Newspaper Page Text
THURSDAY, MAY 26, 1966
GEORGE BULLETIN
PAGE 5
LAY CONGRESS
Renewal Came Home
rnsgr. Jwm V. Conway
ARNOLD VIEWING
“A Man Could Get Killed”
REV. LEONARD F. X. MAYHEW
If there was any scepticism beforehand about
how effective the Lay Congress would be, it was
more than completely dispelled during the three-
day meeting last week-end. It was difficult to
anticipate how the Lay Congress would function.
There has been, after all, no precedent for this
kind of assembly in the immediate past. None of
the delegates could claim experience in the kind
of deliberations facing them, deliberations about
almost every aspect of the organization, mission
and operation of the Church.
The background of the Lay Congress is, or
should be, common knowledge at this point. Last
summer, a group of the laity
were convened by the Archbish
op and handed the task of pre
paring for this Congress. They
divided themselves into ad hoc
committees: Steering, Admin
istration, Future Development
and Education. These commit
tees began to explore the areas
assigned to them, meeting reg
ularly and interviewing witnes
ses. They prepared preliminary reports, which
were outstanding for their seriousness and their
grasp of the issues.
This winter, a really unheard of development
distinguished the preparations for the Congress.
By secret ballot, each parish elected delegates
and alternates to represent the laity of their
parishes. Besides this first and extraordinary
experience of democracy at work in the Church,
the election had a side-effect of great benefit to
the parishes. People were made aware of each
other, they were drawn into a tangible sense of
community as they considered their nominees and
the whole question of parish representaton.
The elected parish representatives were im
mediately divided among the four committees of
the Congress and threw themselves into the work
of preparation. The reports were studied, re
visions and suggestions were compiled, open
meetings of the parishes were held repeatedly to
give all the laity an opportunity to consider the
questions and make their own representations.
The first, immediate impression an observer
had at the Lay Congress was of the seriousness
of the delegates. They had done their homework
carefully and thoughtfully, itself an impressive
achievement in view of the mass of material they
had to examine. The talents of this diverse gath
ering were not only impressive in themselves
but especially in the generosity with which they
were put at the disposal of the mission of the
Church.
Old hands at meetings know that there is often a
turning point at which a group will suddenly
come to grips with the business at hand. This
is particularly true, if the concern of the gather
ing is something in the moral or spiritual order.
There was an experience of this kind during the
Lay Congress. By Sunday morning an observer
could sense a real sense of community among the
delegates. They had the feel of each other, of
the procedures of their deliberations, of the sub
stance behind the details of reports that had to
be debated and decided. The understanding of
the Church as community had been Invoked so
frequently and in so many contexts that it had
become the real background against which almost
all discussions were being held.
The major ingredient of the delegates’ prepa
ration for the Lay Congress had been intensive
study of the documents of the Second Vatican
Council. It was clear that the spirit and main
lines of the renewal had deeply impressed the del
egates. Their awareness of the liturgies! renewal
as the cutting-edge of the entire program of the
Vatican council was apparent from many of their
reports and resolutions. Likewise, the pervasive
influence of ecumenism as the mark of the
Church’s authentic voice again and again marked
the decisions of the delegates. The most impor
tant conviction of the Council, that the Church is
commissioned to serve and save the world, was
likewise the most compelling conviction of all the
discussions of the Congress.
GOOD NEWS
“Ask And You
by Mary Perkins Ryan
A sophisticated relative of ours was quite
upset to hear recently that there are religious
communities who live on the alms that come in day
by day and who, when they haven’t been given
enough for the necessities of life, turn the statue
of St. Joseph to face the wall until he sees to it
that a donor comes to their rescue.. Our relative
seemed to think that this was
a childish kind of procedure
and out of place in the modern
Church.'
Certainly we need to examine
our own prayer-practices and
those urged upon us and those
we are urged to support, to see
whether they are consonant with
the spirit of the Second Vatican
Council and the Constitution on the Liturgy. Is
praying for fine weather for the day of a May
procession still ”ln”? Or asking St. Anthony to
help one find those lost keys? How about the
appeals that used to appear, not so many years
ago, in the religious bulletins of a great Catholic
university, to the effect that the football team
hadn’t been winning lately, so the boys had better
"hit the box and hit the rail’’ (that is, go to Con
fession and Communion) if they wanted their team
to get ahead? What are the criteria for truly
Christian prayers of petition?
In his homily, given in the Breviary, on the
Gospel for the Fifth Sunday after Easter in which
our Lord tells us, "Ask and you shall receive
St. Augustine explains that our Lord is talking
about petitions made "in His Name,’* as the Gos
pel brings out. Petitions made In Christ’s name
are those asking for what we need in order to
become more truly Christ-like and to carry onHis
work in our world. If our receiving what we ask
would not further these purposes, St. Augustine
says, our heavenly Father will give us something
else instead. He will always answer our prayer,
but not necessarily in the way we think we should
like. So we are to go ahead and ask for whatever
Shall Receive”
we need, and even for whatever we like, knowing
that our Father is pleased to have us ask Him
In Christ’s name, andwill always hear our prayer,
one way or another.
But we also need to consider how we ask.
Are we trying to pray as "sons in the Son"
who have been given the Spirit of the Son, in
whom we cry out to God as our Father? Grown
up, truly adult sons and daughters realize that
their parents are persons and not just imper
sonal providers of necessities and luxuries, re
wards are persons and not just impersonal pro
rewards and punishments. How much more
must the relationship between Christ and His
Father be an eminently personal one? And so, if
we are truly to be "sons in the Son,’’ our re
lationship with our Father in heaven must be
a truly personal one too.
This Gospel brings out this personal nature
of our relationship to God in Christ in many
ways. God loves us; He wants our joy to be com
plete. He is eager to have us speak to Him direct
ly, since Christ has done away with whatever
might separate us from Him and we believe in
Christ and love Him.
To ask "in Christ’s Name", then, means that
the general drift of our petitions is towards what
we need and others need in order to carry out
our Father’s Will. It means that we ask person
to Person, in loving confidence and trust. But
this attitude need not exclude asking for things
that would simply' make our lives pleasanter,
like a fine day for a picnic. After all, people
who love one another like to give each other tri
vial as well as important gifts. And it need not
exclude our asking the saints to help us, both
in serious and less serious matters, as our bro
thers and sisters in God’s family, so long as we
do so in the same spirit, treating them as persons
and not as impersonal powers or idols.
In other words, In prayer it is the Spirit that
counts.
YOUR WORLD AND MINE
Good Faith?...In Latin America
(CONTINUED FROM PAGE 4)
the rich-poof gap on the continent mounted an
nually. But we have not been living up to our
commitment. The temptation of power has proved
too strong. Ignoring our pledge, we again put
political before economic motives. Hence the
crisis of the Wise Men, men with the dignity and^
patriotism to resign $30,000 a year tax-free
stipends rather than be parties to a deception.
If the political motives now uppermost could
even be called enlightened self-interest on the
part of the United States, the loss would be less
total. Unfortunately, however, Washington has only
one powerful Latin American lobby, that of big
business. Its Interest is to make money in Latin
America, and that is not possible today without
distorting the development on which the region
has embarked. Here is one of the facts we must
face. Our function in Latin America today is not
more to make money for one segment of our
citizenry than is our function in Vietnam.
The primary point I want to make, however,
is not that our policies are objectively wrong, but
that we are out of emotional contact with our
partners and have lost their confidence. This is
true unfortunately not only in our political rela
tions. It also threatens to occur in those of the
Church.
Since World War II, the United States Church
has been making a big contribution in men and
material resources to Latin America, and the
various groups of missionaries have been achiev
ing extrordlnary reults. But not all they do is
appreciated. During the Vatican Council, I talked
to many Latin American prelates while preparing
several articles for the Spanlsh-language edition
of Life magazine, and I was amazed to find how
many have basic reservations about the ove»
all Impact of our contribution.
Some of these reservations have been spelled
out at the annual conferences in Chicago of the
Catholic Inter-American Cooperation Program.
They can be studied in the excellent proceedings
edited by Father John Considlne of NCWC’s
Latin American bureau. A major one is that
missionaries share the characteristics of the
nation of specialists from which they come, and
that like our technical assistance experts, they
try to isolate problems one by one and apply
their skills one at a time. They regap the spark
plugs in a jalopy whose suspension is shot, and
the unintended effect can be to strengthen the
conservative forces in a situation which calls
for total concentration of effort on radical change.
Q. I was completely amazed awhile back when I heard a priest
say he wasn’t a Bible student. I always thought a priest knew die
Bible inside out. I think this should be a requirement before be
coming a priest. Don’t you agree?
A. This priest probably meant that he was not a biblical scho
lar. Very few priests are. It takes many years of intense study
after the ordinary seminary course is com
pleted to become a competent scholar in this
difficult science, in which even a beginner
must know a half dozen languages.
Priests should be familiar with the Bible
certainly, and most of them qre. All read
parts of the Bible each day; and they all
studied it for four or five years in the semi
nary. Some are restudying it now, trying to
to keep up with recent scholarshlpl but the
average priest would never cl aim to have expert knowledge of the
Bible.
Q. In school we had a discussion on ecumenism and a remark
was made that it all seemed to be one-sided. The Protestants are
the ones expected to make the steps toward Christian unity and
we are to stand ready to receive them back into the fold.
A. Many of the letters, I receive make the opposite objection.
They say that ever since the Council began we are the ones who
have been making all the overtures and concessions. We have
updated our concept of the Church, embraced, our separated
brethren as true brothers in Christ, asked pardon for Catholic
sins of the past, revised our liturgy,condemned anti-Semitism,
opted for religious freedom, made friendly gestures to pagans
and even to Communists, revised some of our laws, and consid
ered adapting some of our moral concepts to non-Cathollc thought.
Certainly we will not get far with ecumenism if we stand still
and expect our separated brethren to make all the approaches.
Neither will we get far if we carefully measure our every step
and begrudge every conciliatory gesture we make if it does not
receive reciprocal gesture from the other side. Actually our
Protestant friends were working at ecumenism for many years
before we got Into it; so a number of rapid steps were rightly
expected of us.
One rule for ecumenism is: never try to prejudice or antici
pate the terms of reunion. There are many things which keep us
apart: doctrine, customs and traditions, forms of worhsip, struc
ture of the Church and the psychological trauma of past injuries
and prejudices. If Church structure seems an Immediate barrier
to unity, that is no reason to call off all efforts in other areas.
The ultimate outcome is in the hands of God. It is our task to work
in faith, hope and love toward a better understanding of each other.
Q. I want to buy a new missal. Could you tell me when the latest
one, with the new changes, will be-in the stores.
A. You are right on time. At' least two editions should be in
your store right now, and others are coming.
"A Man Could Get Killed’* would probably seem
a lot funnier just now if it were not a spy spoof.
Audiences give no sign of flagging interest in this
genre, but critics, who must see them all, feel
somewhat like the man in the Evelyn Waugh novel
who was condemned to spend the rest of his life
reading Dickens.
The film does, however, have some fresh
switches. The hero is not the exaggerated Bond-
Flint-Helm amoral superman, loving supergirls
and destroying super-villains with super-gadgets.
He is simply a timid boob who blunders into
romance and intrigue by acci
dent, and survives mainly be
cause the bad guys are clum
sier than he is.
James Garner's stuffy A-
merican banker, mistaken as he
lands in Lisbon for a top Bri
tish agent, has more in com
mon with Graham Greene’s non
descript heroes in "The Third
Man” and "Our Man in Havana" - the ordinary
man caught up in a web of violence that is both
absurd and obscene. But the treatment in "Killed"
is so slap stick, so lacking in real moral bite,
that it best recalls the old mistaken-identity
Bob Hope comedies.
One of the Hope films* standard characters
was the beautiful lady spy who seemed wicked
but was not, and whose experience and exper
tise in all matters comically reversed the usual
hero-heroine relationship. Here this role is played
by Greek femme fatale Melina Mercouri, who does
a marvelously good-natured satire of the wanton
crooks she usually portrays.
This combination - Garner prissily under
playing the hero and Miss Mercouri lustily over
playing the glamorous spy - gives the movie a
bright touch. Spy-story sex is really satirized
instead of simply used; the sex scenes are for
laughs instead of stimulation. (One typical ex
ample: Miss Mercouri colls languidly on Gar
ner’s lap in a hotel lobby. Flustered, he says,
"I never sat in a hotel lobby with a woman in
my lap before.” She says, "TTiafs all right,
you’ll get used to it.")
Another fascinating side aspect is the con
trast-comparison between the typical European
female star (Miss Mercouri) and the typical
American child-woman (Sandra Dee). They do not
compete for the same man (Miss Dee is attached
to Tony Franciosa, a depressingly cheerful fellow
who describes himself as an anglophile-ldealist-
smuggler), but the difference is broad and
amusing.
While Miss Mercouri is sophisticated, sultry
and competent, invariably a few steps ahead of
her man. Miss Dee is always prim, confused,
and frightened. She rarely understands anything,
talks endlessly in a brittle screech, and con
stantly gets in Franclosa’s way. The contrast
not only works as comedy in this movie, but
reveals a real difference in cultural definitions
- of feminine attractiveness. If there is one quality
common to all the American characters, it is
puzzled innocence.
The quality in "Killed" doubtless derives from
the smooth skill of British director Ronald Neame
(last film: "Mister Moses" ) and the gag-writ
ing of scenarists Richard Breen (an old Holly
wood pro) and T.E.B. Clarke ("The Lavender
Hill Mob"). The first-class supporting cast in
cludes people like Cecil Parker (grown, alas,
thin and doddering), Robert Coote and Gregolre
Aslan.
At times the slapstick gets heavy. Garner frigh
tens easily, pulls off doorknobs, gets tangled in
rugs, and is constantly pursued by dozens of
dark-bearded spies who keep bumping into each
other. The spies ride in a long line of little
foreign cars which also often bump into each
other.
Almost every familiar spy-movie scene is kidd
ed. Among them;
- The funeral scene, where all the sinister
mourners turn to observe, steerly-eyed, the late-
arriving hero.
- The stakeout, where the spies lurk unper
turbed in various doorways, watching the shadows
behind the curtains of the heroine’s apartment.
- The message - passing. Virtually every
character seen by the lens is some kind of agent
with a message for someone.
- The dying "contact" who lingers endlessly,
giving enigmatic clues about his mission.
- The mysterious man-wlth-a-sneeze (often
merely the man-wlth-a-limp). Late in the film,
somebody sneezes, and the heroine cries, "That’s
the same sneeze I heard on the telephone I"
- The searching»for-the-diamonds scene. In
one, Coote unloads a ship's entire cargo of rice
on a pier, and as * the mountains of grain shift
earily in the background, it reminds him of a
science-fiction movie: "You know, messy stuff
taking over the world."
OLD AND NEW
Stupidity-Response Quotient
Catholics as a whole have developed a high
threshold of response to stupidity. Our attitude
toward fellow Catholics seems to be: " He
may be a dope, but he’s our dope." This view
mercifully shelters incompetents, but punishes
anyone who wants what he says (not simply
where he goes to Church) to
be taken seriously.
I find, for instance, that sim
ply adverting to the obvious —
e.g., to the fact that Catholics
put up with incredibly high rate
of dopey sermons — is con
sidered, by many Catholics, a
sacrifice of charity to pen-
dantry. We have been taught
to think that a) priests are presumptively not
going to preach dopey sermons; and, anyway, b)
if by chance a priest should preach one, then the
dopey sermon is good for us, so c) it is point
less pendantry to advert to the fact that this is
a dopey sermon; indeed, d) it is best for one’s
humility and peace of mind not to be able to
distinguish between sermons on this basis; so
that, for all practical purposes, e) there is no
such thing as a dopey sermon. As I say, this
penalizes any priest who might try to preach an
Intelligent sermon. Who, anymore would recog
nize one if he heard it?
Some people realize that it is "ghetto-minded"
to put up with any Idiocy just because it was
enunciated by a Catholic — or, for that matter,
by a priest. Yet some of these very people
will fall back to this code in defense of far nar
rower ghettos than the Catholic body at large. Som e
Catholic liberals, for instance —who would never
dream of lowering their intellectual standards
"just' because some one is a Catholic" - will,
paradoxically, drop standards like hot cakes just
because some man under discussion is a Catholic
liberal. Because they agree with the practical
proposals of a Fr. DuBay, they will swallow or
gloss over the theological inanities, the intellectu
al ethos of Fr. DuBay*s program. It does not
so much matter whathe says, but "whose side he’s
on." He’s our dope. (Ironically, some of those
who take this attitude toward Fr. DuBay are for
ever advising us that we must go beyond the
"juridical" approach to Church structure and con
sider the spirit of authority. Yet, for the sake
of some procedural and "juridical” improve
ments, they are willing to Ignore the theological
underpinnings, the whole intellectual spirit and
weight, of Fr. Du Bay’s position).
Similarly, even some fairly sophisticated con
servatives are willing to swallow the theological
hysteria of Fr. De Pauw, just because they happen
to agree with his practical points. They argue
that the new liturgy could use some criticism
(what couldn’t?), and they find no other critic
around, so they jump aboard with De Pauw —
even though this means accepting a conspira
torial view of the hierarchy which makes EXi-
Bay look like a Curialist. Again, "he's our dope."
The thing works on both sides of the political
fence. The liberal press is willing to condone or
ignore Dr. Lauer’s strldencies, willing even to
imply that Fr. O'Reilly Is the greatest phi
losopher since Aquinas, because they are on the
“right side” of the St. John's dispute. Other
liberal papers will promote a sad little affair
like How to Read a Dirty Book when they think
(mistakenly, after all) that is oil' "our side.”
The same thing takes place on the conservative
side. America magazine for instance, prints the
most embarrassing and inept articles, so long
as they are written by married people on the "right
side” of the contraception issue. And The
Wanderer thinks that every conservative priest
in America is an expert on the translation of the
Bible. Catholics, as a body, lack Intellectual
standards; and even those who accept some mi
nimal norms, some of the time, reserve a
favored area that is immune to them — a
safe zone where it is "uncharitable" and "pe
dantic" to point out that our dope is uninform
ed or uninform able.
I first became Impressed by the intellectual
permissiveness of our Catholic environment five
years ago. At that time I was preparing a book
on encyclicals, and could not believe my eyes
when I saw the cretinous level of supposedly
expert writing on these documents. Indeed, I turned
up examples of careless ignorance that achieve
a kind of comic grandeur — (like the chapter
on profit sharing in Moody’s and Lawler’s Chal
lenge of Mater et Magistra). Even the sloppiest
efforts are not challenged or corrected. It is per
fectly safe to do inaccurate or bumbling work
in books directed at a Catholic audience. No one
need fear being called to account.
Things have not improved much, with regard
to encyclicals — as one can see by looking at
Fr. Masse’s recent Justice for All. Or consi
der Notre Dame’s Fr. Peter Riga. He wrote an
entire book of commentary on Pacem in Terris.
As you may recall, the encyclical is notorious
for its translation difficulties — difficulties de
plored by liberals and conservatives alike. Yet
Ft. Riga follows a single (inadequate) transla
tion in his lengthy exegetical work, and never
has recourse to the original to clarify disputed
passages — not even the most publicized and
important ones (e.g., pars. 111, 144, 145), where
his translation is uncorrected. In few other areas
could the author of a book with some scholarly
pretensions get away with that. But the average
"study" of an encyclical is desperately shoddy.
Most of the commentaries merely use tags from
the papal letters as "pegs" on which to hang
political sermons — and we know what leeway
is given men in citing texts within a sermon!
All this has the inevitable effect of obscuring
work that has been done at a serious level —
for Instance, the Important studies of the en
cyclicals written by Calvez and Perrin.
Do you still doubt that the Catholic community
has low intellectual standards? Come back next
week, for a look at one of that community’s
"leading publications."
HOW TO
NAME
A CHURCH
THE HOLY FATHER'S MISSION AID TO THE ORIENTAL CHURCH
YOUNGSTERS
WHO
USE
IT
TODAY
WILL
BRING
THEIR
CHILDREN
FOR
DAILY
MASS
HOW
TO
MAKE
$10
S-T-R-E-T-C-H
Have you ever wished you could build a church
in living memory of your family? And name it
yourself for your favorite saint? . . . Thanks to
our missionaries overseas, it’s as easy as buying
a medium-priced car; and, unlike a car, it will
not wear out. The youngsters who use it this
year and next will bring their children there for
daily Mass 20 and 40 years from now. ... In
Mallussery, south India, for instance, penniless
Catholics hear Mass in a borrowed shed because
they have no church. The land for a new church
is available, and they’ll do all the work free-of-
charge, if we can give them $3,200 for bricks,
sand, mortar. You can be the builder, if you write
to us right now. The church will be named as you
direct, and a permanent plaque at the entrance
will request prayers forever for the members of
your family living and deceased.... Gifts go far
in our 18 emerging countries because labor
costs are low. For only $10,000 in India you can
build a complete parish ’plant’ (church, rectory,
school, and convent) where the Holy Father
says it’s needed. Please write to us, and help
the helpless poor.
Look at the nearest $10 bill. What is it actually
worth? Only what it will buy. In Boston or Cleve
land or St. Louis, it will hardly buy enough to
feed a family for two days. In the Holy Land, it
will feed a poor refugee family for an entire
month. The Holy Father asks your help for the
refugees, more than half of them children. Your
money multiplies—as you give it away.
w
WHILE Tell your lawyer, when you discuss your will, our
YOU legal title is Catholic Near East Welfare Asso-
CAN ciation:
□ Stringless bequests are used where the Holy
Father says they're needed most.
□ The Masses you arrange for will be offered
by priests who receive no other income.
□ $600 will train a native priest, $300 a native
Sister, who will pray for you always.
Dear
ENCLOSED
PLFASE FIND $
Monsignor Nolan:
FOR
Please
NAME
return coupon
with your
offering
STREET
CITY
STATE
ZIP CODE -
THE CATHOLIC NEAR EAST WELFARE ASSOCIATION
NEAR EAST
MISSIONS
FRANCIS CARDINAL SPELLMAN, President
MSGR. JOHN G. NOLAN, National Secretary
Write: Catholic Near East Welfare Assoc.
330 Madison Avenue*New York, N.Y. 10017
Telephone: 212/YUkon 6-5840