Newspaper Page Text
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 31, 196-4 GEORGIA BULLETIN PAGE 5
ON LAY VOCATIONS
Theological Formation
REV. LEONARD F. X. MAYHEW
The idea that the entire Church, the whole
body of the believing faithful, has a contribu
tion to make to the understanding of revealed
doctrine, is not a new notion in Catholic theo
logy. Christ’s promise to keep his Church
from error extends, in one way or another,
to the entire aggregate of the Mystical Body.
Clearly, this guarantee applies in a very spe
cial way to the successors of the Apostles-
the Pope and Bishops - who bear the responsi
bility of being the authentic teachers within the
Christian community. For
many valid reasons the teach
ing authority of the hierar
chy has had to be given
primary emphasis over the
centuries, especially when true
doctrine has been attacked by
heresies.
Nevertheless, it has always
been recognized that the whole
Christian people will be kept
from erroneous beliefs regarding matters
contained in divine revelation. This does not mean
that individual members of the Church - or
even, large segments of the faithful - may not
be led astray In matters of faith. Experience
shows that this can happen and has happened
again and again. The truth is that, when the entire
Church believes a doctrine to be divinely re
vealed, this Is Indeed an indication that such a
doctrine does form part of the body of Catho
lic truth. One of the most important pieces
of evidence leading to the definition of the
Assumptoin of Mary was the constant and uni
versal belief of the Christian people in this
doctrine.
The emphasis of contemporary theology on
the Church as the people of God and on the sac
red dignity of the layman within the Church
adds another possible facet to this considera
tion.
THERE IS a growing conviction that the laity—
and, indeed, each segment of the Christian
community- can make additional, positive con
tributions to theology and to the understand
ing of Catholic doctrine. This should be true
particularly in terms of specific kinds of
personal and sacramental experience.
Can the Church possibly hope to form an ade
quate theology of the various aspects of the
“lay” vocation without consulting the exper
ience of those directly involved in such a vo
cation? This seems particularly true con
cerning the Sacrament of Marriage and the
Christian vocation consequent upon it. There
is a widespread conviction that our conven
tional presentation of the doctrine of mar
riage is one-sided, legalistic, defective in its
appreciation of inter-personal relationships and
the place of sex in Christian marriage.
MANY MARRIED Catholics feel that the terms
in which the Church’s teaching is presented
are almost completely removed from their
experience and their aspirations as Christian hus
bands and wives. This is not to imply that the
Church’s teaching Is not-true; it is meant to sug
gest that it may well be incomplete because it
has not drawn sufficiently from one import
ant source of understanding.
Two things are needed. Both seem to be making
a tentative beginning. The teaching Church -
theologians, bishops, pastors - needs to invite
the assistance of those who know first-hand the
framework, demands and difficulties of the
Sacramental vocation of marriage. Married
Catholics in turn need to grow in theological
awareness and commitment so that their contri
bution to Catholic truth will be constructive.
Here is one more dialogue to be encouraged.
QUESTION BOX
Satirizing
BY MSGR. J. D. CONWAY
Q. A friend of mine told me that during the
sermon at church last week the priest announc
ed a parishioner’s birthday. Then everyone
stood and sang “Happy Birthday." Could this
be true?
A. Could be; some are carried away by new
freedoms. On the other hand, your friend may be
snidely satirizing the new liturgy.
when they get old and are not able to perform
their duties anymore? I said they would go to a
home for all aged priests. But
a friend gave me an argument
and said; They have no place to
put them.
A. Some dioceses do have
homes foraged, retired priests.
But in many places it is a
problem each man must work
out for himself, usually with
some help from the bishop.
Q. I have been confined in a mental hospital.
Whtle there I received Communion, although I
did not go to confession the second time. The
Priest attending followed the same procedure with
other patients. Is this considered a true Com
munion? How will I go about making my next
confession?
A. Of course it is not necessary to go to con
fession before each Communion you receive. As
long as you remain in the state of grace you
may receive Communion dozens of times with
out going to confession. You should make your
next confession in the usual manner- unless you
think there was some serious sin you commit
ted before your second Communion. If so you
explain that to the confessor.
Q. We are taught that having Masses said
for the departed souls helps to reduce their
punishment or time to be spent in purgatory.
If this is so, how do you answer the following
question:
Let us take two men who live about the same
life, and die with about the same punsihment to
be accounted for. The one dies and leaves $1000
for Masses and on top of this he has hundreds
of relatives who have Masses said for him. The
Liturgy?
other dies and has no money for Masses and
does not have a single relative or friend in the
world. Are we to believe that the first will
get out of purgatory much more qucikly be
cause of all the Masses said for his soul? This
would just be too hard to believe, but no priest
has ever given me a satisfactory answer.
A. There is just one answer which satis
fies me; the handling of all problems of this
kind is done by our divine Redeemer and Judge,
Christ. He is loving, just, kind and fair
beyond our calculations or imagination of any hu
man person. No one will get into purgatory or
out of purgatory except by the infinite merits
of His own death on the Cross joined with the
triumph of His own resurrection. And it is He
who applies these saving and sanctifying merits
without preference or prejudice.
If you want my own opinion, I am confident
that there is much spiritual socialism practic
ed in these matters; much taking from the rich
to give to the poor. Read again the story of the
rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16, 19-31. Re
call that strange comparison of the rich man’s
chances of getting int o heaven with the camel’s
passing through the needle's eye. Review our
Lord’s words to the good young man of great
wealth, in Matthew 19, 16-22. Remember that
“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the
kingdom of heaven.” And keep in mind our Lord’s
own evaluation of the widow’s mite in compar
ison with the rich gifts the wealthy were donat
ing to the temple. It is the same Jesus who will
evaluate our spiritual readiness to enter hea
ven.
Masses offered for the souls in purgatory have
great value - inestimable value; but they do not
liberate a soul in mechanical or electronic
manner, which can be weighed, measured or tim
ed.
For years I have prayed that the early
Mass during the week be exchanged for an eve
ning Mass. The morning Mass administers to
a handful of old women and men, and denies
that working class daily Mass and Communion.
How beautiful our religion would be if this were
possible. Families could join together and really
grasp our faith more and really know it and feel
it.
Q. -At'”r dinner for ofur church the subject Jesu
came - •'tip: What happens to our parish priests
SUPPORT FOR VIETNAM
Your World And Mine
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 4
vating belongs to them, that they own it free and
clear, without rent or other payment.’’
IT IS AN extreme measure, but it is pre
cisely what the Communists promise them when
they win. By itself, in Mr. Buttinger’s view,
it is not enough. It would simply be discarded
as me-tooism. It must be accompanied by what
the Communists are not today able to provide, a
prospect of peace.
“Peace involves compromise,” says Mr.
Buttinger. “That does not however, imply neu
tralization as proposed by President de Gaulle.
We can compromise on co-existence which will
enable the south to sell to the north its surplus
food, the thing the north most needs. Now, 1
believe that the Communists will reject such a
compromise because they need war to gain their
objectives. If they do, we shall have gained the
psychological initiative. We shall have not only
the Vietnamese peasants on our side but also a
world opinion which today is almost univer-
ally hostile,”
Can South Vietnamese leaders be persuaded to
undertake such a program? Professor Wesley
Fishel of Michigan State University believes they
could. A one-time adviser to the late President
Ngo Dinh Diem, Dr. Fishel has spent more than
half of the past ten years in Vietnam, his most
recent visit being in November 1964.
“CONDITIONS in Saigon were never so bad,”
he says. “There is a lack of popular support
for the government, a lack of leadership, a
lack of administration, a lack of responsibility
and an absence of justice. But that is not the entire
picture. There Is still a resilience among the
Vietnamese, a toughness, a fire, similar to what
we saw in the past. There are element in the
society which desire desperately to save the in
dependence of their country. They are anti
communist. They are ready for sacrifice. They
would accept land reform. They would give their
lives.”
If such elements in fact exist, it is time to ask
what is wrong with our policies. We certainly
are not using them.
Saints in Black and White
ST. PHILIP BENIZI
114
Across
1 medley
5 baseball player
9 row
13 boa
14 malingerer
15 set system
16 ens
17 confessed
18 once (Scot.)
19 lamb
20 kind of light
21 trap
24 jrtltle he was given
25 D. D. E.
27 favorable vote
28 niton; abbr.
29 God of War; Gr.
Myth
31 habit
32 three-toed sloth
33 city in Ohio
36 beginner
*0 place where he was
bern
*3 grain
45 twilled cloth
46 crude
47 desrrtcr
48 strew
f>o comb, form; nil
52 an insect
53 negative
55 rueful
•36 "Thin Man" dog
60 like.
62 bowler
54 pepper shrub
65 Indite 31
56 he became —of 34
his order 35
60 resident of 37
70 accent 38
71 continuous 39
72 poker stake 40
74 curl 41
75 thatch grass 42
76 land measure 43
77 delicacy 44
78 waste allowance 48
79 geology period
80 shower
l>own 49
1 he died on the
(day) of the 51
Assumption 52
2 reclined 54
3 male name 57
4 about
5 siege
6 bother e?
7 tolcl fin
8 comparative ending
9 change
10 early center of R7
Celltc Church
11 eternal (arch.)
12 rearrange
13 Jibe
16 S. A. wildcat 70
17 divide into 3 equal 73
parts 74
22 Excelsior State; abbr76
23 main 77
26 personality
30 strings; music, abbr
68
pert, to arm bone
over; poet,
faction
chafe
religion; abbr.
unlock
to and —
escape
possess
manage
sesame
The Order of
was founded the day
he was born
Teacher’s Associa
tion; abbr.
become an heir
reptile
paddle
as an infant he had
the gift of
pester
pismires
factor
cut off
Chinese pagoda
Old Greek musical
note
delicate open
pattern
unruly child
‘‘Blue Eagle”
pewter coin
paid notice
a division of the
United Kingdom-
abbr.
ARNOLD VIEWING
Emily’s Americanization
JAMES W. ARNOLD
The virtues of “The Americanization of Emily”
could be submerged in one small frozen orange
juice can. But it is at least a blunderingly honest
outrage, and for sheer brass alone may rank as
the most significant movie of the year.
You start with a coventionally raucous but
perceptive war novel (by William Bradford
Huie) about a Navy PR mar. in England just
before D-Day whose contribution to victory is to
obtain wine, women and contraceptives for the
top brass. (” Americanization”
is a euphemism for what hap
pened to British girls while
their men were in North Africa).
His boss is a tough admiral
who sees, better than Ike and
George Marshall, what the Rus
sians are up to. At the end,
the hero makes a brave wand-
ing with the first invasion wave
to record the event on movie
film for future generations. But the main point
is that this amoral wheeler-dealer falls for a
sweet English girl named Emily, and what starts
out as sin ends up, not too surprisingly, as
love and marriage.
IN THE film, author Huie falls victim to the
messianic impluses of the scenarist, playwright
Paddy Chayefsky, once the workingman’s favo
rite TV dramatist ("Marty”). He turns the story-
on its head and uses it to. blurt out what better
movie artists have been suggesting, laboriously
and insidiously, for many months. It is as if
the Broadway intellectuals, after an all-night fling
at some tri-level hovel in Connecticut, had
finally decided to cut the kidding and hit the
squares right between the eyes.
On the surface, "Emily” has been merely
transformed into a tasteless cross between a
Jack Lemon, regular-heterosexual-guys-vs,-
the-admirals service comedy (with James Garner
playing Lemon) and the nastier, anti-military sat
ire of “Dr. Strangelove.” The first comes off
tolerably, for audiences who are attracted by that
sort of nonsense (and many are). But Chaye
fsky and director Arthur Hiller lack the courage
to follow through with the ferocity of "Strange
love” and compromise with a fudgy, sentimen
tal ending.
TO THEIR credit, Chayefsky and Hiller have
done their home work. Rarely has movie tried
to emulate so many other movies at one time.
The cliches are as thick as ducks at a wild
life refuge on the opening day of hunting sea
son. We have the bedroom wrestling matches,
the passionate amours interrupted (by count,
four times) for laughs, the outing on an idyl
lic Sussex pond followed by more wrestling
(in the woods), a long farewell in the rain,
the prim plain Jane transformed by a party-
dress (“this old thing?”), the humorous public
appearance of the hero in long underwear. We
also have characters from “McHale’s Navy,”
cruel GI cynicism from “The Victors,” and
much barefoot padding-aboutfrom “Tom Jones.”
But basically “Emily” tries to be a mani
festo for what passes for philosophy among the
current wits of the Theatrical Jet Set. The
dominant note this season seams to be all-
out existentialist assault on the possibility of
knowing truth.
(At the risk of encouraging paranoia, I have
noted an obsession with this theme in recent
films, including among many others “Charade,”
“The Outrage,” “The Best Man,” “The visit”
and “Lilith”).
Says Chayefsky’s hero; “Life isn’t good, bad,
or true, It’s a sensual fact. . . I want to know
what I am, not what I should be. . . I let God
worry about the truth. I’m not equipped to deal
with it. I just want to know the momentary fact
of things.”
THIS HEARTY skepticism allows him to pur
sue his pleasures where he finds them, with
no cruddy truths getting in the way. Emily, who
appears to be non-swinger, it immediately bran
ded a prig in films, the only fate worse than the
death. But no fear. Emily (Julie Andrews) is a
regular gal with a gallant historyof sympathy
to servicemen. After the week in Sussex, her
only spiritual comment: “Oh, Lord, I hope I
don’t get pregnant.” So much for the affirmation
of life
OLD AND NEW
Whisper On The Right
BY GARRY WILLS
The surprising impression got around, during
the Presidential campaign, that the conservative
position is intellectually second-rate. Surprising,
because it is true. (What other assumption aris
ing from that particular contest can make that
particular claim?) Conservatism is second-
rate, here and now, in the politics of Ame
rica.
This does not mean, of course, that the con-
ctpts labeled "conservative” are not worthy
of explication and acceptance. But these positions
remain unvindicated in the
world at large, and so—
rightly — unacceptable to the
voter. Even that nebulous thing,
the Great Society, was prefer
able. President Johnson ran on
the promise that he would make
us Greatly Sociable. Now that he
is certain that we want to have
k this quality, he Is gathering a
^ team of experts to find out what
It is.
It is, I am afraid, nothing more than the Big
Rock Candy Mountain, a childish vision of sugar
plums. But this dream is comparatively safe—
certainly more assuring than waking up and de
cidedly safer than the cloudy alternative
offered by Senator Goldwater. The real difference
between the two clouds on which we were asked
to drift away to dreamland is simply this; we
know that there are experts to whom President
Johnson can assign the task of assuaging our taste
for Candy Mountains. These experts have a public
record. Not a very good one, in most cases;
but at least it is there.
GOLDWATER was, by comparison, an iceberg
with nine tenths of its mass above the water—
a popular phenonenon expressing dissatisfaction
with the Establishment, but not adequately back
ed with solid, studied, debated, responsible, ide
ntifiable positions. The constant haggling over
Goldwater’s real views did not arise because he
had fluctuated more than any other politician.
It arose because this was a paper-thin operation,
There was no background debate, no consensus,
no conservative orthodoxy and heresies on the
important matters— on the problems of the Ne
gro, the farmer, the student, the parent, the
criminal, the judge, the tax-payer, the soldier.
One had to rely almost entirely on the speeches
and writings of Goldwater himself. Even his ghosts
were more wraithlike than most (though Gold-
water was refreshingly different in this, as
in many things— he gave credit to the ghostly
influences on his pen).
To unite these individual insights Into a pro
found philosophical challenge to the Estab
lishment will take the kind of honest study and
self-criticism that conservatives have not yet been
willing or able to Indulge in. It is not enough
to say that the present programs are a mess.
Most liberals will grant this—in public, some
times; in private, often. But to arrive at a corr
ective and corrected substitute for these programs
takes time and effort and imagination.
I WAS ASTONISHED to hear so many conser
vatives saying, after the Goldwater defeat, “What
can we do?” To those who asked me this ques
tion, I had different answers. To some, I said
“Weep.” To others, "Pray.” To a few, one could
quote the Brian Hookerized Cyrano: "Man does not
fight to win alone.” To even fewer, Lucan’s
great maxim;
Let gods shift, always, to the winning “side;
Cato to one (lost) cause liv’d true, and died.
Actually, it is obvious what conservatives must
do. They must create the body of thinking Gold-
water needed to fall back on, and could not. Li
berals are convinced that the nation is shaking to
the regimented tread of tennis shoes. But there
are very few intellectual tremors on the right,
and even fewer seismographs equipped to read
these rumblings. After all, it is essentially non
conservative to think that a movement can grow
up overnight and have the resources for ruling
a complex society like ours. It is non - conser
vative to hope for drastic change, to think in
terms of a “take-over”. It is non-conservative
to become compulsive pamphlet-peddlers, as
many “conservatives” did in this campaign. It
is non-conservative to join organizations like the
John Birch Society jus t because they give one busy-
work that can ease that itch to do something,
no matter how foolish.
THE GOLDWATER campaign was an extror-
dinary manifestation of the unrest that calls out
for a conservative opposition even before its
doctrines have been formulated. Intelligent oppos
ition is a duty not yet assumed by the right;.
Liberals themselves both desire and fear this
opposition. If for no other reason, conserva
tives should undertake this task of criticism
out of charity toward the liberals. Heaven knows,
they need critics.
What should the conservatives do then? They
should do their homework. No one else will do it
for them.
AGAIN LET me emphasize that there is a real
alternative to our present drift— a choice to be
made, not an endless echoing of points already
made and already grown obsolete. In fact, reali
stic appraisal of our situation has driven many
liberals into positions normally called "Con
servative.” Almost every conservative point
is defended (as an isolated point or exception)
by a prominent liberal. Thus, Max Ascoli and
Clean Acheson are conservatives on foreign
policy. So Is John Paton Davies on the UN. So
are John Fischer and Paul Goodman on educa
tion. Eric Hoffer on civil rights. Iriving Kris-
tol on the Welfare State, Justices White and Ste
wart qn the problem of crime and delinquency.
Harvard Professors Jaffe and Sutherland and Mc-
Closkey on the Sinaitic tendencies of the Supreme
Court.
"Buy Veur aim Frew Mai” *
Max metzkl. Owner
MAX’! MEN'I SHOPS
Peachtree Industrial Blvd.
ChamMee Rina Shopping Center
Phone 4S11U1
*T» Peaehtree. N.E.
Phon* TP 4-PM] _ m too at.
JUHAN'S CLEANERS
Expert • PereonaBaad *onrtoe
Given to Every Garment Oomlnf
Into Our Plant
US N. Mate at PO. 1.44*4
CWMe* rut. da
God Love You
BY MOST REVEREND FULTON J. SHEEN
What the Church owes to a beautiful 19-year-old girl 1 It was the
wealthy daughter of a silk manufacturer of Lyons, France, Pauline
. aricot, who founded a way of aiding the Missions which every Pon
tiff from Pius XI to Paul VI calls his own, namely, The Society for
the Propagation of the Faith. One day while watching two sanctuary
lamps, one slowly burning out,Pauline thought how wonderful it
would be for the full one to pour some of its oil into the needy ves
sel, Applying this to the Missions, she began organizing groups of
ten, each of which was to give a French sou (penny) to the Missions.
These ten were to gather ten more, and so forth.
The money she collected was not much
at first, but she gave it all to one mission
ary society in Paris which used it only
for its members who had missions in Asia.
Then in 1822, Pauline approached a wealthy
man of Lyons, Monsieur Coste, who refus
ed to aid her saying: “No I The distribu
tion is too exclusive. Would it not be better
to establish one collecting agency for the
entire world? There are poor missions every
where,” Pauline had already begun to think
that The Society for the Propagation of the Faith, which she found
ed, should be “Catholic”, and so she began serving the world.
In 1922, 100 years after its foundation, The Society for the Prop
agation of the Faith was moved to Rome by Pope Pius XL There it
was made the Church's own missionary society. It is the only mis
sionary society in the entire Church which aids the whole world.
The poor missions of the United States, for example, last year re
ceived $3,500,000. Latin America, the Near East, Africa, Asia,
Oceania - you name it - WHEREVER there are Missions, there
help is given.
When the Church moved the Society to Rome, the Holy Father
said: “Its purpose is to equalize aid.” When each society solicits
help, there is great inequality; some receive much and others little.
Rarely does one society give money to another society, so the
Church, which has to help everyone, was forced to have a society
such as The Society for the Propagation of the Faith.
When, therefore, the time comes to make your will, to take out
an annuity (and incidentally reduce taxes) or to make reparation for
your sins, give aid first to the Missions everywhere in the world.
As the Holy Father said, “The Society for the Propagation of the
Faith is first and principally to be aided.” The alms and sacri
fices are not invested, nor put in Wall Street or in stocks and
bonds. All alms received are distributed to the Missions of the
world that very year. Nothing is kept for investment. NOTHING I
This does not make worldly sense in this day when there is such a
tendency to pile up wealth, but itdoesmake heavenly sense. Write
to me about your annuity and your will and send alms. Nothing
you give the Holy Father for the poor of the world will end in a bank
valut or in investments. There are too many poor.
GOD LOVE YOU to a student for$l *T promised a donation and
public acknowledgement in thanksgiving to the Blessed Mother and
all the saints who helped me with my schoolwork.” ...to Anon.,
for $2 ”1 want to aid the Holy Father through the Missions and
send this offering for a Mass.”
The color of each of the WORLD MISSION ROSARY'S decades
symbolizes one of the five continents of the world where mission
aries are laboring to bring souls to Christ. Those of you who can
not go to the Missions can strengthen those who work in your place
by praying for them. To receive the WORLD MISSION ROSARY
which has been blessed by Bishop Sheen, send your request and an
offering of $2 to The Society for the Propagation of the Faith, 366
Fifth Avenue, New York, N, Y. 10001.
Cut out this column, pin your sacrifice to it and mail it to Most
Rev. Fulton J, Sheen, National Durector of The Society for the
Propagation of the Faith, 366 Fifth Avenue, New York, N, Y, 10001,
or to your Diocesan Director, Rev. Harold J. Rainey, P. O. Box
12047, Northside Station, Atlanta 5, Georgia.