Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 4 GEORGIA BULLETIN THURSDAY, JULY 22, 1965
the
Archdiocese of Atlanta
SERVING GEORGIA S 71 NORTHERN COUNTIES
Official Organ of the Archdiocese 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 Kieman
ASSOCIATE EDITOR Rev. Leonard F. X. Maybew
Member of the Catholic Press Association
2699 Peachtree N. E.
P. O. Box 11667
Northside Station
Atlanta, Georgia 30305
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
Death Penalty?
One of the best inventions of
American democracy is present
ly at work here in our State on a
matter of the utmost seriousness.
A committee of the State legis
lature is conducting public hear
ings to determine the will of the
citizens of the State regarding the
death penalty for criminals. We
congratulate the legislature for
its willingness to come to grips
with this important and thorny
question. We strongly urge the
citizens of our State to take
very seriously their duty to give
the question thoughtful conside
ration and to express their ma
ture judgment on the matter.
Without in any way wishing to
enter the arena of practical pol
itics, we feel a responsibility to
speak on the subject at this time.
For the sake of clarity, it should
also be stated that we make no
pretense of speaking authorita
tively for the Catholic Church.
Ecclesiastical teaching authority
has not defined a particular posi
tion with regard to this matter.
Catholics are free to give the
question serious thought and to
draw a conclusion from the moral
principles of the Christian faith.
We feel a grave responsibility to
exercise this freedom and to con
tribute to the discussion.
bos
The authority to inflict pun
ishment is' inseparable from the
authority to legislate. Legisla
tive authority does not merely
offer counsels to the citizens of
a community; it obliges and, if
need be, coerces compliance with
its just mandates. State authori
ty may, and indeed must, punish
criminals, not blindly but only for
the achievement of definite ends
which serve the common good.
Punishment may never be in
flicted for the sake of vengean
ce. To the Christian, ven
geance is always immoral.
Therefore, we cannot agree that
capital punishment may be exe
cuted in order to repay the crim
inal for his misdeeds. The no
tion of revenge is degrading, even
on a purely human level, even
when it is dressed up j.n the cus
tomary cliche of “paying one’s
debt to society.’*
The punishment of crime has
for one of its principal ends the
protection of society, as well as
the encouragement of obedience
to law and respect for the rights
of others. To protect society it
is frequently necessary to re
move a criminal from the com
munity. This, however, is only
part of the story. Punishment of
a guilty person aims also to de
ter the potential criminal. The
Christian must certainly add to
these purposes the humane and
charitable hope to rehabilitate
the criminal and to restore him to
a sane and productive position in
the community. This aspect of a
moral approach to penal law is
equally as important as any other.
It does, however, add a vexing
complexity to the problem.
The repetition of slogans and
recounting the lurid details of
criminal history will generate
intense heat but no light around
the decisive issues. Indeed, in
flamed emotion will impede rea
sonable discussion. On the other
hand, purely sentimental attacks
on the death penalty often appear
totally innocent of objective rea
soning. They seem devoid of
concern for society and seem to
reduce unduly the area of moral
responsibility. We havetowres-
tle with this complicated ques
tion in a reasonable, moral and
practical fashion.
Does capital punishment serve
the legitimate purposes of crim
inal law^ from a humane and
Christian viewpoint? The answer
is complex. It certainly protects
society from all possible further
attacks of' a particular criminal
by removing him from the com
munity definitively. However, as
in the matter of an individual’s
self defense or in a defensive
war on the part of a nation, the
least violent and still effective
means are mandatory. It is
clearly possible to remove crim
inals from society, even perma
nently, by other-less violent
means than the death penalty. Life
imprisonment, for example, does
not involve the horrifying possi
bility of irrevocable injustice tot
a falsely condemned, although in
nocent, person. Therefore, on the
basis of the protection of society,
capital punishment does not seem
justifi able.
It is obvious that concern for
the criminal’s rehabilitation is
completely ignored when the
death penalty is invoked. From
this point of view it seems that
a ruthless*arid vujJ-ChiyLsU^n, de
spair lies atwiiSiibot fiilf $e.aeafc??.
penalty. It is insupportable to the
Christian conscience that we
should completely and utterly
abandon hope concerning the con
science of a fellow human being
and take it on ourselves to end the
years of his mortal life given him
by his Creator and ours.
The moral argument regarding
the death penalty, then, may fin
ally be reduced to one question --
a question not easy to answer.
Does capital punishment deter the
commission of serious crime? If
it does accomplish this end in a
noticeably more effective way
than any other means, then it
could possibly be justified as a
legitimate means of self-defense
on the part of the community. If
it does not deter serious crime
any more effectively than the less
violent punishments at the dis
posal of the civil authorities, then
it cannot conceivably be morally
justifiable. The answer to these
questions can come only from a
knowledge of the facts. The facts
indicate, at the very least, that
it is highly doubtful that the
death penalty deters would-be
murders, traitors or kidnappers.
Granted that there are different
opinions concerning the implica
tions of the facts, in cases of
doubt it would appear obligatory
to choose the safer and less dras
tic approach.
Experience seems to indicate
that the death penalty is not nec
essary. European nations and
other States in our own country
which do not practice capital
punishment do not have a notice
ably higher rate of serious crime.
We, therefore, urge the legis
lative committee investigating
the matter of capital punishment
to give serious consideration to
the moral questions they are
raising. We feel obliged, in the
name of humanity, of justice, of
Christian hope and love above
all, to urge the legislature to
abolish capital punishment and to
take those steps to adjust our
penal system that seem dictat
ed by reason and conscience.
7WESE SAFE DR/VERS
DR/VE ME MTS/
Devil’s-eye View
GEORGIA PINES
Integrating Police
BY REV. R. DONALD KIERNAN
The appointment of a Negro as the first Chief
of Police in Georgia caused quite a stir of com
ments last week all over the United States. Like
any controversial subject there are the pro's and
con's on the issue, but far and wide the image of
this state as one doing something in a concrete
way to rid itself of bias and prejudice has gained.
The importance of this appointment is noted by the
fact that it gained front page coverage in many
newspapers and merited nation wide coverage on
the radio media.
I know that this great problem will not be solved
with the writing of this small article, nor can it
be denied that excesses and abuses have been
present on all sides, but these times call for
mutual understanding, mutual cooperation and
mutual sacrifices.
$
The’" fact that this individual
is the commanding officer of
one of Georgia’s smallest po
lice force (two men) is unimpor
tant; the important fact lies in
the knowledge that it is possible
for a person in a minority
race to obtain a position of
civic importance and responsi
bility.
THE NEGRO community forms a large segment
of Georgia’s population. There have been no
logical reasons why this race has been excluded
from certain jobs. Education, or rather the lack
of it, has often been advanced as the reason why
Negroes have been excluded from the field of law
enforcement. Atlanta, long ago, initiated a top
rated'e^datio5'|)'H^lhi' : 6S¥ 3 Sife 0 p61i^fei'’'fiegr l oe'sr
employed by the department of police, attend this
school and currently are serving in the detective
division (which is considered a promotion) and
as superior officers in the uniform division.
CRAWFORDVILLE is a small community south
of Athens, Georgia. For some time now it has
been the scene of racial strife. I am sure that
there are those who will claim that the 'Town
Fathers” took the easy way out by putting the
proverbial monkey on someone else’s back.
No doubt, too, there will be those members of
both races who will cite favoritism to the opposite
side when an unpleasant task has to be perform
ed.
When the notorious "fee system” was state
wide, and police jobs were handed out as political
patronage it is easy to see and understand how the
custodians of our law were so closely identified
as politicians rather than dedicated law enforce
ment officers. But a series of programs has been
initiated and are currently underway in this state
to upgrade the professional competence of law en
forcement agencies. The institutes conducted at
the University of Georgia’s Center for Continuing
Education, the conferences conducted by the Fed
eral Bureau of Investigation are but two programs
designed to educationally advance the law enforce
ment officer.
Some people are totally ignorant of police
regulations all together. It is not the chief or the
individual policeman who makes the laws of a
community, nor is it up to his discression as to
whom these laws ’ should apply. The chief of po
lice is the manager, so to speak, of the police
department. It is his sworn duty to enforce the
laws of a community which have been enacted
by the elected representatives of the people.
When a law is unjust, it is the responsibility
of the people to see that it is changed. From
personal experience I know that many times our
police are called upoti to perform personally dis
tasteful tasks, but with loyalty to the oath of their
office these tasks must be performed without
favoritism, bias or personal consideration.
Presently an Academy of Police is being built in
this state. Suggestions have been made that all
police officers meet a professional and educational
competence standard before being employed as a
law enforcement officer in Georgia, no matter
how small the town may be. However, no matter
what efforts are made along these lines these
aims will be in vain if personal prejudice were to
exclude any race from enterence into this acade
my . How can law and order itself be effectively
and admirably administered if the organization
itself if identified with bias, prejudice and seg
regation?
A LAW ENFORCEMENT agency is but a farce
if inhuman obstacles are set up to purposely ex
clude from employment a man who is morally,
professionally and educationally competent to be
come a dedicated law enforcement officer.
PLAYING WITH FIRE
Your World And Mine
BY GARY MacEOIN
Colombia is in the throes of a multiple crisis.
The peso has fallen from 9 to 20 to the dollar in
a few months. Production is stagnant. A third of
income from imports must go to repay foreign
loans this year.
But there is a deeper crisis, a crisis of in
stitutions. A stalemate exists between President
Valencia and the Congress, open conflict between
the President and his cabinet, fragmentation of the
political parties on the basis of
personalities, and widespread
lack of public confidence in the
entire system.
Six years ago, Colombia's
voters overwhelmingly endor
sed a pact to end partisan
politics for 16 years and form a
coalition government to put the
country on its feet. But the
squabbling, jockeying for position and the per
sonalities continued in Congress.
Then came elections to Congress last year.
The politicians correctly proclaimed that de
mocracy was on trial. They even got the Cardi
nal Archbishop of Bogota to remind the Catholics
of this most Catholic country of their duty to vote.
And what happened? Two-thirds of the voters
stayed home, finding no choice between the coali
tion and its opponents. Of those who voted, only
23 percent supported the coalition.
The politicians were set back against last De
cember by industry's pact with organized labor
under threat of a general strike. Industry had
first called on the government,, as usual, to curb
CONTINUED ON PAGE 5
PAPAL CONCERN
Crisis Of
Authority
BY GERARD E. SHERRY
The crisis over obedience to and respect for
authority is one of the main concerns of Pope
Paul VI, In the past several months he has fre
quently alluded to the subject in discourses to
visitors and in his talks at the weekly General
Audiences in St. Peter’s Basilica. His talk of
last Wednesday went into a little more detail
when he urged that the idea of ecclesiastical au
thority be deepened and purified.
The Pope
em
phasized that au
thority within the
Church is basi
cally pastoral;
that it is exercis
ed in the service
of the faithful; but
that this service
is not a "servile
instrument” subordinated to those
REAPINGS
AT
RANDOM
served. And
the pontiff noted what he felt was a growing lack
of respect in certain circles. He said:
"...there is no lack of able persons who, per
haps without saying it openly, delude themselves
that they can be excellent or at least sufficiently
good Catholics while reserving for themselves an
absolute autonomy of thought and action, cutting
themselves off from every positive relationship,
not only of subordination but also of respect and
connection, with whoever in the Church has office
of responsibility and direction.”
THERE I NO DOUBT that there is a growing
dissatisfaction with some aspects of the exercise
of authority by some leaders within the Church.
But I think it has less to do with doctrinal de
cisions than it has in areas where diversity of
opinion is permitted. Pope Paul made it clear
that authority "does not mean rigid conformi
ty.” Yet much of the current uneasiness is be
cause some in authority are demanding (outside
of faith and morals) such conformity.
Karl Rahner, the Jesuit Theologian recently re
marked that "ecclesiastical authority must al
ways realize that, although the people of the Church
are duty-bound in their obedience to that authori
ty, they are not therefore devoid of all rights over
the ecclesiastical authority. Those in authority
must always remember that not all of their ac
tions are necessarily correct or willed by God.”
Father Bahner's viewpoint is not in conflict
with the caution that is manifested in Pope Paul's
recent remarks on the subject. The Pope is con
cerned with the fact that some clergy and laity
are confusing “Holy Liberty” with a secularis-
tic form of freedom which denies to competent
authority jurisdiction in areas in which it alone
can rule. Pope Paul put it this way:
'THIS IMPRESSION '6f authority'll rhade more
* vividfcfceE&j atiffie? eenteSiofcthe Caffi<M!id'€fiii®?-eh,
where aH'hi£rarchical powers are- linkedf and •
where the degree of ecclesiastical authority is
greater. This can give rise to two further im
pressions which are in contrast to one another.
One is the impression of the contentment and se
curity typical of those who have the good fortune
of being part of and of appreciating the commun
ion in which they live, that is to say of belonging
as living and organic members to the Mystical
Body of Christ, the Church. Here one realizes
better its united and universal structure. Here
one recognizes its functionality, established by
Christ, whereby the chosen brother is made the
instrument and channel of divine gifts for the
brother. The other impression, however, is one
of fear and diffidence, as if the hierarchical and
authoritarian order worked toward abasing the
personality of the follower, as if it were a human
invention contrary to the brotherly equality which
is to be found in the welcoming and practical
recognition of authority, is continually questioned
as being contrary to the development of the hu
man person, as being unworthy of free, mature
and adult human beings.”
I would suggest that those in conflict with' au
thority, while loud in their protests, are but a
small minority. They represent the extremes in
both the progressive and traditionalist wings of the
Church. The overwhelming body of Catholics
are quite content to be governed in the way Pope
Paul asserts they should be governed. This does
not mean that disagreement (outside of faith
and morals) is necessarily a challenge to au
thority. Yet there is danger that valid criticism
will be taken to be just that by those who use the
weight of their office and authority outside its
proper domain.
EVEN THE U. S, Aid officials got disgusted.
Adepts at window-dressing, the Colombian politi
cians quickly got in line for Alliance for Progress
help by turning in the "program of economic and
social development” required of each country un
der the Charter of Punta del Este, But the pro
gram remained mostly on paper, and the Aid of
ficials refer less and less to Colombia as the
showcase of the Alliance.
SUBORDINATES in the Church do have rights
and Pope Paul has made this clear time and time
again. The call for reform and renewal has stir
red the Catholic faithful into action and concern.
And those who have had to "rule alone” have,
for the most part, welcomed this stirring. But
some resent it; perhaps because they are not
ready for /vTiatever the reason, it has created
tensions; but not enough to warrant the stif
ling or the curbing of valid expressions of Lay
concern. Yet not enough thought is given by those
in authority to the obvious abuses in this area.
In some ecclesiastical jurisdictions in this
country, diversity of opinion (and outside of faith
and morals) is not permitted in official cir
cles. Viewpoints which are perfectly in con
formity with Catholic thinking are not permitted
to be voiced at meetings of diocesan groups; they
are also barred from the news or editorial col
umns of the diocesan newspapers involved. Men
and ideas are banned in these jurisdictions for
no other reason than the authority involved has a
different point of view. Indeed, there i s an "offi
cial’' view imposed on the faithful in areas where
the Church has never ruled and a variety of
"Catholic'’ opinions can legitimately be held.
Father Rahner points out that no one has the
right to resist authority "if it is exercised in Its
proper domain, for God has guaranteed that the
authority will not abuse its formal right in a ma-
CONTINUED ON PAGR 5
I I
€H