Actually, it only removes the problem to
another, admittedly much higher, level of author
ity. The ultimate answer will only come from sort
ing out the meaning of freedom and the respon
sibility it implies and fitting in with that the nat
ural aim of authentic, morally biding laws.
Law is a dictate of reason, concerned with
practical action and with a particular good to be
accomplished. So also is each free choice we
make in the area of practicality. Laws, then,
need not- and indeed, must not- destroy freedom.
Their nature is to channel free choice, to guide
and direct it, not to stifle it. A good law not
only respects freedom; in a sense, it creates
it. This it can do by removing the obstacles
to freedom, by removing doubt and confusion,
fear or passion, which will becloud our vision
and render us un-free.
VIEWED FROM this perspective, Lent (and all
the laws of the Church) become an exercise in
freedom. They have their binding force, of course,
because the Church can and must govern us.
Paradoxically, they will attain their end in the
exact proportion that their authoritarian binding
force is least important to us. In other words,
when they inspire free and responsible choice to
the value it possesses and not for the sake of
punishment, then these laws are being obeyed
most perfectly.
Christ has made penance and self-denial con
ditions of belonging to the company of his dis
ciples. And the Church, as a direct consequence,
has made Lent and laws to go with it. And we-
we must make the hard decision, to obey freely,
as t men, because we see the point and the stake.
The restraints imposed and accepted do not limit-
they augment our freedom.
LITURGICAL WEEK
Purifying Our Minds
BY REV. ROBERT W. HOVDA
FEB. 23, 2ND SUNDAY OF LENT. “We gave
you a pattern of how you ought to live so as tt
please God," we hear in the First Reading of
today’s Mass. And some of the specifics of that
pattern are pointed out, in case we have erred,
that our penance and good works of Lent might
be directed to the recovery of right vision.
today’s Gospel tells us in words: that Jesus Is
the key to the riddle of our existence, that He is
the one we look for in our every effort to under
stand ourselves.
And the First Reading tells us why. Because we
are sinners, helpless and dependent before the
Lord, unworthy of His love. But Jesus answers
our plight by grafting us into His body the Church
identifying us with Him and with His saving deeds.
Yet the Gospel presents the Transfiguration,
God’s glorification of the hu
man flesh of His Son, and in
the Collect we pray that God
will free us from peril and puri-
our minds. Our public wor-
never emphasizes our ac
tion, our moral response, our
obedience to the command
ments, without emphasizing al
so and above all God’s loving
toward us.
The liturgy will not permit us to make a little
moralism of our faith, but always shows our good
works as an answer of love in a dialogue whose
initiative is with God.
FEB. 24, MONDAY, 2ND WEEK IN LENT. Yes
terday’s Transfiguration was a visible sign of what
TUESDAY, FEB. 25, ST. MATTHIAS, APOS
TLE. Today’s Mass invites us to pray and to thank
God for the ministry of the Church, for our bishops
as the chief ministers of Word and Sacraments
for the sake of the holy People of God and for our
priests and deacons who assist them.
God uses human weakness all the time, for He
uses all of us in the accomplishment of His will.
But perhaps this is especially evident in the minis
try of preaching and of worship in the Church.
Faith tells us all the while that by these means it
is to Him we come, it is His yoke we take, it is
of Him we learn (Gospel).
FEB. 26, WEDNESDAY, 2ND WEEK IN LENT.
This theme of the ministry is present again at the
end of today's Gospel. Jesus tells the leaders of
His Church (for He has made it hierarchial) that
CONTINUED ON PAGE 5
TRADITION LOST
Inferior
Dullness?
BY GERARD E. SHERRY
Last week we were talking about the low state
of TV entertainment# especially in relation to
“Beatlemania '. In view of the fact that we are
still in Catholic Press Month it would be ap
propriate to turn to the press media for some
more observations.
The quality of many of our newspapers and
the quality of the writing in them has sunk well
below that of the past. Henry James once said
that journalism is criticism of the minute at
the minute. But what do we mostly get instead?
— sensationalism; constant outrages of privacy;
so much so that nothing is sacred any more.
As a re suit the people
are dulled into an ac
ceptance of the in
ferior — it’s what
comes naturally.
ONE CAN have a
certain sympathy for
the poor journalist,
through. There is so
much to cover; so
many foci of world attention.
Just to keep the record clear, I would like
to make a few passing references to my own
small area of journalism, the corner which is
the Catholic Press. If we gauge the failure of
secular American journalism, by its failure to
live up to the rich heritage of its past, by what
should we judge the Catholic Press—and how does
it come through its examination?
Obviously we must judge the Catholic press
by that which should make it Catholic: Horizons
which not only girdle the globe, but also reach
back through all history and forward to the
unending glory of heaven: revealed truths which
unlock mysteries and give sure guidance; divine
strength, promised and delivered; strength which
should give an astral calm and an assured de
liberation; these are the things which we bring
as Catholics into journalism. This is our moun
tain, and from all evidence we do labor. But what
a mouse emerges I
REAPINGS
AT
RANDOM
THE BOUNDARIES of any urban parish would
seem large compared to the little field we tend.
We are so nervous that we jump at any boo com
ing from any little bigot. One senatorial genera
lization sets us in a tizzy. But our worse crime
is the constant effort to reduce the majestic
truths of God to the tiny dimensions of our own
cramped craniums. We have not yet resolved to
grown up as Catholics, or as journalists.
We must try and encourage not merely a sense
of dedication to the reader. Our journalists must
constantly radiate that spirit of service and self-
sacrifice which is the essence of good journal
ism. Above all truth must be the lode stare.
Journalists must be encouraged to an accute
sensitivity to the need for moral integrity in
what is written for the information, instruct
ion and entertainment of the public.
The journalist must be the first to note the
difference between honest interpretation of the
news and the subtly printed lie. Between the plain
chronicling of the pleasant or un-pleasant
fact and the more or less malicious gossip.
Indeed, the gossip columnist is a cancer in the
body journalistic.
EDITORS, TOO, must be men of principle, not
expediency. They must be men of courage, not
imbued with the fears of a publisher's wrath.
They must be men of conscience, too, who rea
lize that there is a hierarchy of values; that
the news must be placed in proper focus. This
is the basic problem for an editor — a problem
which cries out for serious study of current
affairs both local and national. It also requires
of editors that they see in their community and
their readers all the human longings for peace
and happiness.
Publishers and owners of newspapers also have
grave responsibilities. While they are free editor
ially to propagate their social or political ex
pression, they have no mandate to thrust down the
mouths of their readers the political or social
philosophies of their advertisers. Newspapers
operated in such a manner are selling good jour
nalism down the river; are causing lack of pub
lic respect for the opinions and expressions
of many honest journalists; are ringing the death
knell of newspapers i n general.
THE SAME goes f 0r radio and television.
Stations and networks which are only interested
in selling products will never sell ideals. Yet,
the people need ideals. The people need a goal
to achieve; that goal of the good life in the ser
vice of one's neighbor, C j tyi st ate and nation.
Only then will we be rid of the drift towards
the dark emptiness of wasted lives.
The communications media has a most impo r _
tant mission to accomplish for the good of our
peoples and the peoples of the world. The jou r -
nalists and technicians i n the media are the miss
ionaries. They need not only knowledge but, j Ust
as important, dedication.