Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 4 GEORGIA BULLETIN THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 24, 1964
Archdiocese of Atlanta
GEORGIA BULLETIN
SERVING GEORGIA'S 71 NORTHF#w COUNTIES
Official Organ of the Archidocese of Atlanta
Published Every Week at the Decatur DeKalb News
PUBLISHER- Archbishop Paul J. Hallinan
MANAGING EDITOR Gerard E. Sherry CONSULTING EDITOR Rev. R. Donald Kiernan
2699 Peachtree N. E.
P. O. Box 11667
Northside Station
Atlanta 5, Ga.
ASSOCIATE EDITOR Rev. Leonard F. X. Mayhew
Member of the Catholic Press Association
and Subscriber to N. C. W. C. News Service
Telephone 231-1281
Second Class Permit at Altanta, Ga.
U. S. A. $5.00
Canada $5.00
Foriegn $6.50
Press Panelling?
The purging of some priest
experts from the American Bis
hops Vatican Council Press
Panel has caused dismay and
concern inCatholic Press circles
here.
Press relations were so bad
at the first Session of the
Council that the U. S. Bishops
established a special Press Pan
el of priest experts to help
English - speaking journalists
during the second Session. The
Panel scored an immediate ‘hit*
and was credited with enabling
Journalists to give accurate and
outstanding coverage of the sec
ond Session.
Indeed, the daily sessions of
the U. S. Press Panel were
attended by Journalists of all
nationalities and persuasions.
They all felt that they got the
most accurate information and
the best interpretation from the
priest experts. To our knowledge
the only complaint about these
daily sessions was that stand
ing-room-only was the general
rule. Besides the journalists,
seminarians, priest visitors,
U. S, Servicemen and tourists
also attended in great num
bers.
With the start of the third
Session new ground rules have
been established. Only Journa
lists and invited guests are per
mitted to attend the briefings--
and this is obviously an im
provement. Alas, the makeup of
the Panel has been drastically
changed and has taken on all
the attributes of the struggle
between the traditionalists and
the progressives among the
Council Fathers.
Elmer Von Feldt of the NCWC
News Service who was detach
ed to serve as moderator of the
Panel, is quoted as saying that
some panel members were taken
AN ALTAR BOY
NAMED "SPECK"
off, and some added, so as to
equalize between Liberals and
Conservatives. This we feeltobe
ridiculous. In the second Ses-
session nobody asked the priests
whether they were Liberals or
Conservatives. The working
journalists were merely seek
ing truth and accuracy in
Council coverage.
There is no doubt that a min
ority of officials objected to the
flow of Council information from
the last Session’s panel of priest
experts. The new ground rules
therefore curb the panelists to
such a degree that they may not
even express a personal opinion
on any matter presently under
discussion by the Council Fath
ers. If they do, this is consid
ered lobbying for a particular
point of view and they will be
ruled out of order--and maybe
dismissed from their jobs.
What is most disturbing is the
un-Johannine way of handling the
affair; there was no consultation
with the working press involved.
In the past, there have been jus
tifiable complaints in relation
to much of the Council Press
arrangements. Hardly ever has
there been discussion with the
working journalists, rather the
decisions are announced to them.
The Catholic reading public,
and their fellow citizens of other
faiths, who are looking to the
Council, will learn less rather
than more as a result of the
new restrictions. The limitation
on the public’s right to know,
and on the journalist’s right to
free flow of unclassified infor
mation about the Council will be
seriously hindered.
Pope John XXIII wanted the
Council to show the Church at
its best to the world. The free
dom of the Council Fathers in
debate, and the expression of
Holy Liberty within St. Peter’s
Basilica are but two examples
of the Church at its best. Pope
Paul VI himself gives further
example by holding back from
definitive decisions in the En
cyclical, Ecclesiam Suam. What
a different stance is taken by
some officials when dealing with
Journalists. There is no allow
ance for competence, sincerity
or integrity; there is simply
a ruling by fiat--and this appears
to us acontradictionof the spirit
of the Council.
We fear that the change in the
Press Panel make-up means
that the views of the progress
ives of the Council will be
minimized. We cannot escape
this fear in view of the accusa
tion that the previous panel was
tooprogressive orliberal.ltlooks
as if the traditionalists are
flexing their muscles at the ex
pense of the reading public. We
do not object so much to the
change of personnel on the U. S.
Council Press Panel; rather we
deplore the reasons given for the
action and the restrictions plac
ed on all the participants. It
smacks of management of the
news; it smacks of distrust of
the working press, including
Catholic journalists; it smacks
of a lack of respect for the faith
and intelligence of the People
of God.
GEORGIA PUSES
Catechism-Continued
BY REV. R. DONALD KIERNAN
The moon was peeping through the ivy that cov
ers the stone rectory of St. Michael's rectory here
in Gainesville, and a cool autumn breeze was gent
ly ruffling the drapes as it blew through the open
casement window, when suddenly the stillness was
shattered by the bell of a telephone ringing,
* St. Michael's Church”, I said.Then the friend
ly voice of a telephone operator said, “Father
Kiernan, please, long distance is calling”. 'This
is he, speaking”, I replied. When the ritual of
operator-answerer was finished the voice of one
‘really mad' came on the other end of the line.
“FATHER,” she said, “I
have just finished reading last
week’s copy of Georgia Pines
and l want you to know how mad
it made me. Our parish has one
of the finest Christian Doctrine
programs in existence and I
think that your column was a
slap at those dedicated people
who donate so much of their
time,”
I knew then that she had either misunderstood
last week’s column or else I had not expressed
myself clearly enough to be understood.
“Mrs. X”. I said, "I recall that that particular
column had a paragraph in it paying a well de
served tribute to the teachers, parents and child
ren in many, many parishes who are making the
program work successfully.”
THEN SHE replied, “but Father, I cannot under
stand any parents not sending their children to
Christian Doctrine classes.”
My reply to this was, “Mrs. X, there are over
seven million Catholic children attending public
schools and just over four million are receiving
religious instructions. This means that nearly
three million childrenlastyeardid not receive re
ligious instructions.
The conversation continued with my ‘friend’now
saying "I didn’t realize that Father, but at any rate
the idea of a parent having to pay for Christian
Doctrine classes is revolting.”
WITH POINT two now theissue I said, ' obviously
with so many not attending religious instructions
something must be wrong with our program. Bas
ically I think it needs a revamping.”
But Mrs. X was quick to reply, “Father, you
know GOOD parents take the classes seriously”.
“EXCUSE me a moment while I take the call
coming in on the other line”. After a few moments
I resumed my conversation with Mrs. X. “Now, you
were saying that GOOD parents take the program
seriously. Well, that phone call was from aGOOD
parent who will not be able to send their child to
religious instruction classes this semester be
cause little Aristotle has football practice.”
Mrs. X was speechless for a few seconds. I
didn’t expect to engage in a Nixon-Kennedy debate,
but I did feel that I had a point to make. “Mrs, X”,
I said, “please don’t misunderstand me. I know
that we have dedicated teachers. I know that we
have cooperative parents. I know that we have in
terested children. Butwhat Ido not know is why we
cannot have a coordinated and properly supervised
program. There are several printing houses which
offer complete courses in the instruction field, but
while this program might be offered in Dalton, the
same program might not be offered in Warm
Springs. Were you to move your child from one
city to another city you would have absolutely no
continuity in your child’s religious instructions.”
MRS, X realized by now that she had committed
financial suicide by calling me long distance, but
I did have one more point to make. “Mrs. X”,
just let me say, “I’m not sure that paid cate
chists would be the answer. I’m not sure that
charging parents in order to make them realize
the value of the program is the answer either. But
as a pastor I do feel that our whole program needs
a renovation”.
“Goodbye”, I said. Then 1 added, “l*m glad that
you subscribe to the GEORGIA BULLETIN.”
WATCH OUT!
Beware Of
The Zealots?
BY GERARD E. SHERRY
There is no doubt a struggle going on within
the Church between the traditionalists and the
progressives; the liberals and the convervatives
the Johannists and the pre-Johannists. What
ever fresh air was being circulated through
the “open windows” by the late Pope John is slow
ly being bottled up again. The signs are omin
ous.
Let’s take a look at a few of these signs.
First there is the re-vamped Council Press
Panel in Rome heavily weighted against pushing
anything but the traditional viewpoint. There are
the stringent new
rules for the panel
which obviously lim
it the Catholic pub
lic’s right to know.
Then there is the
sudden flooding of the
Catholic Press in
this country with all
kinds of dire warn
ings against so-call
ed zealots who would usurp authority.
One such article, published in the Sunday Visi
tor some seven weeks ago, was a blatant attempt
to intimidate anyone who wished to express him
self on the many pressing problems within and
without the Church. The author did a grave dis
service to the lay apostolate for he failed to dif
ferentiate between the crackpots and the genuinely
concerned among the clergy and laity. Signifi
cantly, the author comes from an area where only
one viewpoint is permitted by the authority con
cerned. He took refuge in generalities and did not
seem to worry that a lot of loyal laity were being
lumped together with the few who might deserve
condemnation.
ONE DETECTED that anyone who did not follow
the conservative or traditionalist line was anoisy
zealot “grossly uninformed.seriously irreverent,
misleading, rebellious...” etc. It further seems
that the ignominious “zealot” can change his spots
only by retiring to the relative calm of the “sub
merged layman.”
There was a time when the layman was being
castigated for his apathy and his lethargy; now
that he has discovered his rightful place in this
marvelous family to which Christ has called him,
some people have resorted to panic. Indeed,
they openly called for a return to the good
old days when they could run things on their own
without interference and in relative calm.
“Emerging Laymen” have created problems
for the Church and its leaders. Some have learn
ed to co-exist and encourage the laity to their
rightful place in the Mystical Body. Others vi^fW'
the “new breed” with alarm and use the weight
of their authority to silence any expression of
* Holy Liberty.” Yet one can truthfully say that
only where “holy Liberty” is stifled does one
find an abundance of crackpots in Catholic
life.
I THINK the question boils down to this: most
of the traditionalists within the Church insist
on a world of “either or” while progressives
valiantly struggle to maintain a realistic world
which includes the “both-and” dichotomy.
“Either liberty or authority,” “either freedom
or obedience,” “either the Church or conscience”
These seem to be the simple alternatives that
express the reality of our traditionalist fri
ends, The progressives, on the other hand, see a
less definitive setting of “both freedom and obe
dience.” “both liberty and authority,” “both
the Church and consicence.”
The traditionalists would have us believe that
only one viewpoint is permitted within the Church;
and the newspapers of their dioceses reflect this
rigid, hard stance. Are they not aware that Pope
Pius XII told U, S. Catholic editors in 1958
that outside of faith and morals there was a
vast field where diversity of opinion was per
mitted within the Church? Listening to some Cath
olic officials, one would get quite an opposite
view.
ADMITTEDL\, there are tensions within
the Church. But each era of her history bears
witness to the dynamic tensions between the var
ious tendencies. As far back as the Apostles
this life-giving dialogue was a factor. St. Paul
had to fight to assure the easy access of the
Gentile converts, while some others fought to
bind them to the Mosaic Law.
SA VE SOUTH VIETNAM
Your World And Mine
REAPINGS
AT
RANDOM
BY GARY MacECIN
As I reported last week from Vietnam, the mil
lion refugees from the Communist north are
pessimistic about their future in their new
homes in the south. If (as they fear) the Ho
Chi Minh regime swallows up the entire coun
try, they will be the principal losers. Com-
unist vengeance is proverbial, especially when
— as here — the punishment of the traitor can
be used to impress on others the folly of at
tempt- to esfape the wave of the future.
How serious is the danger of a Communist
take-over? I found nobody in
Vietnam prepared to deny that
it is real. This does not, of
course, mean that we are on
the verge of another Dien Bien
Phu. Unlike the French in the
post-war period, the United
States is not militarily over
extended in Vietnam. As our
air-sea forces have just de
monstrated in the Gulf of Ton
kin, we can almost without effort match force
with force.
IT IS even conceivable that we could in
crease the pressure until the war became so
expensive for the Communists that they would halt
their infiltration tactics. This, however, is un
likely while the battlefield is confined to South
Vietnam. And to escalate the war by extending
it to the supply lines in Laos and Cambodia and
to the staging areas within North Vietnam,
quite apart from the risk of global nuclear
confrontation entailed would commit the Unit
ed States to a major conflict in an area that
military prudence would hardly select.
Let us, however, take the most optimistic
possibility and assume that our present polic
ies will achieve a military success. What then?
Then it becomes even more obvious than at
present that a military solution is meaningless
except as a prelude to a political solution. In
this sense President de Gaulle is as frust-
ratingly right as usual. We have provided
another breathing space, but we have not solv
ed the problem of Vietnam.
What are the political facts that would survive
a military victory? Perhaps the most basic is
that the Communists in the north have suc
ceeded in creating, by a combination of ter
ror, brainwashing and imaginative enthus
iasm, a dynamic support for their system, es
pecially among the young;. The “volunteers”
they send south do not desert. They can con-
mand the same support from the country people
CONTINUED ON PAGE 5
Too many appear to equate the changeable
human shell of the divine deposit with the un
changeable kernel. For instance; the initial con
demnation of St. Thomas Aquinas was occas
ioned by the failure to distinguish between
the Faith and the Platonic philosophy in which
it had been clothed for a long. Because St. Tho
mas wished to enlist Aristotle into the ser
vice of the Faith, he was condemned; because he
had in no way endangered the Faith, but had given
it a new defence, he was later canonized,
MANY OF our leading progressive theolo
gians and laity presently under attack are in a
similar position. They are accused of being
“Zealots” simply because their conscience
cannot permit them to accept the status
quo. Let us remember that not too long ago,
the traditionalists were attacking people like
Msgr. Heliriegel of St, Louis and Father Diek-
mann of St. John’s Abbey, along with a host of
lay supporters of their pioneer efforts at litur
gical reform. They were all derided as “zea
lots” “crackpots” and ‘Titniks”.Today the litur
gy pioneers are vindicated with much of what they
sto<xi for incorporated in the new Liturgical
Constitution. The same thing will happen for many
of those scoffed at today for being “zealots.
Tomorrow they wil 1 be recognized for what
they are—loyal sons of the Church,