The Georgia bulletin (Atlanta) 1963-current, October 14, 1965, Image 5

Georgia Historic Newspapers

The Georgia bulletin, October 14, 1965, Image 5

About The Georgia bulletin (Atlanta) 1963-current | View Entire Issue (Oct. 14, 1965)

Page of 8

Prev Issue Next Issue

Text PDF JP2 (3.9 MB) Clip/Print Image

Page of 8

Prev Issue Next Issue

Return to Top

Newspaper Page Textt I life THURSDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1965 GEORGIA BULLETIN PAGE 5 »» M »wi || ff rUr 1 ' .(ft® m* i* 10 Jn0 m w, 10* 0 w < , idsr ' VjP ‘SHOT IN THE ARM A Most Dramatic Day BY REV. LEONARD F.X. MAYHEW OCTOBER 4, 1965 undoubtedly ranks as one of the most dramatic days in the two thousand year history of the papacy and the Catholic Church. In person and through television and ra dio Pope Paul was seen and heard by more people, in thirteen hours, than most Bishops of Rome have contacted in whole lifetimes. The Holy Father revealed himself, beyond what most people pro bably expected, as a man of great warmth, in finite grace and deep, if disciplined, passion. In the midst of the dramatic excitement and'whirl wind pace of the day’s events, the Pope came through as a man of honest simplicity with a sincere sympathy for all people. American Catholics greeted the Pope’s visit with tremendous excitement tempered with awe, as was to be expected. Symbolically, at least, the papal visit marked one more step forward in the growing ma turity of the American Church. It would be difficult to imagine a more forceful reminder of the impossibility of isolation than the Pope’s visit to the Uni ted Nations. What their experi ence at the Vatican Council has accomplished for many Ameri can bishops, the papal visit on behalf of peace may have accomplished for many more of us. In Rome, the bishops have experienced the clo seness and inter-dependence of all parts of the Church and, indeed,' of all members of the human race. In pleading for peace in the one place where all the world’s peoples cooperate, however imper fectly, under the motto of peaceful understanding, the Pope stressed the same point before the eyes of all. Catholics who may have failed-to grasp the strong endorsements of Pius XII and John XXIII on behalf of the United Nations, can hardly have missed the point of Paul Vi’s dramatic gesture. Even the brevity of his visit, not to mention zhe disciplined passion of his words, stressed the importance he attaches to the work of the United Nations. We may feel certain that, ecumenically, the Pope’s pilgrimage on behalf of peace was of great value. There was a distinct feeling that Pope Paul personified in a unique way not only the Roman Catholic Church but the entire Christian family. The message he brought to the UN delegates was one in which all Christians could join. He made a special point of mentioning that several other churches and religious groups had asked him to speak for them. His warm welcome by representa tives of all faiths after the U.N. visit was a clear sign of the new spirit among the churches. A Pres byterian clergyman remarked to me, as he watched the Pope's progress through New York, that he could definitely feel himself a part of the event, that he was also represented by the Pope. A few years ago, he added, this would not have been the case. The peace among religious men of goodwill that is such a blessing upon our times formed an important background for what Paul VI said and did in New York. For the United Nations itself Pope Paul’s visit may be described, without irreverence, as a much needed shot in the arm. The international body has no power or resources except the moral weight of its voice and the fluctuating good will of its mem bers. By its charter it stands for peace and the welfare of all mankind in an era which has known no continuous peace. The delegates of the United Nations, surely conscious of the difficulty of their task, were understandably deeply moved by the Pope’s "solemn moral ratification of this lofty institution." GOOD NEWS Need Eucharist Sign BY MARY PERKINS RYAN AT MASS ONCE, in a small church, I heard a child,whowasquite close to thealtarand watching everything the priestwas doing with rapt attention, whisper loudly as the priest broke the Host and then dropped a piece into the chalice, "What’s he doing, Mother, dunking it?” This “commingling" after the priest says, "Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum” is, cer tainly one of the least easily understood gestures in the Mass as we have jt noyv. , . , Originally, scholars tell, at*a papal of episcopal Mass, the Pope or bishop would send, by acolytes, a particle of the Eu charistic Bread consecrated at his Mass to the priests of the vicinity and each would drop this particle, called thefermentum, into his chalice at this point in the Mass. This custom was an expression of the unity of the Church ineach dio cese, and of the fact that the Eucharist is the bond of unity of the church, and thdf "all the people of God subject to a bishop should, if it were pos sible, be gathered around that bishop’s altar and receive the Sacrament from his table of sacri fice” (Jungmann, The Mass of the Roman Rite). It is also thought likely that at one time in the Roman liturgy, the Pope would drop into the cha lice a particle from the Bread consecrated at the previous day's Mass, to show that each Mass is always Christ's Eucharist, the same Mass yester day and today. IT CERTAINLY isn’t much of a substitute to have the celebrant drop into the chalice a particle of the Host he has just consecrated at this Mass. But at least we can understand, and think about, its original meaning. A modern sign of unity, which seems to be very meaningful to priests, is the new rite of concele- bration, in which many priests take part, all saying the Preface and the greater part of the Canon together, and takingturns saying; the other Canon prayers, and all making gestures to show that they are truly con-celebrants. The ancient rite of thefermentum indicated that although there are many celebrations of the Mass, there is only one sacrifice, Christ’s Eucharist. Concelebration indicates that although there are many celebrants, there is only one priesthood, Christ’s, and only one sacrifice. The problem, it seems to me, with the present form of concelebration is that it leaves the con gregation feelflig "excluded out.” properly celebrated -modern J^ss ; wfth one celebrant, when the* congregation feels in some way gathered round the table of Christ presided over by His representative, engenders a real sense of unity — as did the ancient episcopal Mass celebrated by the bishop, assisted by his priest, with the congregation also gathered around the one table and the one "president." But this modern form of concelebration makes a layman in the con gregation feel, not that he is taking part in the holy meal of God’s family, but that he is watching a kind of head-table procedure in which he has no part. This sense is particularly acute whenoneis watching the concelebrants takingturns in drinking from the Chalice. One feels that this would be a very appropriate form of celebration for a small monastery or a priests’ retreat — but not for a Mass in which a congregation is taking part. YET WE DO need some kind of meaningful sign of the fact that the Eucharist is always Christ’s Eucharist, always one and always the bond of our unity, wherever and by whom it is cele brated. We need some sign to help us realize, at every Mass, that we are one with our fellow- Christians in a unique way when we are taking part in the Eucharist, that we are all gathered around Christ, our Priest and Leader, drawn closely together in the unity of His love, respon sible for one another and for building up the one Body to which we all belong, all we who partake of this one Bread. It will be interesting to see how the revision of the rites takes care of this need. COUNCIL STUDIES ATHEISM Your World And Mine CONTINUED FROM PAGE 4 many of them regard their atheism as an advance .... Christians are far too often supporters of a system that is gone, and are themselves too often the cause of atheism. Many Christians are opposed to the progress of the world, in spite of the fact that it is God’s express will that there should be more justice on earth.” CARDINAL KOENIG of Vienna agreed "His torically speaking, atheism spread because of the defects of Christians themselves. Many of them did not and do not have a right understanding of God and an exact view of man. Possible cures for atheism are intense cooperation to encourage Christian unity, efforts by the Church to promote social justice for all people without discrimina tion, and a struggle against religious ignorance. Priests and people must share the lives of atheists. Such are the true arms of the Christian.” Even stronger was the statement at a lecture in Rome of Father Paul Gauthier, head of a commun ity of worker priests in Nazareth, the man who first suggested to Pope Paul that he should visit the Holy Land. "Atheism may well be a road that must be taken,” he said, “as a purification of false religions, to reach the true faith. The mass es most frequently reject their religions because they see them as tied to the political, economic ARNOLD VIEWING Q. The first Holy Mass was celebrated in the evening, at the Last Supper. How come that Holy Mass is celebrated commonly in the morning? Don’t you think the aggiornamenti - updating - calls for the restoration of this celebration in the evening, and it seems that evening Masses were quite the usual thing for the first three or four cen turies. By the fourth century the custom was developing in many areas of celebrating the Sunday Mass at the "third hour,” which was about nine o’clock in the moming-a bit ear lier in summer, later in winter. However, until the high Middle ages the custom re mained of having Mass at the ninth hour on fast days - about 3 p,m. On days which were neither feasts nor fasts Mass was often said at the sixth hour: noon. And on Saturday of ember weeks Mass was celebrated at midnight, after a long vigil, and those who assisted at that Mass fulfilled their Sunday obligation. A. Now Mass may be permitted at any reasonable hour, and in most areas afternoon and evening Masses are increasing in number and popularity. Only one hour of fast is required before receiving Holy Communion, no matter what the hour of the Mass. ' *** Q. Recently a Presbyterian asked me why she cannot receive Holy Communion in a Catholic church if she happens to be in the church for Mass. The Presbyterian church encourages them to do this and says there is no reason why a Catholic cannot receive Communion in their church. A. Vatican Council II in its Decree on Ecumenism, after re commending that Catholics join their separated brethren in com mon prayers for unity, cautions us as follows: ‘.'Yet worship in common is not to be considered as a means to be used indiscriminately for the restoration of Christian unity. There are two main principles governing the practice of such common worship: first the bearing witness to the unity of the Church, and second, the sharing in the means of grace. Witness to the unity of the Church very generally forbids common worship to Christians, but the grace to be had from it sometimes com mends this practice.” In the same decree it is also noted, in slightly different con text, that: "Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism...” In other words, we must have deep respect for the faith and worship of our separated brethren, but we must be truthful and not deny the real differences which exist between us. We must not gloss over those differences in a mistaken spirit of good fel lowship. We must not pretend to be united when we are not. Gestures of unity are false when the true unity these gestures sig nify does not exist. We are working for unity; we have not yet achieved it, and to pretend otherwise is a dishonest hindrance to our work. Holy Communion is the greatest symbol of unity we have in our faith and worship; it joins each of us to Christ and all of us to each other. There can be no true communion unless there is union. We and Presbyterians do not have the same beliefs about Holy Communion. We share many beliefs about the Eucharist, but our differences are great and important. To join them in inter communion would deny, in action, the true significance of those differences. ‘Knack’ A Splendid Show BY JAMES W. ARNOLD ’THE KNACK,” to put it as antiseptically as possible, is a splendidly done film comedy atx>ut sex. It is, therefore, the kind of movie that gives Catholic moralists, critics, parents and moviego ers fits (as witness the near-Armageddon in the Legion of Decency, where reviewers split, 25 to 17, in favor of an adult A rating over a disap proving B or C). It is very much a young person's picture (that, too, complicates the problem), made in Britain by the brilliant director-photo grapher team of the Beatle films (Richard Lester and David Watkin), with the same kind of Pepsi generation zip and disrespect for one’s elders. It is about, very loosely, a pain fully eager young schoolteacher (Michael Crawford) who de sires to emulate a successful Don Juan neighbor (Ray Brooks) by learning his "knack” with the ladies. But he cannot be a rogue: he falls in love with the first girl he meets (Rita Tushingham) and struggles to keep her from falling into Don Juan’s harem. A number of things are clearly trueabout ‘The Knack”: (1) it is very funny, on several levels, and much of the delight has little to do with sex; (2) its use of the film medium, especially as an adaptation of a play, is so remarkably beautiful that it deserves to win a barrel of awards (it al ready has won the grand prize at Cannes); and (3) it is a devastating and appreciated satire on the sex obsession of the times, the Playboy philo sophy, etc. rr IS ALSO true that, in general, the film gets- its satire across without being victimized by its erotic subject matter. Like ’Tom Jones,” but unlike "Goldfinger” or "Moll Flanders,” ’The Knack” is able to spoof sex without presenting images of it that are so attractive as to lead the audience astray. For one reason, the girl is Miss Tushingham, and not Shirly Eaton or Kim Novak. For another, the director is satirist, not Peeping Tom. But let's also face an additional fact, the trouble some one. Insofar as it has a value system or implied meaning, the movie is incompatible with the Catholic view of the beauty and sacredness of sex. It is an attack on promiscuity, but from the viewpoint that non-marital sex makes sense only with love. The Catholic would say that it makes no sense at all, and consider the distinction rath er important. Along the way, the movie also uses sex often as a source of irreverent and juvenile humor, an approach jarring to a person of taste, much less of moral sensibility. A PHILOSOPHIC statement on mores, however, was probably far from the mind of the original author, British avant-garde playwright Annjelli- coe, whose notion is that a play should just hap pen and not "mean” anything. Her intention doubtless was to create a comic picture of the sexual predicament among "emancipated” Brit ish youth, and she had to present them as they are. In doing so she may shock those of us who are naive, but in providing the truth, she does us a moral as well as artistic service. The point remains that some forms of illicit sex are pre sented sympathetically and without satire. How should we react? ’The Knack” is not a unique dilemma for the Catholic who faces to day's popular arts, which often are created in an alien spirit and heavily influenced by the "new morality.” Some suggest we react by con demning those films that flout our moral teaching. Not to do so, they believe, is to become "amoral” or "ultra-sophisticated” - presumably, too sophisticated for our own good. But there is a more reasonable response, pre cisely the one chosen by the Legion majority. We hurt ourselves in condemning every art-work not completely compatible with our own moral viewpoint. There is dialog and exchange in art, too, and no one who would redeem the world should shut his eyes and ears and run from it. It is important to distinguish between those films that may honestly differ with us, but have some valuable aspect of beauty and truth to offer, and those that merely differ, or try to propagandize or subvert, or have nothing to give but cheap thrills. WE NEED, in short, to distinguish between ’The Knack,” which is alien to us but worth seeing, and "What’s New , Pussycat,” which would not ibe worth seeing under any circumstances. The reply may well be that in honestly pre senting a different kind of ethics, an easy and at tractive kind, ’The Knack” may subvert with out intending to, may even be more "danger ous” since it is artful, rather than clumsy. To this, one can say only that the mature person must live in the world every day, use what is good in it and reject what is bad. He needs art, and he must be trusted to use it with the same in telligence. The uncertain or immature person, on the other hand, needs protection, and this is exactly what the intelligent use of the A-4 rating achieves. But it is an imperfect world. What will prob ably happen is that adults will not see the movie, which would give them both absurd, meaningless fun (Lester is a genius of the truly cinematic sight gag, combining visual, sound and cutting to produce magical comic effects) and enormous in sight into the psychology of today’s youth. Instead they will spend the evening at the PTA worrying about bad movies and juvenile revolt. *OLD AND NEW 9 Don’t Canonize Newman BY GARRY WILLS SOME GOOD men are, for very good reasons, asking that Cardinal Newman be canonized. They think of this not only as a recognition of Newman’s spiritual greatness, but as a way of rehabilitat ing the very concept of sanctity. After all, the "devil’s advocate” will have a wealth of material to use during Newman’s “process” —his touch iness, suspiciousness, quick temper; his oscilla tions between despondent inaction and hard ag gressiveness; his satirical attitude toward eccles iastical powers-that-be (e.g„ Manning, Ward and Vaughan as "the Three Tailors ofTooly Street”) He was not, it is true, as irascible as Jerome, as harsh as Augustine, as devious as Ignatius; but probably these saints would be too “controversial" for canonization today. and social systems that oppress them.” As against such new approaches, there was the outright insistence of Cardinal Florit of Florence that what the Church must stress is man’s dehu manization by the atheism which is an integral part of dialectical materialism. He was echoed by Cardinals Ruffini of Palermo and Sirl of Genoa, who refuse to approve any admission of in adequacy by the Church in the execution of her mission.^ PERHAPS A MIDDLE way can be detected in the proposal of the Jesuit General, Father Peter Ar rupe, a proposal whose positive merits were over shadowed by his unfortunate and inadmissable comment that organized atheism holds almost complete sway in international organizations, fi nancial circles and the world press. Father Arrupe -recognized the central character of the threat of atheism. He identified the problem as not primarily philosophical but sociological. He proposed a shock program of training of militant Christians (expre ssing himself in traditional Jes uit terms) to permeate the society in which atheism thrives and give it Christian dimensions. Cardinal Koenig might not like the military ap proach, but in essence Father Arrupe is support ing his contention that priests and people must share the lives and experience of the atheists. Those advocating Newman’s ’’cause” feel that the simper ing holy-card saintliness would suffer a great blow if this com- I plex human being were allowed k , to make all the Roman machin- Bk _ HMI ery register "tilt* and yet vindicate his own greatness. I see their point; but I think they are probably too sanguine. CANONIZATION has a history like that ofmost Christian institutions — moving from a spontane ous early stage (when saints were brought into the liturgy by acclamation) through progressive sys tematizations. The spontaneous stage was, no doubt, open to abuse. In the early Church, the martyr-cult overshadowed every other devotion —including devotion toMary. This cult had pagan roots (not that there is anything wrong with that) — in antiquity’s literal hero worship, and in the classical adulation of athletes. (Praise of the martyrs leans heavily on language addressed to victors at the pagan games — as do Paul's re marks to the Corinthians, who were custodians of the Isthmian contest). So far, so good: it was reasonable to admire the martyrs, using what language of admiration was available. But superstition was never far behind. Any grave uncovered became a martyr’s grave, every bone become a martyr’s bone; so that an Egyptian abbot remarked that no one was allowed to die, any more, without'having his skeleton posthumously martyrized. Soon, new sects (like the Montan- ists) claimed the old saints, by way of visions; and pious embroiderers invented a reverse form of "science fiction" that makes the Roman breviary read, at times, like something written by the Mar quis de Sade. A simple primitivism, which re sents any ecclesiastical institutionalization, is clearly out of place here. Bishops had to fight superstition. The Carthaginian synod of 401 ord ered that part of the forest of "martyr altars” raised above African graves must be cleared away; and a more orderly certification of relics was demanded. Thus began the inevitable bureau cratizing of enthusiasm. Like all bureaucracies, the sanctity-bureau en trenched itself; and it has, over the centuries, increased its activities and diminished its effec tiveness. Saints-to-be need a powerful (and wealthy) lobby now — unless they represent some faction which it is politic to recognize (on the * “balanced-ticket" principle). Genuine local devotion may exist to the new African mar tyrs; but no one believes it was the acclamation of universal fervor that brought about their ele vation. On the other hand, it was apparently decided that Pope John’s interest in the cause of Pip Nono was impolitic. I have nothing against diplomatic gestures out of Rome; but it seems in appropriate to use reports on the population of heaven as pawns in our earthly efforts after jus tice. IN MODERN TIMES, credulity and scepticism have struck a strange bargain, typical of the dip lomat’s compromises: miracles are needed for canonization, but they must be scientifically cer tified. Soon, I suppose, computers will be put to work measuring miracles. Now, I am perfectly willing to believe in miracles; but I find it hard to believe in the certifying process. Surely I am not asked to accept die infallibility of modem medicine? I can swallow three miracles before breakfast, all right; but I hope I shall never be come so credulous as to believe in statistics. What of Newman, then? Perhaps his elevation would make us take the whole business more ser iously — too seriously. Devotion to Pope John shows that men can be inspired by holiness, now, without waiting for certification out of Rome. On the other hand, the canonization of Newman, while making us take canonization a little too seriously, might well lead men to take Newman too lightly Admiration always refracts light, blurring its ob ject. But canonization puts opaque painted windows all around its object. It is hard enough, even now, to get to the truth about Newman. His admirers make him either a simple advocate of “develop ment” or a simple foe of “liberalism,” in stead of a complex mixture of these things. (That complexity was the hallmark of his conser vatism), At present, canonization can only ag gravate all the things that turn men into legends, giving us a patterned instead of an individual greatness, robbing us of a man and giving us a statue. Like the bad father of the Bible, it gives us stone for bread. (Pope John’s legends are al ready rioting, in dense foliage, around and over him; he looks like a metamorphosee in Ovid going down for the third time). THOSE WHO can be inspired by Newman’s prickly. greatness have, at present, a better chance of discovering it, of drawing on its ener gies, than they would have after his canonization. We can still see the incongruous bird’s beak, the cavernous nervous eyes, the 'coiled reticence, there, under the Cardinal’s hat. But under a halo his face would shine — like the Apolline profile of President Johnson on his inauguration medal— with a porcelain prettiness, a false perfection. Heaven’s gain would be earth’s loss; and we can not afford to lose Newman. God Love You MOST REVEREND FULTON J. SHEEN IN THIS GOD-GIVEN WORK qi being the Holy Father’s arm in the United States for helping all missionary societies and all poor areas of the earth, the one wonder which never ceases to amaze is this - how many Christians there are who beg for the privilege of giving beyond their means. Take, for example, the mother who, for the first time in her married life, got together $7 and sent $3 of it to The Society for the Propagation of the Faith. It seems that there are always such saints in the Church. St. Paul wrote of them: “We must tell you about the grace that God has given to the Macedonian churches. Somehow, in the most difficult circumstances, their joy and the fact of being down to their last penny themselves, produced a magnificent concern for other people. I can guarantee that they were willing to give to the limit of their means, yes and beyond their means, without the slightest urging from me or anyone else. In fact they simply begged us to accept their gifts and so let them share the honor of supporting their brothers in Christ. Nor was their gift, as I had expected, a mere cash payment. Instead they made a complete dedication of themselves, first to the Lord, then to us, as God’s appointed ministers" (II Cor. 3, 15). I WOULD SAY that 50 per cent of those who help the poor of the world are themselves in grave need ofwhatthey give, as were the Macedonians, One deaf woman even sent the money she set aside for a hearing aid. On reporting this, someone wrote to us, the demning the woman for doing so. We answered, asking him to send us the money to buy a hearing aid for the woman (inciden tally, he was not poor) but - no answer. If anyone is inclined to despair of our modern world because of its corporate evil, just let him read our mail in which $2 from a poor person is equivalent to a gift of a million from a rich person. We have noted for years that the rich generally give to those who are rich; it is only the exceptional one who gives to the poor. An institution already worth 20 million can get another 5 million easily, but the 10 mil lion lepers in the world for whom we beg are lucky to get $70,000 a year. Why does this happen? Why is it that those who have so little are the first to help others in need? St. Paul gives the reason: ‘They first make a complete dedication of themselves to the Lord.” Their sacrifices was not first, but their love of the Lord, The gift flowed from the love; they gave more than their material gift - they gave themselves. GOD LOVE YOU to Mrs. J. K. for $10 ’This was set aside to fix my parents’ grave but I think they would rather have me send it to the poor to keep them from dying.” ...to Sister M. de St. T, who asked that her entire birthday gift be sent to the Holy Father’s missions. ...to Mrs. A. D.for$5 "We are a family of nine so the budget is tight. I only wish I could send more.” THE GOD LOVE YOU medal is one you would be proud to give or delighted to receive. Designed by the world-renowned jeweler Harry Winston and blessed by Bishop Sheen, this cameo designed medal is available in a classic Florentine gold finish or sterling silver. Send your request and corresponding offering to The So ciety for the Propagation of the Faith, 366 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10001. In sterling silver: $5 large, $2 small; In 10k gold filled: $1 large, $3 small. Cut out this column, pin your sacrifice to it and mail it to Most Rev. Fulton J. Sheen, National Director 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, 2699 Peachtree Road, N.E. Northside Station, Atlanta 5, Georgia.