Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.