Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 4
The Georgia Bulletin
February 11,1982
The Budget
Hopefully, the administration’s
desire for a balanced budget will get
the enthusiastic support of every
citizen in the nation. Over-spending,
sinful squandering and complacent
contentment with the fungus of large
annual deficits will not heal our ills.
We need to balance our expenses with
our income.
The Good Lord only knows,
Ronald Reagan ran for office on this
premise and has held dear to it ever
since.
However, the administration's
budget for fiscal 1983 -- just out --
shows little concern for holding the
line. Even the beginnings of the
so-called “ Reagan-recovery” are
blatantly absent, some would say they
are openly ignored.
After the pronouncement of the
New Federalism and the actual
cancellation of so many programs and
services, the nation still faces a
herculean 91 billion dollar deficit. So
the message has not changed, the poor
and working classes must manage,
somehow, but the increasing, spending
mania goes marching on.
Senator Bob Dole, long a Reagan
cheerleader, is applauding no longer.
“The Republicans I talk to are
frightened about the deficits.” He
could have added the entire nation is
registering fear.
It has not gone unnoticed that the
military has been carefully comforted
even in this crisis. Ten billion dollars
has been added to the arsenal. When
the needs of our recession-stricken
people are considered, especially in
industrial areas, this kind of military
pampering begins to make a great
democracy resemble a banana
republic.
The Congress, right and left, is up
in arms. It looks like the cozy
relationship between administrators
and legislators has reached a parting of
the ways. We can expect sparks to fly
and so be it.
-NCB
Resound ... Resound
What Do You Call A Priest?
Dolores Curran
I met a priest the other day with a
wonderful mother. Instead of the usual, “My
son, the Father” formality found in many
mothers of priests, this 75-year-old mother
has it all together. Her son is still her beloved
and ordained, but she isn’t about to confer
sanctity upon him quite yet.
He told me that from early ordination on,
he knew better than to pull rank on her.
“Shortly after I was ordained,” he divulged,
“my mother and I were invited to a
relative’s. It bothered me when she got in
the front seat next to me because it was
stressed in the seminary at that time that
priests should never allow a woman to ride
in the front seat with them. So I said, ‘Ma,
maybe you better ride in the back seat.’
“She gave me.a long Irish stare and said,
‘Listen to me, Sonny. If anybody’s going to
ride in the back seat, it’s going to be you.’
And I never said anything after that.”
Women today find themselves in all kinds
of quandaries over priests. Should they ride
in the front seat with them? Should they
dispute them, especially when they work
together professionally? Should they call
them by their first name if they request it?
The tension arising between laywomen
and priests is little different from that arising
between women and other authorities,
bosses and professors today. The rules are
changing as the role of woman changes -
from temptress to colleague or from helpless
to associate. And a lot of men and women
don’t know how to handle these new
relationships.
“I don’t know what to do,” a military
wife said to me. “Our chaplain wants me to
call him by his first name but my husband
gets angry if I do.” She’s in a Catholic Catch
22. In this situation, her husband is more
traditional than her chaplain and she feels
the tension between the two.
I asked several priests who prefer being
called by their first names why. Here is what
I learned.
“Whenever respect is automatic and not
earned, you end up paying the price,” said
one. “People may think they’re respectful
but underneath, they’re often resentful.
When they call me Father McCarthy, I am
exacting homage from them. When they call
me Father Bill or just Bill, I become a friend
and a peer to them.”
Another said cryptically, “If I can call
parishioners by their first name, why can’t
they call me by mine? We’re all priests in
some form or another working for the same
God.”
The most common were those who feel
that the use of Father depersonalizes them
and creates a deliberate distance between
them and those they love and serve. “I
HATE being called Father by my family,”
said a priest. “Why should my brothers and
sisters that I played with as children have to
call me Father? Or my Marriage Encounter
friends? One set of nieces even call me
‘Uncle Father Larry.’ ” He shook his head in
sadness.
I urge priests, particularly those who work
closely with laity, to let us know what they
prefer being called. We are bewildered. An
honor to one priest is a disappointment to
another.
My technique may be helpful to other
laity. If I’m working with a group of priests
on some project, I simply ask them how
they prefer being addressed and let them
know if I want to be addressed by my first
name or formal name. It clears the air and
we don’t have to play guessing games or
reach for the enforced politeness that gets in
the way of good conference work.
To the Editor:
Thank you for showing us that our
leading archdiocesan spokesman has no more
understanding than that warped and bitter
Washington columnist Mary McGrory. Your
editorial on President Reagan’s refusal to
reveal his charitable contributions reminds
one of the parable of the Pharisee and the
publican:
“O God, I thank thee that I am not like
the rest of men, robbers, dishonest,
adulterers or even like this publican . . . But
the publican, standing afar off would not so
much as lift his eyes to heaven ... I tell you
(said Christ) this man went back to his home
justified rather than the other; for everyone
who exalts himself shall be humbled and he
who humbles himself shall be exalted.”
As highly educated as you’re supposed to
be, you should know that it is not required
to report all tax deductible charitable
contributions on your tax return nor are all
charitable contributions tax deductible.
If you were as willing to extend to
President Reagan the compassion and kindly
concern you insist on extending to
murderers, rapists and assorted other vicious
criminals, you would have shown more
understanding than did poor, warped Mary
McGrory.
Thank you for giving us one lesson. You
demonstrate that some who preach religion
and love of God and kindness to his
fellowman aren’t always able to practice it.
J.F. O’Mahoney, Jr.
Stone Mountain
To the Editor:
I would like to respond to the letter from
M.J. Maguire Sr. concerning the January 17
Pro Life Sunday. Sir, no one forced you to
sign the cards which the Archdiocesan Office
made available to all the parishes. I would
hardly call this action a “political ploy,” just
making it easier for our Catholic citizens to
register their opinions. In these busy times,
some people won’t take the time to look up
an address, write a letter, get a stamp, and
mail it to their representatives in Washington
or the state capital. Does becoming a
Catholic mean we give up our rights as
citizens to make our voices heard? I think
we have an obligation to do anything we can
do to stop the killing of innocent human
lives.
Suzanne Michel Minnick
Marietta
To the Editor:
Monsignor Burtenshaw erred seriously in
his editorial on President Reagan’s charitable
contributions - both in judging another
person and in his apparent ignorance of tax
policy.
Obviously, Monsignor, you didn’t hear the
president say that he prefers to give to
individuals or in other ways that are not
tax-deductible. I say “obviously” because
I’m sure that you wouldn’t publicly pass
judgment on another person in the absence
of substantial evidence. Or are you calling
the president a liar? A policy of giving such
as he described is perfectly in keeping with
his statements that we should help each
other and not depend on the government.
Or are you saying that only tax-deductible
charity is real charity? Does this mean that
those who support elderly relatives, that
doctors who care for the poor without
charge are lacking in charity? One could
argue, in fact, that tax-deductible
contributions are somewhat LESS likely to
be true charity -- Planned Parenthood being
a case in point.
It would be far better for the clergy to
stick to issues of morality on which they are
well-informed and articulate, such as
abortion, than to delve into tax policy and
personal judgments. I believe you owe the
president and the readership an apology.
Theresa S. Miller
Athens
“I tell you those instruments are off.
We shouldn’t be flying so high.”
[f'
\ ueioiyta
Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta
(USPS) 5 74 MO)
Most Rev. Thomas A. Donnellan - Publisher
Rev. Monsignor Noel C. Burtenshaw - Editor
Gretchen R. Reiser — Associate Editor
Thea K. Jarvis - Contributing Editor
Member of the Catholic Press Association
Business Office U S A. $8.00
680 West Peachtree, N. W. Telephone 881-9732 Canada $8.50
Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Foreign $10.00
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 alt 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 Cast Sixth St.. Waynesboro. Ga 30830
6th Sunday in Ordinary Time (B)
February 14, 1982
THE W ORD
THIS W EEKEND
Paul Karnowski
Leviticus 13: 1-2, 44-46
I Corinthians 10: 31-11: 1
Mark 1: 40-45
Advertisements for electronic equipment
come in two parts. The first section, in large,
easy-to-read type, describes the joys of
owning a particular stereo, television or
scanner. Filled with cute phrases and clever
language, it’s easy going -- especially
compared to what follows. The second
section - the specifications - describe the
item in terse, technical terminology. The
average reader gives up halfway down the
first column.
But “specs” are not confined to electronic
equipment or, for that matter, to things
industrial or scientific. The book of
Leviticus, from which today’s first reading is
drawn, contains a list of religious
specifications for the “clean” man. In order
to remain clean a person must not eat
certain foods or touch dead animals. For 30
to 60 days after child-birth, a woman is
considered unclean. People with contagious
skin disease must dwell outside the
community until an authority deems them
clean again.
Why all this concern with hygiene? Some
critics maintain that the rules and
regulations are a primitive health code,
couched in religious terms and designed to
protect the community of the Israelites from
disease. But most scholars agree that the
concern for cleanliness springs from a
religious belief: Only a person who is
“whole,” or clean, is worthy to worship
God. Thus all the specifications.
We’re all familiar with the problems of
such a code. The temptation is to live by the
letter of the law and forget the original
intent. Jesus waged a vigorous campaign
against those who fashioned their behavior
on religious specifications. He demonstrated
the spirit of the law by associating with the
“unclean,” and by healing lepers, as in
today’s Gospel.
But Jesus would never dismiss the book of
Leviticus as irrelevant -- something we might
be tempted to do. Living as we do in an age
of special interest groups and fragmentation,
we are tempted to divide our lives into neat
little blocks. Although that might be fine for
some things, the Book of Leviticus and Jesus
remind us that our faith is for the “whole”
person. By keeping ourselves “clean”- in
everything we do, the whole person becomes
holy.
Luke And Laura And Cardinal Newman
Michael Gallagher
NEW YORK (NC) - One of the classroom
obiter dicta (incidental observations) of
biblical scholar Father John L. McKenzie
was - and perhaps still is - this gem of
insight: “It’s not a waste of time to learn
about how other people wasted their time.”
Millions of our fellow Americans, as I
need hardly tell you, experience acute
mental anguish at the very thought of having
to get through the day without their soap
opera fix. (Yes, I know, millions of others -
predominantly male and well past the first
bloom of youth - are similarly addicted to
televised football and baseball, but why get
everybody mad at you at once?)
Now I know that the soaps, with “General
Hospital” setting the pace, depict all sorts of
untoward behavior, with sexual misconduct
the favorite and greed a distant second. I
know that young children come home from
school and tune in on this sort of thing. All
of which is ample cause for outrage. But let’s
forget moral considerations for just a
minute.
What I find most distressing about the
“General Hospital” phenomenon is that
some three-quarters of “GH’s” 14 million
viewers fall into the 18-34 category and
there seems to be especially wild enthusiasm
for the show among college students,
according to a Newsweek cover story (“TV’s
Hottest Show,” Sept. 28, 1981).
When reading the Newsweek piece, I felt
especially depressed when I came across a
picture of a crowded student lounge
captioned: “‘GH’ fans tune in at Boston
College.” But not to single out Catholic
education for blame, fair Harvard, according
to Newsweek, is no less fervent in its
admiration of “GH,” with its “staid”
campus erupting with “groupie hysteria
reminiscent of a ’60s Beatles concert” when
some of the show’s stars paid a visit during a
“‘General Hospital’ Weekend.” The wedding
of two central characters, Luke and Laura,
was another focal point of fervor.
What’s most sad and most frightening
about this aspect of the “GH” craze is not
that so many young people are in fact
wasting their time on such inept and
ludicrous entertainment but that they
should want to do so in the first place. And
why do they want to do so? Well, as
somebody once said, nature abhors a
vacuum.
These privileged young people are
susceptible to trash simply because their
cultural lives are empty.
The other day I read a book to my two
daughters, aged seven and four. The book,
written by a wise and witty woman named
Miriam Cohen, was called “First Grade
Takes a Test,” and, as it turned out, big
Daddy appreciated it even more than little
Maureen and Julie.
In Miss Cohen’s story, a lady from the
principal’s office - with a toothy smile and
big horn-rimmed glasses - comes in with a
sheaf of special examination papers covered
with multiple-choice boxes.
Ana Maria is delighted. “Oh good, now we
can see how smart we are!” she chortles. The
enthusiasm of the rest of the kids, however,
is muted.
The teacher tells them to go as quickly as
they can and not take too much time on any
one question, and so they set to work.
The first question puzzles George:
“Rabbits eat: (lettuce) (dog food)
(sandwiches).” He raises his hand to tell the
teacher that rabbits have to eat carrots.
Otherwise their teeth will get too long. The
teacher nods and smiles, putting her finger
to her lips. George draws a carrot next to the
question so that the examiners will know.
Jeanne has trouble with another question,
one that shows a girl, Susie, passing what
looks like a sandwich, to a boy named Phil.
She has to indicate by her choice who is the
taller or whether they are the same size. But
Jeanne wonders what passing a sandwich has
to do with how tall a person is. And what
kind of sandwich is it anyway?
Ana Maria breezes through the test. Her
efforts get her into a special class, moreover,
Once a year an American organization
affiliated with the UN plays host to a large
group of college students. Each college is
assigned a specific nation and the students
come prepared to act as if they were that
country’s UN delegation.
It takes a lot of study and research to do
the job adequately, but that’s the point. To
represent the particular interest of any
nation in this simulated international forum
takes knowledge. You learn by doing.
Is all this really necessary? Apparently,
yes.
“The vast majority of today’s college
students do not know enough about
international affairs to live and work
effectively in a world where countries are
increasingly interdependent.”
That viewpoint, expressed in the
Chronicle of Higher Education, is based on a
recent study by the Educational Testing
Service. But lots of dedicated teachers are
working to bring light into the darkness. For
instance, Prof. William A. Hazleton of the
Oxford campus of Miami University, Ohio,
grappled with the problem of selecting 10
applicants from among 100 wishing to
participate in the annual National Model UN
Conference..,.
i
_______________________
where her presumably superior intellectual
powers will get freer rein. Her lack of
imagination and her ability to conform,
which involves an avoidance of useless
knowledge - i.e. the kind they don’t test
you on - have helped to make her a great
test passer. She’s culturally deprived, but
you’d never guess it from her grades.
Is it any wonder that boys and girls like
Ana Maria, once they get to Harvard or
Boston College, turn to the likes of “General
Hospital” (or “Animal House”) to fill in the
vacuum left by their education? They’ve
never developed a critical awareness. They
have no radar to tell them that trash is trash.
More importantly, I think, they’ve never
learned to appreciate, to wonder, to become
emotionally involved with the greatness and
complexity of life. They’ve never been
stirred by the courage of Antigone. They’ve
never shed a tear over Juliet and her Romeo.
Ignore culture and you endanger morals.
For a fuller presentation, check with
Cardinal John Henry Newman.
Michael Gallagher is on the staff of the U.S.
Catholic Conference Department of
Communication.
The conference will be held in April and
brings oyer 1,500 collegians from the U.S.,
Canada and Puerto Rico to New York for a
week of discussion, research, debate and
negotiation.
For the students, six months of intense
preparation go into the program. During the
conference, delegates from each college
debate with other delegates to protect their
nation’s interests. Among other things,
“they develop a sense of realism about the
practical limits to political bargaining,”
according to Jeffrey P. Krans of Keuka
College, Keuka Park, N.Y.
It’s a pebble dropped in the ocean of
misunderstanding. But like a pebble, it
generates a ripple that moves in
ever-widening circles. Place yourself within
that circle by trying to understand the global
viewpoint.
All of us should join hands in the effort to
build a world in which “Nation shall not lift
up sword against nation, neither shall they
learn war any more.” (Is. 2:4)
For a free copy of the Christopher News
Notes, “Young People Making a Difference,”
send a stamped, self-addressed envelope to
The Christophers, 12 East 48th St New
York, N.Y. 10017.
m mm'
Learning
An International Viewpoint
Father John Catoir
T