Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

« ■ST. LOUIS SURVEY- Motivational Patterns Of Priests Probed Break the hate h BY ROBERT J. BYRNE ST. LOUIS (NC) - The duties of a priest are many and varied, sometimes challenging but sometimes repetitious too. What makes a man continue in these duties, especially the routine ones? A survey of priests in the St. Louis archdiocese disclosed there is no single motive. Rather, a priests’s motives depend largely upon his age and the position he occuDies in the Church. This is the general conclusion of a research study conducted earlier this year biy Father James L. Winzerling, graduate student in sociology at St. Louis University and associate pastor of St. Phillip Neri parish. Data for the study was obtained by a questionaire mailed to 150 diocesan priests in the St. Louis archdiocese under the auspices of the university’s department of sociology. The questionnaire focused on four areas of the priesthood: preaching, ministering, celibacy and recitation of the divine of rice. Respondents were grouped according to those ordained prior to 1943; between 1944 and 1957 and between 1958 and 1968. Motives of the replies were- categories as being of three basic types: legal compliance (required by authority and enforced by threat of penalty); personal satisfaction expression (individual skills and abilities are utilized in job performance, and performance is rewarded); internalization of organizational goals (individual identities closely with the organization, adopting its goals and successes as his own). «isaS hss ssysriu i Based on a 71% response from the priests, Father Winzerling drew these major conclusions: -The older (pre-1943) priests tended clearly to identify with the organizational goals, as did those priests of any age who were pastors, chaplains or officials of the archdiocese. -The younger (post-1958) clergy indicated clearly they performed such duties as recitation of the divine office, only because they were legally required. On the subject of celibacy, some observed it because of the law, but others considered it a matter of self-expression. —Regarding preaching, priests of all ages indicated they performed the task because it was an organizational need, and not because they found preaching personally rewarding or satisfying. In a digest of his research study, Father Winzerling offered several implications about the results. Indentiticaiton with the ecclesiastical organization-ex pressed by the older priests and by those in certain official posts-comes from men who “participate in decisions about group objectives, contribute to the group performance by their offices of administration or share in the rewards of prestige and privilege that their years of service can give them.” “The individual can regard the organization as his, for he in fact helps to make it,” Father Winzerling noted. Those who like self-expression and the exercise of their own skills and talents find personal satisfaction or some sense of rewarding experience in his clerical tasks .. .he is likely to have a strong attraction for the ecclesiastical organization. On the other hand, such a person is not tied to a given organization and may seek alternate job possibilities to attain his need v for self-awareness or self-fulfillment through his acitivity of interest,” he stated. Those priests who do their duties simply because they are legally required “are not attracted to the organization for its own sake, and their continuance within the organization depends only upon their desire to stay within the system because of i some dependance on the system for a way of life, fear of reprisal or hope of a substantial change in the organization which would either capture their internal assent or at least provide better means of achieving self-expression,” he said. “If the opportunity to enter into a different system which affords better means for achieving one’s own goals or satisfaction in performance presents itself, a legally compliant person my seek to leave one organization for the other,” he added. FAQ OFFICIAL SAYS High-Yield Cereals Could Stop Hunger ROME (NC) - New varieties of cereals yielding three times the normal grain harvest could “wipe out” hunger in the world within the next decade, an official of the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has declared. Proper introduction of Such high-yielding varieties could ‘‘wipe out undernutrition, i and even hunger, that have been among the most permanent features of the history of man,” said Dr. Otto Emst Fischnich, assistant general director of FAO. his ^AO’s statement V biennial onference. opened (Nov. 8-z /j here, Fischnich, a West German, said that the performance of the new varieties has been “outstandingly promising.” “A 15% increase in yield can be a very worthwhile advance. But when yields are doubled and tripled there is no doubt from when the crops start ripening that something unusual is going on,” he said. I He claimed that the new high-yielding rice could be increased from 10 million acres to 100 million acres ■IN magazine article PAGE 3 — November 13,1969 Today’s Jesuits Called A “Society In Flux RELIGION IN AMERICAN LIFE inaugurates this month a new mass media advertising campaign based on the theme, “Break the hate habit. Love your neighbor.” Ronald Chereskin, New York graphic artist, designed the outdoor poster, 19Vi feet long. The theme will be spread through radio and TV sport announcements, in newspapers and magazines, in posters and car cards for transits system. RIAL’s message is formulated by its supporting religious groups representing major Catholic, Jewish, Orthodox and Protestant denominations, and disseminated through a public service campaign conducted by the Advertising Council. (NC Photos) BOSTON (NC) - The Society of Jesus, more commonly known as the Jesuits, is undergoing a vast, “agonizing reappraisal” which will, in time to come, have a profound national impact. This is the view expressed by a young Jesuit priest-author in an article appearing in the current issue of the Atlantic Monthly magazine. Father John L’Heureux, S.J., who is a staff editor of Atlantic Monthly, and writer-in-residence at Regis College, Weston, Mass., calls the Jesuits “a society in flux” which, he claims, will do anything in an effort to “make the Jesuits the dynamic Christian force they were at their inception.” (The Society was founded in 1540 by St. Ignatius Loyola). In his article, Father L’Heureux states that “throughout the United States, consulting agencies have been hired to advise Jesuit officials on 99 restructuring the entire American organization- phasing out schools, redistributing manpower, turning colleges over to lay trustees.” Father L’Heureux, ordained in 1966 and a member of the Jesuits’ New England province, asserts that “major superiors are showing greater concern for the spiritual and intellectual welfare of the individual Jesuit. They are prepared to (Continued on Page 6) $ BY FATHER DANIEL LYONS, SJ ;!•: (Editor, Twin Circle- •:•: The National Catholic Press) £: (NC News Service) $5 WHEN I DEBATED ■:•: Father John B. Sheerin, •:•: CSP, in New Jersey last |:|! year, he condemned the |:|j war in Vietnam as immoral on several counts. Since he ift held that it was immoral to be fighting there, I took £•; for granted that as a moral :•:$ theologian he felt we SS should pull out. But on the drive back to New York he said that we could not pull out, at least for ijij awhile. It was strange theology, I thought; but $ just one of many strange things coming out of this ?:•; imbroglio. Who can defend the :|S Vietnam war? No one can j£j: defend the way it has been ^ fought. I am not referring ij: to who the aggressor is. It -is obvious that the North is trying to conquer the South, and not vice-versa, it is also obvious to % anyone who values freedom and who knows the situation in both the $• North and South, that the :*:• people in the South are :•:• better off free than under communist rule. The trouble with this ;j> war is not that we have :•£ defended South Vietnam. & The trouble is that our over the next 17 years. Wheat could be expanded from 10 million to 40 million acres, and maize, millet and sorghum from 5 million to 47 million acres. But he warned that such yields can be gained only if a number of requirements are fulfilled. “Production of pure seed must be recognized as a first priority. Yet in almost all developing countries seed production is one step behind in terms of development,” he said. Fertilizers, adequate water supply, land levelling, better land drainage systems, pests and disease were among other problems Fischnich cited. He said that where sharecropping is widely practiced, tenure arrangements must frequently be changed “to give the cultivator a higher share of the profits and the landowner a higher share of the costs.” Fischinich said that credit must also be made more available to farmers and extra facilities provided for drying, milling, processing and storing the increased yields. g BY FATHER JOHN B. $ SHEERIN, CSP g (EDITOR, CATHOLIC 8 WORLD) (NC NEWS SERVICE) | THE PUBLIC DEMAND for an early end ijijto our military & involvement in Vietnam fe continues to grow in g: volume and intensity. The g; Administration’s gestures !$ in the direction of peace, » including draft cuts and .$•: token troop withdrawals, & do not satisfy the increasingly impatient 3$ American public. » As the casualty lists g: continue to come in, many I citizens who once called £ij for “peace with victory” now want “out” of the Asian quagmire, demanding substantial troop withdrawals at the earliest possible date. They see no point in sacrificing American lives to shore up a wobbly, corrupt military regime in Saigon. In their 1966 Pastoral, the American Bishops stated that every Catholic must keep the moral issues of the Vietnam war under constant scrutiny. Moreover, they noted that this is a personal obligation which cannot .be delegated to someone else. I would prefer to review our Vietnam involvement in the light of the Just War theory. Some churchmen in recent years have tended to discredit this theory as a moral criterion because they deemed it irrelevant to VIETNAM DEBATE Pro: We Have Kept People Free political leaders have pretended all along that if we just practiced “restraint” the enemy would go home, that if we made it easier for him to wage war against the South by granting him sanctuary, then the enemy would pull out. Why we ever figured that way has never been explained. If Lyndon Johnson had only listened to his Joint Chiefs of Staff regarding one thing, the closing of Haiphong, the war would have ended years ago. All along our leaders have refused to face reality. They have even pretended that this is not a war. But no one has been able to convince any of the 80,000 parents whose sons came home in boxes that their boys had been away, At summer camp. NO ONE CAN DENY that the Vietnam war has lasted far too-long. Either we should have surrendered or we should have forced the enemy to give up years ago. When I polled every priest in the United States, in 1966, I found that 87% wanted Washington to adopt a firm policy of winning. It is immoral to fight a no-win war. It is immoral to fight a war in which our own men have gotten killed because we granted sanctuary to the enemy just across the border. There was never any hope of winning the war the way it has been fought. We could have sent five million troops to Vietnam and still the war could have lasted 30 years, if we kept ’ granting sanctuary. All the North has to do is keep sneaking in guerrillas, even in small numbers. The greatest tragedy of our time is that we have not learned from our mistakes. We have yet to realize that the war in Vietnam is a continuation of what the Kremlin started right after World War II. We have pretended all along that Ho Chi Minh and his cohorts were independent of the Kremlin. We even pretended that Ho was a Vietnamese nationalist, despite the fact that he conquered another race when he invaded Laos. For awhile we tried to discourage Hanoi from taking over Laos. But in 1961 we pulled out of Laos because Hanoi agreed to do so. Instead, however, Hanoi then conquered half of Laos, the half it needed to attack South Vietnam. When we let, Hanoi take over Laos we gave them a 400 mile border into South Vietnam. The lesson is clear: we got a far bigger war in Vietnam by pulling out of Laos. Our efforts in Vietnam have been infinitely more costly than they should have been. But they have not been in vain. We have kept 15 million people free from Communist rule. We have kept hundreds of thousands from being slaughtered out of reprisal, or because they might resist a communist takeover. We have made it possible for Indonesia, the fifth largest nation in the world, to overthrow the three million members of the Chinese Communist party there, as the Indonesians attest. We have prevented Hanoi and Peking from taking over Thailand, Cambodia, Malaysia, South Korea, Singapore and other Asian states that admittedly would have had to succumb to Hanoi and Peking if we had made it known that we were abandoning our commitments by scuttling Vietnam. Had we abandoned Vietnam we would have encouraged Peking to move in and take over India, Burma, Taiwan, the Philippines, and eventually Japan. The great unanswered question when the doves say we should “pull out of there” is: Pull out of where? GRANTED WE HAVE MADE colossal blunders in our Vietnam policy. Granted that it was an incredible mistake to think that the enemy would quit if’we did not threaten him, that he would somehow reciprocate if we showed great restraint, that he would either give up easily on the battlefield or at the talks in Paris. Granted we failed to see that the enemy is not Hanoi but Moscow and Peking, that without them Ho Chi Minh would have spent his life as an unknown revolutionary •tramp, that without them the war could not last six weeks. Still, the South is free and we have halted Red expansion in that half of the world. We could have done much worse. None of Asia has been lost to communism since the Geneva Treaty in 1954 which divided Vietnam. Everyone wants peace, Con: The War Is Unjust nuclear warfare. But this is not a nuclear war, and I feel that the Just War theory can be of service in enlightening conscience as to the morality of this war. THE THEORY is that no nation may participate in a war unless (1) it has a just cause and an upright intention, (2) has made a formal declaration of war, (3) has exhausted all peaceful means to avoid the conflict, (4) that it wages the war according to rules of natural and international law, and (5) that it has a reasonable expectation that the benefits accruing from the war will outweigh the evils it will produce. I would like to concentrate special attention on this last condition: Will the good results outweigh the evil? What good purpose did we hope to achieve by intervening in this war? The State Department has said many times in recent years that our purpose in becoming involved was to insure free elections for the Vietnamese. Our government has abjured any notion that we sent troops to Vietnaih to stop the Vietnamese from becoming communists. President Nixon has clearly restated our goal as ‘‘free elections in Vietnam.” He said at the United Nations last summer: “What is important is what the people of Soutii Vietnam want for South Vietnam. To secure this right and to secure this principle is our one limited and fundamental objective.” That was a far cry from an all-too-prevalent notion that our purpose in Vietnam was to stop communism. The President made it crystal-clear that the Vietnamese may choose a communist regime if they want it: we will not stop them. HElfe THEN is the big question: Is there a valid proportion between this benefit, (a free vote at the ballot box) and the incredible death and devastation we have brought to all of Vietnam, North and South? The mightiest military power on earth has dropped far more bombs on tiny Vietnam than we dropped on Nazi Germany during World War II. We have laid waste whole countrysides, disrupted family life, killed more than a million civilians, left about five million refugees homeless. We speak of the heavy price we have paid in, American lives and it is a heavy price (45,000 dead) but the cost to the Vietnamese on both sides has been 20 times as great in military casualities, not to mention the agonies of the aged, the sick, the orphans. Certainly a free vote for the corrupt Thieu regime in exchange for all these thousands of deaths is a very bad bargain. Another important condition of the Just War theory is that the nation waging the war must have a just cause. Catholic theologians are agreed that the only possible justification for war today is defense against unjust aggression. In the Korean War the enemy unjustly transgressed a recognized international boundary line. In South Vietnam, however, the situation was radically different. There was no boundary line between North and South Vietnam because it was all one country. The Geneva accords in 1954 provided for a temporary military line to be drawn at the 17th parallel. The communists promised to stay behind this line pending the outcome of the free elections to be . held in 1956. Diem, from his palace at Saigon, refused to allow these elections, discontent developed and eventually peasants in South Vietnam rose up in rebellion against him. (President Eisenhower in his memoirs said that the communists would have won the elections had they been held.) America entered the war in 1961. What began as a clash between a motley crew of peasants and the Diem regime developed into a people’s revolution controlled by communists and a military regime controlled by Americans. Hanoi helped the National Liberation Front with aid for the Front which many Americans claimed was equivalent to an invasion from the north. 'j There are other Americans, however, who contend that our intervention was not a defense against unjust aggression at all but a meddling in a civil war in South Vietnam between the NLF and the Diem regime. If it was a civil war, we had no right to intervene. We remember how violently we reacted when the Soviets intervened in the 1956 Hungarian rebellion. IF OUR INTERVENT ION was not a case of helping a victim of unjust aggression but a meddling in a war that was not our business, we may have I obstructed national independence and social progress by opposing the peasants’ rebellion. True, the National Liberation Front is Marxist-oriented as are many new regimes we are supporting in the developing countries, but we must remember that these new regimes are not anxious to exchange their old colonial tyrants for a but we want a lasting peace, a peace that protects free countries and discourages aggression. What should we do? \ Politically, the die is cast. Washington has decided to withdraw gradually, rather than force the enemy to withdraw. The only thing that can be done is let our allies do what we should have done long ago. The government in Saigon must be given more authority, to match the added responsibility we are placing on its shoulders. Saigon must be allowed to use troops, planes, and pilots from Taiwan, something we have never permitted it to do. Saigon must be allowed to send troops into Laos to prevent the infiltration. It must be allowed to destroy the guerrilla bases in Laos, Cambodia and North Vietnam. We must not interfere with the government of South Vietnam by forcing it to have a communist coalition. We must not force it to put faith in any., agreement with the communists. We must give South Vietnam the freedom to do whatever must be done to keep its people free. I 1 S | 1 1 communist tyranny. The Vietnamese, both North and South, are rabid nationalists. For eenturies they have loathed the Chinese as a national tradition: as far as we know, Ho Chi Minh gladly accepted aid from China but did not permit a single Chinese fighting-soldier on Vietnamese soil. The Vietnamese have driven out the Japanese, they have driven out the French and are now striving to drive out the Americans. Is it reasonable to think that after 30 bloody years of fighting foreigners, they will suddenly capitulate to Moscow or Peking? Space limitations will not allow for a detailed application of the remaining conditions of the Just War theory but they bear close study. Has U. S. policy been motivated by “free elections” or national prestige? Our Government has not made any formal declaration of war: can the Tonkin-Bay resolution be deemed a “moral equivalent” to such a declaration? Did the U.S. exhaust all the peacemaking resources of the U.N. before getting involved? Has the U. S. lived up to natural law (especially with regard to bombing of civilians) and to international treaties we have signed (e.g. in regard to treatment of prisioners.)? ss •>: 1 V 1 I 1 $ 1