Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 4— The Georgia Bulletin, January 28,1971
aaammis*. »■ atlanta aoKtiu s n northeka <»« mu*
The Georgia Bulletin
Most Rev. Thomas A. Donnellan D.D. J.C.D Publisher
How Long, 0 Lord?
Business Office
7S6 West Peachtree, NW
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Harry Murphy - Editor
Member of the Catholimpress Association
and Subscriber to N.C.W.C. News Service
Telephone 875-5536
U.S. A. $5 00
Canada $5.00
Foreign $6.50
Second Class Postage Paid at Waynesboro, Ga. 30830
Send change of address to 756 West Peacntree, NW, Atlanta, Ga. 30308
Published weettly except the second and last weeks
in June, July and August and the last week in December.
At 202 E. Sixth St., Waynesboro, Ga. 30830
m*mmm The opinions contained in these editorial columns are
i hi— the free expressions of free editors in a free Catholic press.
Half-Loaf Brings Cardinal
When we called (Bulletin editorial
Dec. 3, 1970) for J. Edgar Hoover to
“put up or shut up” on his accusation
against the Berrigan Brothers and others,
such quick action wasn’t expected.
Fr. Philip Berrigan, two other priests,
a former priest, a nun and a Pakistani
post-doctoral student were indicted Jan.
12 on charges of conspiring to kidnap
presidential aide Henry Kissinger and to
destroy the heating systems of federal
buildings in Washington.
Fr. Daniel Berrigan, although not
indicted, was named as a co-conspirator
in the plot.
Since an indictment only means that a
grand jury thinks there is sufficient
evidence to warrant a trial, Hoover has
put up only half a loaf.
He will try to put up the second half
at the trials.
We don’t know whether Hoover has
got this other portion or not, but at least
he has gone back to due process channels
with his accusation.
He originally made his charge in a U.S.
Senate appropriations sub committee
meeting where he was trying to get $14
million to pay the salaries of 1,000 more
FBI agents and 7 02 clerks.
He testified that if the group was
successful in its kidnapping plot “The
plotters would demand an end to United
States bombing operations in Southeast
Asia and the release of all political
prisoners as ransom. ”
The defendants, in turn, accused
Hoover of “lying through his hat” and
said he was merely trying to discredit the
Berrigans.
CHOOSING A BISHOP
Tracts For The Times
BY REV. MARVIN R. O’CONNELL
One of the most poignant and, I think,
significant moments during the papal trip to
Asia last fall occured when more than a
thousand students in Manila chanted to the
pope in vigorous unison, “Send us good
bishops.” I Ignorant as I am of the Philippine
context, I don’t know what the students meant
by the word “good.” But consistent with the
argument advanced in this space a week ago, I
hope that Paul VI, at least when he thinks of
the U.S., would understand the plea
for “good” bishops as one for
leaders rather than rulers. To solve
our problem, however, will take
more than the good will of the
pope; it will, I believe, demand a
change in the present method of
selecting bishops in which the pope
plays less important a role than
appears at first glance.
How does a man become a bishop? There are
two answers to this question. First, a bishop is
made by the sacramental laying on of hands, by
the completion of the sacrament of holy orders.
This is an unvarying, permanent sign of life in
the Church. Only those who already possess the
mark of apostolic succession can pass it on to
someone else. A man does not come into the
college of bishops without being brought in by
somebody already there.
But there is nothing sacramental, sacred or
unalterable about the way a man is chosen to
be a bishop. It is, I'think, very important to
insist on this distinction. Before you can ordain
a man, first you have to choose him. In theory
this could be done in any number of ways. In
historical fact all sorts of methods of selection
have been employed. Popular election or
acclamation, for example, was common in the
ancient Church; one thinks of the great St.
Ambrose in late fourth century Milan, and of
St. Augustine in Africa a few years later. During
the middle ages bishops were elected by the
cathedral clergy who theoretically exercised a
franchise in behalf of the rest of the diocesan
priests. Their decision was confirmed by the
nearest archbishop and ratified ultimately by
Rome. In every case, the candidate, once
chosen by whatever means, then proceeded to
be ordained by one who was already a bishop.
Rome’s part in the process of selection
<1
amounted to a kind of final veto rather than
the direct appointment with which we are
familiar today. The pope, St. Peter’s successor
as head of the episcopal college, was considered
the guarantor of orthodoxy. The test was that
the candidate’s beliefs had to square with the
beliefs of the bishop of Rome; if they did not
the candidate was rejected on the grounds that
his faith-and hence his capacity for genuine
witness tq Christ’s revelation-was suspect.
I don’t think anyone would dispute that the
current practice of direct appointment of
bishops by Rome is rooted in the same
consideration. The pope always had the last
word, and little by little he came to have the
first word, too. Many events combined to
produce this development, chief among them, I
suppose, the long and sorry record of civil
governments misusing the power to appoint
bishops whenever they had it. History is filled
with instances of bad or weak men, men
without the slightest interest in religion, being
named bishops by kings or prime ministers who
made their choices solely on the basis of secular
politics. By choosing bishops directly, without
reference to the Catholics over whom these
bishops would preside, Rome delivered the
local church from the political pressures which
a government could exert and thus by and large
guaranteed not only the orthodoxy but also the
independence of the episcopal candidates.
There was a time, not so long ago, when such
a solution was an absolute necessity for the
Church. I wonder, though, whether that time
has not now passed. I wonder if politicians are
any more especially interested in who will be
archbishop of this place or bishop of that.
Perhaps in eastern Europe or in the emerging
nations of Africa the issue is still a lively one; I
doubt that it is elsewhere. If I am right then
maybe we should recall what direct Roman
appointment of bishops has cost us. A bishop is
not only an officer of the universal Church: he
is also a priest, a pastor of souls, who must have
a highly personal relationship with those
Catholics in his diocese among whom he lives
and to whom he offers the service of
sancification and leadership. Now if I thought
the pope himself appointed local bishops I
wouldn’t be particularly concerned. But I don’t
think so, and I would like to try to explain why
next week.
The trial should decide which side is
right.
Out of the spectacle, meanwhile, has
come a refreshing act.
The first persons to visit the two
priests and one former priest from
Baltimore was the city’s Cardinal
Lawrence Shehan.
“I don’t think any worker would
expect to see his employer,” commented
one of the priests. “When he walked in,
it was just unbelievable! We are eternally
grateful.”
The Cardinal is to be commended for
practicing true Christian compassion.
He did not prejudge his priests.
Whether they are guilty or innocent,
they still need compassion.
All three were released into his
custody.
It is good to see a member of the
Church’s hierarchy go to bat for priests
in trouble.
To say, You’ve made your bed; now
lie in it, would have been easy, much
easier than leaving the comfort of a
cardinal’s residence late at night to help
out a few jailbirds.
He could have waited until the next
day, or sent a emissary, but he chose to
go personally, as soon as he could, and
to stake his reputation on getting their
temporary freedom.
The accused aren’t likely to forget the
act, an act of service.
It’s nice to see a modem Good
Samaritan, especially in command post.
MRS. MEIR SPEAKS
It Seems To Me
Mrs. Golda Meir, who was
born an American in
Milwaukee but lived to
become, in her grandmother
years, premier of Israel, is a
realist. There is not one single
solitary bubble in her head —
not one. She speaks truth in
plain words that anybody can
understand, no matter how
unpalatable it
may be to
certain power
ful elements in
the world
scene.
Not long
ago, Mrs. Meir
gave an interv
iew to James Reston, editor
of the New York Times, who
was on a news-gathering tour
of such critical centers as
Moscow, Warsaw, Berlin,
London, Jerusalem. And Mrs.
Meir, pulling no punches and
scratching no backs, told
Reston that “it is important
to realize that the Soviet
Union is back of all this
trouble in the Middle East.”
What with the continued
Soviet fishing in troubled
Middle East waters, Mrs. Meir
warned, it is going to take a
very long time for Israel to
reach any real peace with the
Joseph Breijj
United Arab Republic and
other Arab nations which
follow the Soviet-UAR line.
The constant Soviet
pressures against Israel,
Premier Meir continued, are
like Hitler’s expansionist
moves against Czechoslovakia
in 1938. But there is one
important difference - Israel
will not back off as Europe
did when the Germans
invaded the Sudetenland.
Israel will defend herself.
Premier Meir then gave
editor Reston a statement
which I would strongly advise
everybody-especially young
people to read attentively and
to keep for re-reading from
time to time. Mrs. Meir said:
“I believe sincerely that
what is going to happen in
the area of Soviet activity in
which we are involved has
something to do with what
the world is going to be—the
future of the whole world,
not only for us in Israel.
“You know the
Russians . . .they don’t stop
at anything. I think they are
very careful. It isn’t true that
they just rush into something.
First, they put in one
OUR PARISH
foot-how’s the water?
“Is it all right? The next
foot goes in. There is one
wave. When it is past, then
the Russians go on to the
next one.
“That is their mentality.
That’s how they work, and I
am horrified to see how the
free world sits back.
“It isn’t that the free world
doesn’t understand. That’s
nonsense. The free world just
doesn’t want to see. And of
course, right now we are the
immediate target of the
Russians.”
Some people in the free
world understand, and some
don’t. Some refuse to face
reality about the obsessive
communist determination to
rule the world and to dictate
every thought and action of
every person on earth.
Many have their heads in
the sand, hiding themselves
from reality as many did in
the years when Hitler could
have been stopped without a
catastropic world war. And
some of the saddest examples
of reality-fleeing are to be
seen in the U.S. Senate.
The
Y ardstick
By
Msgr. George G. Higgins
Director, Division of Urban Life, U.S.C.C.
On Saturday evening, January 16, a thousand
distinguished Americans - self-styled “liberals”
for the most part - held a gala testimonial
dinner in Washington in honor of Joseph L.
Rauh, Jr. - lawyer, lobbyist, political activist
par excellence and a heck of a nice guy - on the
occasion of his 60th birthday. It was a
wonderful tribute to a great human being. Not
everyone in Washington agrees with Joe Rauh
or is necessarily fond of him, but almost
everyone knows who he is.
As Myra McPherson put it in the Washington
Post on the morning of Rauh’s testimonial
dinner, he is known reverently by friends and
disdainfully by detractors as “Mr. Liberal.” If
you said that about some other people I can
think about - including a number of erstwhile
liberals - they would probably resent it very
much for, in many circles, the word “liberal”
has lost all of its former glow and sheen and is
now considered to be an uncomplimentary
epithet.
That’s not so at all in the case of Joe Rauh.
He is proud to be known as “Joe Liberal” and,
believe it or not, is convinced that American
liberalism has a solid future ahead of it.
“Liberalism,” he says, “is more difficult today
but not necessarily less strong.” Ex-Senator
Paul Douglas, a good friend of Rauh and one of
the grand old men of American politics, feels
the same way about the matter. Liberalism, he
recently observed, is “the predominant
American sentiment. I don’t know that it’s
intact, but it’s strong.”
Joe Rauh has been right on many public
issues and wrong on others - but never
apathetic or indifferent to any public issue of
substantive importance. I ktiow of few men of
Joe’s generation who have done as much as he
has done to advance the cause of social justice
and political equality for all people regardless
of their race or creed or the color of their skin
-- and further still -- who have brought as much
verve and good humor and dogged perseverance
to the struggle for human rights. I admire him
as a tireless, compassionate, remarkably
goodnatured, and utterly fearless champion of
the poor and underprivileged and I have deep
affection for him as a personal friend.
When I was asked by those in charge of
Rauh’s testimonial dinner to say what I thought
about Joe in the form of a letter -- a letter to be
presented to him at the dinner as a part of a
bound volume of similar letters from 150 of his
admirers - I wrote to him as follows:
“Ever since I read “The Greening of
America,” I have been trying to figure out, in
my idle moments, which of my friends and
associates belong to “Consciousness II” and
which to “Consciousness III.” It didn’t take me
long to decide that most of them belong to the
former category, but since you - in spite of
your gray hair - are so young of heart and so
full of physical and psychological bounce, I felt
for a time that I might be able to fit you into
III.
“The more I thought about the matter,
however, the more I became convinced that
you are the Consciousness II man par
excellence. And for this I salute you with
admiration and affection, pace Professor Reich.
When I say that you are at the very top of my
list of favorite II people, I mean that you
represent the liberal tradition in this country at
its very best - and I hope that I am not being
an old fogey when I add that, in my book,
thats a very high compliment indeed.
“You have forgotten more than most of the
Consciousness II people - who, I gather, have
written off the liberal tradition as a complete
bust - will know about the faults and
imperfections of the American system. Another
way of saying the same thing is that your social
conscience and your social intelligence are
remarkably keen.
“The point is, however, that your
determination to do something constructive
about the problems which you see all around
you - and to do it within the liberal tradition
of rational discourse and without fear or favor
- is equally keen.Indeed I would say that there
are few men in the United States who have
done more than you have to bridge the gap
between American theory and American
practice in the whole area of social justice and
economic reform.
“You were born to be a crusader for justice,
freedom, and equality. You have won some of
your battles and lost others - but, to your
eternal credit, you have never given up the good
fight and have never been tempted to cop out
of the system. For this I admire and respect
you - and consider it a privilege to have known
you as a personal friend over a long period of
years.”