Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.