Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 5—September 9, 1971
$
a
&
^DiaCotfcce *)o "Pilot
Should Priest In Pulpit Touch
On Politics & Social Issues?
Mr. Thorman’s Position
By Donald J. Thorman
The answer to the question
of whether the priest in the
pulpit should preach about
political and social issues is
yes. I have some very strong
feelings, however, about
HOW he should do so.
It is humbling to have to
confess that at a more
simplistic time of life I would
have been in the vanguard of
those urging -- indeed,
demanding - that the clergy
take pulpit time to preach the
social doctrine of the Church
in season and out of season.
Now, I say, yes, but. . .
The problem is that in a
universal Church you must
have some kind of universal
rules. The liberal, progressive
Catholic assumes that the
priest in the pulpit will be a
“good guy;” that he will be a
man in a white biretta, on the
side of the angels -- as the
progressive sees it.
Unfortunately, in the real
world there are two
significant difficulties
involved here.
One is that the priest in the
pulpit might be an all-out
conservative who will preach
racism, anti-unionism, and
the most conservative
political doctrine. In
addition, he may well be a
hawk on the Indochina war. Is
this the man we are urging to
get up Sunday after Sunday
and unveil his stupidities
before a restless
congregation?
Second, we are dealing
with complex problems of
the application of principles
once we begin to speak
meaningfully about political
and social affairs. Who, for
example, can be against the
basic Catholic social principle
the sanctity of the
individual and the necessity
to construct a society which
will leave him free and
responsible?
But try applying this
ultimate value to everyday
politics - to the parish, the
city, the state, the nation in
which we live -- and we get a
different kettle of fish. There
are diametrically opposed
positions in application that
equally good Catholics might
take, Item: state or federal
aid to parochial schools finds
Catholics on both sides of the
issue, both interested in
keeping the individual free to
make his own responsible
choices.
Let me move one step
further by posing a case.
There is a parish in which the
pastor is a hawk in his
position on Vietnam, a man
of great simplicity in his
intellectual pursuits. He has
preached on more than one
occasion, directly or
indirectly, in favor of a
“complete victory” in
Vietnam.
Not long ago, a young
layman was invited - in
the pastor’s absence,
unfortunately - to give
another Catholic view on
Vietnam. At homily time, he
spoke articulately and
passionately against the war,
but within minutes a man
from the pews advanced
threateningly and about 40 or
50 members of the
congregation walked out.
This is exactly what I mean
by my concern about HOW
political and social issues are
discussed in the pulpit.
speaking out on a
controverted issue
providing they both made it
clear they were speaking as
individuals and that their
persuasiveness must depend
on their argumentation.
When it comes to the gray
area of application of
principles to specific social
and political issues, the pulpit
is no place for ex cathedra
pronunciamentos. It is rather
a place where the homilist
humbly and with full clarity
and honesty explains that he
is going to try to think
through with the
congregation HIS application
of principles and the Gospel
message to a particular
contemporary situation to
attempt to make it
contemporary and
meaningful. And this is a
procedure to be followed by
both liberals and
conservatives.
By not attempting to draw
the cloak of authority over
his position on arguable
matters, the priest in the
pulpit will, in the long run,
become more convincing and
effective. But if he attempts
to use the pulpit to expound
his personal views as if they
were part of the Holy Writ,
the Word itself cannot help
but become demeaned.
Priests must speak out - but
they must do so honestly and
humbly.
Response
*.*.*.:(MM*.-*.-**.*.*.*.*.*.**.*
(Editor’s Note: To dialogue means for persons with unlike
views to sit down together and calmly talk out their positions.
Opposing viewpoints left mutually isolated long enough can
bring polarization, or frozen attitudes - and that applies in the
Church as elsewhere. Trying to help draw all sides together, NC
News is running a series of “dialogue in print” about issues
under debate in the Church today. Donald J. Thorman is
publisher of the National Catholic Reporter, known for its
progressive outlook. Christopher Derrick, writer and critic, is a
noted British conservative Catholic. Readers are encouraged to
express their own opinions on dialogue issues in this
newspaper’s letters columns.)
By Christopher Derrick
It’s a terrible thing to
confess, but on this question
at least, I seem to be in some
measure of agreement with
Mr. Thorman.
If we disagree, it is about
degrees of certainty. Mr.
Thorman, so nervous about
dogmatism in matters of faith
an d morals, seems
wonderfully certain that a
Christian and Catholic
commitment ought to lead us
- inescapably -- in a more or
less leftish direction. And I
know other Catholics who
seem equally certain that
their religion entails political
and social consequences of
quite the opposite kind -- in
extreme cases, of
super-patriotic and even
clerico-fascist varieties. I can
sympathize (cautiously,
nervously) with both views,
but I think both are
mistaken.
It’s very agreeable to think
that one’s social and political
opinions have the authority
of the Faith behind them,
and are therefore enjoined
upon every true believer; but
feelings of this kind are
always deceptive. Apart from
a small number of moral
guidelines, we have no
certainty beyond what we
can get from the muddled old
human head and the angry
condemnatory old human
heart -- and these organs are
not to be trusted very far.
Our great need, in these
matters, is for agnosticism
and gentleness and a
calming-down of passions. We
should keep our dogmatism
where it belongs.
TV Movie
Reviews
.★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★■A
Sunday, September 12, 9:00
p.m. - OWEN MARSHALL,
COUNSELOR AT LAW - With
Arthur Hill, Vera Miles, Joseph
Campanella, William Shatner,
Bruce Davison, and just about
everyone else you can think of.
Mad e-for-television film is
actually a pilot for a new series
bowing on ABC the following
week. So, watch it if you’re
interested in hoked-up lawyer
melodrama, because the pilot will
introduce characters who will be
appearing intermittently
throughout the year. (ABC)
Monday, September 13, 8:30
p.m. - REAR WINDOW (1954) -
Tense Hitchcock thriller stars
James Stewart and Grace Kelly.
An Apartment-bound man (he’s
got a broken leg) passes most of
his time snooping on neighboring
apartments from his rear window
(hence, the title). The rest of his
time is taken up with lovely Miss
Kelly, until both become aware of
a rather grisly set of
circumstances occurring across
the court - from then on, it’s cat
and mouse as killer Raymond
Burr does the stalking. This is fine
TV fare. (A-ll) (ABC)
Monday, September 13, 9:00
p.m. - JANE EYRE - Superb
television film of the C. Bronte
classic, casts George C. Scott as
Edward Rochester and Susannah
York as Jane, the orphan girl who
becomes governess to the mystery
man’s child. One of the best films
presented last season; those who
saw it then will want to see it
again, those who missed it can
discover its power and beauty.
Scott and Miss York are excellent.
(NBC)
Tuesday, September 14, 8:30
p.m. - THE FORGOTTEN MAN
- Made-for-television film about a
P.O.W. (Dennis Weaver) who tries
to resume a normal life after his
releasee . . .thing is, his wife has
remarried, his daughter doesn’t
recognize him, his business has
been sold, etc., etc. In other
words, he has plenty to keep him
busy for the film’s ninety-minute
running time. (ABC)
Wednesday, September 15,
8:30 p.m. - MURDER BY THE
BOOK - Made-for-television film.
A mystery writer (Jack Cassidy)
plots a “perfect murder, with his
partner (Martin Milner) as the
intended victim. Tough detective
Peter Falk cracks the case. (ABC)
Thursday, September 16, 9:00
p.m. - HARPER (1966) - Paul
Newman stars in an adult thriller
as a tough private eye (they are all
tough in the movies) who is hired
to track down a missing
millionare. Various leads take him
to visits with Lauren Bacall as the
missing man’s wife, Shelley
Winters as a faded film-star friend,
Robert Wagner as a private pilot
who may have been involved in
the case, and Julie Harris as a
piano player who strikes a bum
chord for Harper. (A-lll) (CBS)
Friday, September 17, 8:30
p.m. - ONCE UPON A DEAD
MAN - “World premiere”
television presentation places
Rock Hudson in his TV debut as
Police Commission Stewart
McMillan.The film will be
followed by others involving the
same character. This one follows
Hudson and Susan Saint James
(his TV wife) as they humorously
track down a missing Egyptian
sarcophagus. (NBC)
Friday, September 17, 9:00
p.m. - TERROR IN THE SKY -
Still another made-for-television
offering. Lloyd Bridges with Lief
Erickson, Doug McClure, Lois
Nettleson. The title says it all.
(CBS)
Saturday, September 18, 8:30
p.m. - THE BIRDMEN - World
War II adventure melodrama
involves a fantastic escape plotted
by Allied P.O.W.’s Doug McClure,
Richard Basehart, Rene
Auberjoinois, Chuck Connors,
and Max Baer. Plenty of action
for all. (ABC)
Saturday, September 18. 9:00
p.m. - THE ALAMO (1960) -
Yahoooo! The Duke dishes up
some dandy drama based on the
things America remembers about
the famed Alamo. John Wayne
stars, produced, directed — so
expect a rip-roaring adventure and
maybe just a little preaching in
the patriotic vein. This is a fine
adventure film, a bit deficient in
historical accuracy, but with
minimal distortion. (A-l) (NBC)
I would not oppose either
the pastor or the layman
Mr. Derrick’s Position
By Christopher Derrick
If social and political
matters could be separated
out completely from all
questions of morality, cf
value, of religion, then indeed
the Church (as such) would
have no competence to speak
on such matters, and her
priests should keep silent
about them when speaking in
Christ’s name from the
pulpit.
But rather obviously, this
is not the case, In my view,
the priest in his pulpit - and
the bishop on his throne, and
the Pope on his CATHEDRA
- have a very definite duty of
speaking out in a variety of
matters not obviously and
strictly religious, of
“interfering” (as some might
complain) in those social and
political questions.
I am not suggesting that
our temporal affairs ought to
be managed, or even
supervised, by the clergy. Nor
do I believe that it is, or
should be, the Church’s
primary concern to work
toward the best possible state
of temporal society. I would
put the emphasis elsewhere -
upon the fact that social and
political affairs offer much
scope for wickedness or sin
that will not always be
recognized as such, and much
danger therefore to the
salvation of souls.
As I see it, the key
principle here is one that will
seem paradoxical or perverse
to anyone who misunder
stands or rejects the Christian
gospel. According to this
gospel, it is not necessarily a
great evil to suffer
oppression, injustice, or
poverty. But is is certainly
and always a great evil to
inflict oppression, injustice,
and poverty. And if our
approach to social and
political questions is to have
the distinctively Christian
orientation, it will have to be
governed by a primary
concern about the moral
state, the endangered
salvation of the rich and
powerful.
The Church must always
be the champion of the poor,
if only because they will
often have no other
champion. Even so, there is
an important spiritual sense
in which they aren’t the
people who chiefly need to
be worried about.
To some, this will seem an
inhuman and irresponsible
order of priorities. But to my
mind, it offers - though
strictly as a by-product - our
best hope of actually helping
the poor and the weak on
lines that will not be violent
in principle and totalitarian in
the outcome.
The important thing (on
this moralistic view) is that
when some priest concerns
himself in the pulpit with
social or political matters, he
should rebuke the sins that
this particular congregation
are in danger of committing:
he should not foster their
self-righteousness or their
self-pity by castigating the
different failings of other
people.
If there is white oppression
of blacks, the sinfulness of
this should be preached, and
fiercely, to every relevant
white congregation. But to a
black congregation, the priest
should speak rather of
patience and forgiveness, of
the redemptive value of
accepted suffering. Each
message will probably be
resented, but a doctor should
give us the medicine that we
need, not the medicine that
we like.
By Donald J. Thorman
According to the ground
rules of our exchange, one
would assume that Mr.
Derrick and I should be at
swords’ points over every
issue we discuss.
Embarrassingly enough, in
this case, I find such a role
very difficult. To disagree
with Derrick’s ukase about
the Church being the
champion of the poor,
therefore, would put me
generally in the position of
being against motherhood
and apple pie.
However, I do find some
d if f iculty with the
practicality of his position
that a priest should rebuke
the sins of a particular
congregation. In theory I
have no problem, but in
If a priest addresses a
congregation of John Birchers
and military hawks, he should
not spend much time in
telling them about the
undoubted evils of atheistic
Communism. Rather, he
should remind them that
super-patriotism can easily
become a ridiculous and
deeply un-Christian idolatry.
He should stress the clear but
possible embarrassing fact
that traditional Catholic
teaching on “the just war”
leads nowadays - in practice
- to something very like a
pacifist conclusion.
The facts of social and
political life being what they
are, this kind of treatment
will mostly be needed by the
rich and powerful. So if some
priest appears to be
neglecting the poor and
spending all his time in the
mink-lined gin-sodden
apartments of the Beautiful
People, don’t judge him too
hastily. Just possibly, he may
be applying himself to an
apostolate or mission-field of
particular importance and
particular difficulty. The lost
sheep are the ones whom the
shepherd needs to worry
about, and camels aren’t
easily herded through the
needle’s eye.
application my experience
has been that the majority of
American parishes have a
wide spread of socio-econo
mic backgrounds and,
increasingly, an ethnic and
racial integration also.
It would be my bet that in
each parochial unit all the
frailties known to man are
extant and widely practiced.
Just as drug addiction knows
no geographical or economic
limits, neither do the kinds of
sins and doficiGncies to which
man is addicted. There are, I
regret to say, black racists in
inner-city parishes just as
there are white racists in
ethnic or suburban parishes.
And hawks and doves seem
equally distributed. In
practice, a priest could step
into most any pulpit and give
the same homily. I still
believe the question of HOW
he gives it is paramount.
Response
SHADOW TALK - An interpreter translates into sign language the math lecture of an instructor at
Lee College in Baytown, Texas. There are 23 interpreters and 50 deaf students at the college. (NC
PHOTO courtesy Texas Catholic Herald)
Film Classifications
A
A
A
A
B
C
Section I - Morally Unobjectionable for General Patronage
Section II — Morally Unobjectionable for Adults Adolescents
Section III - Morally Unobjectionable for Adults
Section IV - Morally Unobjectionable for Adults, Reservations
Morally Objectionable in Part for All
Condemned
SOUL TO SOUL - The
Republic of Ghana was the first
African nation to gain its
independence from colonial rule,
in its case from the British
Commonwealth in 1957. To help
the nation celebrate its fourteenth
year as a new nation, the Ghana
Arts Council sponsored a “Soul to
Soul” festival featuring a number
of America’s top black rock, jazz,
and blues performers and groups.
The idea behind the concert,
which occupied fourteen frantic
hours in March of this year, and
which was held in Ghana’s capital
city of Accra, was to expand
minds both ways to the
possibilities of common roots and
humanity shared by the American
performers and their African
brothers and sisters.
First, the music. Those who
already know and like the soul
sound will find the film brimming
with excitement. Pickett is at his
driving, howling best; Ike and
Tina and the Ikettes shake and
quake; Miss Flack pours honest
feeling over the entire audience;
Santana’s rhythms and subtleties
are intriguing. Those who are
unfamiliar with the soul sound or
who wince as it blares from
passing transistor radios will find,
hopefully to their delight, that
watching changes the music
completely, makes it real and
wild. With his many cameramen
and his skilled editor, Stan Sidney
Levin, Sanders has successfully
employed the possibilities of the
film medium to expand the limits
of pop soul music. The resulting
movie experience is unique.
In terms of its humanity,
SOUL TO SOUL should offer
some true enlightenment to
whites about blacks, their music,
and their “black culture,” and it
just might shake from American
black nationalists some of their
preconceptions about the African
motherland. Many of the
American performers, in fact,
expressed their expectations to
Sanders on the flight over. One
youngster in particular, a member
of the Voices of East Harlem,
spoke for many when he said he
was looking forward to the trip
“home” but really didn’t expect
much in the way of African
music. What he and the others did
discover was something quite
different, and everyone on the
SOUL TO SOUL concert trip
found an African of many
disparate tribal cutlures all sharing
a commonality in the rhythms of
their life, all sharing the music
derived from those rhythms in
celebrations and ceremonies of
birth through death. Through
Sander's eyes and ears, which are
those of the troupe, the discovery
of rhythm and music everywhere
is startling and wondrous.
Some of the trip was
completely unexpected and, for
performers like jazz pianist Les
McCann and Miss Flack, sobering
and sad. The Americans had come
from a country wracked with the
pain of racism, where 300 years
of black enslavement has left
unhealed scars. And when they
found the silent monument in
Accra of a black-owned,
black-operated slave castle, the
realization, whether a revelation
or not, hit hard. It is not easy to
accept the possibility that your
black American ancestor may
have been captured and sold into
bondage by the forbears of your
African soul brother.
Most of the trip, however, and
most of the film, devotes itself to
musical celebration, and this
aspect is irresistable. SOUL TO
SOUL is that rare film,
beautifully conceived and made,
which entertains superbly and yet
instructs and opens gently. It is a
joyous, valuable experience for
all. (A-l)
SEE NO EVIL, offers a study
of mass murder but otherwise
departs from its predecessors. The
film presents a purely fictional
story, written by Brian Clemens,
making an observation of a person
who nearly becomes a victim. The
focus is on Mia Farrow, who plays
a young English girl returning to
“normal” life following a
horseback riding accident that left
her blind. Back at her uncle’s
splendid manor farm and just
beginning to make tentative
reaches for self-confidence, Miss
Farrow keeps herself busy. A
determined girl, she even takes up
riding again and, returning one
afternoon from a pleasant ride
with her young man (Norman
Eshley) who manages a nearby
horse farm, she gropes her
independent way around the
manor unaware that the family -
four in all, including the
groundskeeper - have been
slaughtered. It is not until the
next morning that her hands
chance to touch one of the dead.
SEE NO EVIL is best left to
the fairly mature. Its violence is
more implicit than explicit, but
the aura of psychological horror
for which the director strives, al
beit for the most part unsuccess
fully, is, again, something for.
adults and not children to handle.
(A-lll)
THE GREAT MEDICINE
BALL CARAVAN (Warner Bros.)
This disturbing and ultimately
frustrating documentary follows a
cross-country caravan of hippie
types on a musical tour of
America. The movie sets out to be
a kind of Woodstock on wheels,
but all it really is is a promotional
tour for some of Warner Brothers’
second string recording groups.
The music is undistinguished to
say the most, and the movie,
perhaps intentionally, perhaps
not, is an expose of how the
media can be misused for
commercial exploitation. The
hippie-types were recruited to
cheer at the free concerts, and
many were so zonked on drugs as
to be inarticulate. Our
reservations about the film stem
from its lack of a clear point of
view and from the fact that it
purports to represent young
America’s mind. It doesn’t.
(A- IV)
ROMANCE OF A
HORSETHIEF (Allied Artists)
Here is a generally humorous and
warm tale about some
turn -of-the-century Polish
horsethieves, but it gets bogged
down in some clumsy side-long
glances into earthy sex. The
internatioal cast is an added
attraction, but one wonders why
a potential family entertainment
had to be marred with
unnecessary nudity and crude
language. (B)
CRY UNCLE! (Cambist) is
what you do when you’ve had
enough -- in this case from the
director of JOE, John G.
Avildsen. His new movie is
occasionally screamingly funny
but mostly stupefyingly crude in
its visual and aural assault on
what's left of its audience’s
sensibilities. After all, how long
can anyone watch a paunchy
private eye fornicate his way
through a nasty little blackmail
case? (C)
EAGLE IN A CAGE (National
General) A m erican- Yugoslav
production presents a British cast
re-enacting the final machinations
of Napolean Bonaparte, the
“Captive Eagle” held by the
British on the Isle of St. Helena.
The storyline fictionalizes
Bonaparte’s determination to
escape and return to power, with
dramatic underscoring provided
by his testy relationship with his
wily jailer (Ralph Richardson),
and his frustrations underlined by
his failing health. John Gielgud
appears in a delicious cameo role
as a visiting British bigwig, and
the entire cast seems to have had
a jolly good time of it. You will,
too, if you’re not too demanding.
(A-lll)
RETURN OF COUNT YORGA
(American International) The
centuries-old vampire strikes
again, this time in picturesque San
Francisco, where he holds forth
for a covey of thirsty ghoals in a
splendid Victorian mansion.
Robert Quarry is pure camp as
the vamp, Mariette Hartley all
acquiver as his intended victim.
The movie is meant for fun not
terror, and most folks will gasp
and scream but love it all the
while. Bob Kelljan directs with
lively eye, and he wrests
uniformly spirited performances
from the entire cast. The
free-flowing blood, however, is
enough to keep the kiddies away.
(A-ll)
RECENT NC0MP
CLASSIFICATIONS
Soul to Soul (Cinerama) --
A-I
Yorga (American
International) - A-II
Let’s Scare Jessica to
Death (Paramount) - A-III
Night of Dark Shadows
(MGM) - A-III
The Great Medicine Ball
Caravan (Warner Bros.) -
A-VI