Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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,