Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 4
The Georgia Bulletin
September 3,1981
I
4
Labor Day
Now he is president of the United
States. Once he was president of
another group. Fondly and frequently,
Ronald Reagan recalls that he was once
head of the Actors Guild, a union
representing the rights of the working
men and women of the stage and
screen. In fact, the President insists
proudly that he is still a card-carrying
member of his former union.
Even though he promptly fired the
oath breaking air controllers, the
President claims that he stands firmly
behind the rights of the working
classes. The aim of his administration is
economic security for all Americans.
We will achieve this, according to the
President, by living within our means as
a nation.
We want to believe in and work for
the President's national goal. Step by
step, as the plan unfolds, we find the
path most painful to walk. Those who
have the most need are getting less.
There is less money for food stamps,
less money for welfare cases, less
money for needful social services. The
working classes suffer most as we
pioneer on behalf of national
prosperity.
Ninety years ago “Rerurn
Novarum,” the brilliant letter of Pope
Leo XIII, outlined the dignity of work
and the rights of the worker. The
message is still there to be told. We
must honor the dignity of the working
man and woman, support them in times
of hardship and need and see to it that
just retirement results from their
lifelong efforts.
Labor Day across the United States
is a celebration of achievement. Let us
continue to honor that achievement by
seeking full employment for all who
honestly desire it. And let us be certain
that the prosperity we herald may
become a part of all who labor for the
success of the American dream. --NCB
Another Honorable Boycott
The Archdiocesan of New York sends to its
retired priests a Monthly Newsletter edited by
Father John Byrne. A recent issue contained the
following article which offers food for thought
about our responsibilities in light of the Third
Commandment: “Take care to keep holy the
Sabbath Day. ” - Archbishop Thomas A. Donnellan.
There are few who do not know the
meaning of “boycott” or its origin; in
Ireland in 1880, when a certain land
agent, Captain Charles C. Boycott's
ruthless eviction of tenants led his
employees to refuse all cooperation
with him and his family. We suggest
another worthy and increasingly
necessary BOYCOTT of those who
violate the Lord’s day by shopping and
other kinds of business that can just as
well be done on any other day of the
week. If Catholic parents are concerned
with the religious education of their
children either in Catholic schools or in
CCD Schools of Religion, the words of
Bishop John Lancaster Spalding, the
first Bishop of Peoria, have some
application in this matter, however
indirectly:
"... the Church does not and
cannot consent to the exclusion of
religion from any educational
process ... If Catholic children have a
right to a Catholic education it follows
that the duty devolves upon Catholics
to provide the means whereby it may
be received; and the Catholics of the
United States have accepted the task
thus imposed with a spirit of
self-sacrifice which is above all praise.”
Isn’t there something quite
inconsistent about dashing from the
parish church to a local or not so local
supermarket for food, clothes or any
other merchandise that is also available
on any other day of the week?
"You must keep my Sabbaths
carefully, because the Sabbath is a sign
between Myself and you from
generation to generation to show that it
is I, Yahweh, who sanctify you.”
Exodus 31:12-13
Rural Reflections
Father Gerald Peterson
Archdiocesan Rural Life Director
A gnawing concern of mine is respect for
and proper use of our natural resources. I have
a strong conviction about the Christian’s
responsibility to use the soil and all natural
resources so that there is sufficient food and
energy resources not only for today, but for
generations to come.
A deeper awareness of the responsibility to
share with the needy of the world came during
the international food crisis of the 1970s. In a
five-week study of the issue at St. Luke’s
Church in Dahlonega, I became more fully
aware of the need to use with respect the gifts
of nature which are ours in abundance in the
United States.
A professor from Georgia Tech spoke to
our adult education class. She pointed out
that no other people are as blessed as we are in
the United States with the great plain area
that stretches from Indiana and Illinois to the
Dakotas. This rich farm land has adequate
rainfall and a moderate enough climate to
make it possible for our American farmers to
grow over twenty-five percent of the world’s
food. Africa has large areas of flat land, but
its climate is too dry and hot to produce an
abundant harvest. Russia has Siberia, but this
land, with its severe, long winters, has a very
short growing season.
If I recall the statistics correctly, we, as a
nation, produce twenty-five percent of the
world’s food. We make up less than seven
percent of the world’s population, yet we
consume twelve percent of the food we grow.
All this adds up to the fact that we eat twice as
well as the average person in the world.
In this land of ours, we use a lion’s share of
the world’s energy and other natural
resources. Statistics indicate that we, who are
seven percent of the population, consume or
use somewhere between thirty and fifty
percent of the world’s resources.
As Christian people do we see our
responsibility to share with the rest of the
world the limited resources of nature?
“The earth’s resources are limited. What
we use up today is gone for tomorrow. So the
slower we use them, the longer the resources
will last. Sounds like plain old common
sense.”
“Yet it is only in recent years, following
the energy and world food crises of the early
seventies, that this kind of common-sense
thinking has found its way into popular public
awareness. And, for the most part, we are still
waiting for it to find its way into practice.”
(Catholic Rural Life, June, 1981, pg. 3).
Do we as Catholic Christians see any
special responsibility to share our abundance
of food with the hungry of the world? Do we,
in the light of Gospel values about feeding the
hungry and clothing the naked and loving
your neighbor as yourself, question the
unprecedented increase of our national
military budget and the development of the
neutron bomb, while programs of aid to the
poor of our own country and of developing
nations are sharply reduced? Is there any ‘sin’
involved in the waste of food and fuel?
I don’t claim to have clearly defined
answers to all these questions, but the issues
they raise are a constant concern on my
conscience. Common sense and Christian
faith all affirm the simple truth that the
earth’s resources are limited and are to be
fairly shared by all of God’s people.
As a nation and as individuals we can take
one of two attitudes toward land and its
natural resources - abuse or conservation. As
good stewards of God’s good earth, join me,
won’t you, in a spirit of conservation - not
that we might hoard up for the future, but
that we might share with the needy of the
world their fair share of the produce of the
earth.
prv
\ Georgia
Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta
Most Rev. Thomas A. Donnellan - Publisher
Rev. Monsignor Noel C. Burtenshaw — Editor
Gretchen R. Reiser — Associate Editor
Thea K. Jarvis — Contributing Editor
(USPS) 574 (SO)
Member of the Catholic Press Association
Business Office
6(0 West Peachtree. N. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Telephone 881-9732
U.S.A. $8.00
Canada $8.50
Foreign $1 0.00
DEADLINE: All material for publication must be received by MONDAY
NOON for Thursday's paper.
Postmaster: Send POD Form 3579 to THE GEORGIA BULLETIN
601 East Sixth Street, Waynesboro, Georgia 30830
Send all editorial correspondence to: THE GEORGIA BULLETIN
680 West Peachtree Street N.w.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Second Class Postage Paid at Waynesboro, Ga. 30830
Published Weekly except the second and last weeks
in June, July and August and the last week In December
at 601 East Sixth St., Waynesboro. Ga. 30830
Reading, Writing And Rhetoric:
A Parental Indulgence
Dolores Curran
“No,” admitted the man angrily, “I don’t
read. But that doesn’t mean I don’t want my
children to.” He was speaking at one of our
community’s periodic educational uproars. A
few years ago, we chose up sides for or against
the fundamental school concept and there
was a large and emotional gathering of parents
who wanted to do away with everything but
the three R’s in the schools. As an addicted
crowd watcher, I was intrigued by the
contradictions on both sides of the issue.
Whatever the reason and however we
approach it, with frills or phonics or whatever
a particular parent promotes, we all want our
children to read and write, teachers especially.
They spend terrific amounts of time in pursuit
of this elusive skill and still find kids at the end
of the year who don’t read well or aren’t
interested in reading anything outside the
classroom.
Contrary to what we would like to believe,
this happens in parochial as well as public
schools. Children who do not read, spell and
add well do graduate from our parish schools,
and from expensive preparatory schools, as
well. A great deal of effort is expanded on this
dilemma at NCEA and diocesan school
conventions.
There’s some pretty good evidence,
though, that the family makes more
difference than the school. If parents are
readers, children tend to read more and
better. If the family expects children to drill
and study at home, they are more apt to learn
at school. Conversely, if children never see
their parents read or if parents never question
their children’s study habits, the children are
more likely to end up as statistics on the list of
those we label functionally illiterate.
I have a modest proposal for teaching the
three R’s this year. All it requires are parents
who care enough to carry out two educational
functions: 1) turn off television during the
week; and 2) supervise their children’s
homework.
In short, it’s getting back to those good old
days when parents were part of the
fundamentals they’re calling for. If there’s no
television consuming great gulps of children’s
time during the week, it frees them to read
and study. Many children in our culture spend
more time in front of television weekly than
in front of a teacher. So why should we expect
them to read? And if in a rare case, they do
learn the skill, why should we expect them to
want to read? They are viewers, not readers.
If parents expect and supervise an hour to
two of homework nightly, their children are
going to learn their fundamentals because
parents aren’t going to see their time wasted.
If a child has no homework, this is an
excellent opportunity to have him write until
his penmanship is legible or spell until he can.
Any parent can teach spelling and writing.
Simply start with the names of states,
capitols, animals, trees, and junk food. If TV
withdrawal symptoms are high, start with the
names of programs, actors, and advertisers.
Have the kids write new commercials for
creativity as well as spelling and penmanship.
For math, have them figure the number of
minutes Gilligan’s Island has consumed of
their lifetime.
I agree with Francis Keppel that education
is too important to be left to the educators. As
parents, let’s give ourselves a year of educating
without television during the weekday and
with parental supervision of homework — just
a year — and see how our children fare on
reading and writing tests in June. They just
may be able to do both. What have we got to
lose besides a few hundred hours of violence
and a few extra measures of patience?
23rd Sunday in Ordinary Time (A)
September 6,1981
THE
THIS
ORD
W EEKEND
Ezekiel 33: 7-9
Romans 13:8-10
Matthew 18: 15-20
Paul Karnowski
This could be a confusing column. Today’s
scripture readings, if I understand them
torrectly, address the matter of correction. It
seems that correction can be correct and
incorrect at the same time: correct in content,
but incorrect in manner. And sometimes no
correction at all is incorrect. (If you
understood all the preceeding, I stand
corrected; I incorrectly assumed that all of the
“incorrections” and “corrections” would
cause you to draw some incorrect
conclusions.)
In the first reading, from the book of
Ezekiel, God admonishes the phophet, “You,
son of man, I have appointed watchman for
the house of Israel; when you hear me say
anything, you shall warn them for me.”
Ezekiel is to serve as a spokesman for God,
speaking out against those attitudes and
actions that are contrary to the will of God.
He is to correct those who are straying from
the path of righteousness.
The gospel, too, talks about correction.
Jesus urges his disciples to confront one
another. “If your brother should commit
some wrong against you, go and point out his
fault. If he listens to you, you have won your
brother over.”
Both of these readings presuppose a need
for correction: there is not a man or a woman
among us who is never in need of
chastisement. How we correct each other is
another consideration. In the reading from
Paul’s letter to the Romans we find an answer.
Paul speaks of the one commandment that
reigns supreme: “You shall love your
neighbor as yourself.” Correction, as with any
other task in the Christian community, must
be performed in a spirit of love. Yet, when we
correct one another, we often forget this
precept. We are vindictive and judgmental to a
loveless degree; we almost take glee in
criticizing the shortcoming of others.
Although we are justified in confronting one
another, we forget the spirit of love.
Correction can be correct in content, but
incorrect in manner.
At the other extreme, we say nothing. We
allow our neighbors to destroy themselves,
denying them a chance to be accountable for
their own actions. The lovelessness of apathy
is apparent to all. Sometimes no correction at
all is incorrect.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it appears
that our means of correcting one another
could use some correction.
Let Me Convince You
To Be A Priest!?!
Father Richard Lopez
Archdiocesan Vocation Director
It will be four years in January - I think -
that I have been vocation director for the
archdiocese.
I’m not sure I knew four years ago what it
meant to be a “vocation director” and now,
all I can say is that I am learning. One thing I
am sure that I am not is a “recruiter.” I do not
go out with a net and try to catch young boys
and drag them into the seminary, nor do I talk
someone into the seminary or try to convince
him to be a priest.
A “vocation” does not operate that way
and God help the vocation director who does!
A vocation is a mysterious invitation from
God to follow Him as a priest or religious. It is
mysterious to me for two reasons: first
because we are perfectly free to say yes or no
to that invitation and, second, because that
invitation is extended to an incredible variety
of persons in an incredible variety of
situations. No one can be forced or convinced
into having a vocation. Even in the last years
of the seminary, a man cannot continue
simply out of a sense of obligation to his
friends or superiors. He perseveres in his
vocation because it is his free choice to stay.
Of course that free choice is often made
with a certain amount of fear and trembling
and doubt - but it is his free response to the
invitation, not the vocation director’s
response, not his family’s response - but his.
If any of you have ever thought about the
priesthood, don’t stay away from your priest
or from me because you’re afraid we will
throw a net over you or even try to talk you
into the seminary!
All we want to do -- all we can do - is listen
to you, perhaps advise you and surely pray for
you that you may begin to leam what it means
to discover a vocation and to decide if you will
say yes or no to this most remarkable
invitation.