Newspaper Page Text
—THE CATHOLIC TIMES
Friday, November 6,1953 THE CATHOLIC TIMES Published Every Week by The Catholic Times, Inc. Columbus, Ohio NOTICE: Send All Changes of Address to P. 0. Box 636 Columbus, Ohio Executive and Editorial Offices: 246 E. Town Street, Columbus 15, Ohio Telephones: ADams 5195 ADams 5196 Address all communications for publication to P. 0. Box 636, Columbus 16, Ohio Price of The Catholic Time* S3 per rear. AH •ubecriptione should he presented to our office through the pastors of the parishes. Remittances should be made payable to The Cath olic Times. Anonymous communications will be disregarded. We do not hold ourselves responsible for any views or opinion* expressed tn the communications of eur correspondent*. Entered as Second Class Matter at Poet Office. Co’umbu*. Ohio. St. Francis de Sale*. Patron of the Catholie Press and of the Diocese of Columbus, Pray for Vs! This Paper Printed by Union Labor Coming Up! Several Meeks ago we noted that there seems to be a welcome and much needed trend appearing in the proposals put forth as basic solutions to the world problems. There are evidences that our gov ernment leaders are drawing closer and closer to the only true solution—one based on the moral law. Much has been made of Secretary Dulles’ recent address on American policy in the news periodicals and the daily press. We have been both praised and condemned for advocating such fundamental pro cedure. This week saw the first results in the editorial columns in many of the magazines. John Q. Pub lic, in the letters to the editor departments, has had the chance to read, reflect and raise his voice. One of the resulting lines of thought was expressed in several letters. It is both intriguing and illum inating. In substance, these several letters were very much alike. The writers liked what the Secretary said. It made sense, or at the very least, it looked new and was, therefore, something that might be tried. “Why not,” the writers said, “give it a try? We’ve tried everything else. Let’s give this a go. Let’s don’t wait any longer—but rather choose some moral code or law and let’s get started!” Choose some moral code? You might as well say “Choose some multiplication table,” the implication being that there is a choice therefore must be more than one. Maybe several of varying or equal worth. Two things stand out in this apparently eager acceptance of w’hat is taken to be a new idea in the field of world government. The first is the very eagerness itself, which hops upon the proposal as if it were something entirely new’, the product of modern political ingenuity. The second is the im plicit indication of how far man has strayed from knowledge that should be general, common and fundamental. There can no more he a plurality of the basic moral law than there can be a plurality of laws governing the addition of a column of figures or of multiplying a series of numbers. The only possible variance in either the case of moral law or that governing numbers is in the application of the basic law to individual prob lems. The basic law of addition, say, remains the same throughout the process. Some may find it eas ier to add all the even numbers first and then the uneven. Whatever way they do it the answer is bound to remain the same. Two phis two will always yield four. The moral law is absolutely fundamental and un changing because it is a manifestation of the un changing will of God. Man can be ignorant, more or less, of the moral law. or ignore it. He cannot invent it, change it or add to it, anymore than he could the law of numbers. The moral law is not a new solution to world problems as many would think. It is new only in the sense that it is so long since it has been applied. Its application in particular instances may be an innovation—and that is the answer to the sorry con dition of the world today. The world today in its fumbling approach to the re-introduction of the moral law into its governing is much like the bookkeeper or scientist who is just discovering the science of numbers: The right answers are coming up! Make This A Point Our homes are continually exposed to secular means of communication bringing with them much that is good, certainly, and just as certainly, much that is bad. Very often these m^azines, newspapers, period leals, television and radio programs are judged “good" only insofar as they are innocuous or not positively harmful. There are some things presented, even in the secular vein that are really outstanding and worthy of praise. There are, also, things that are “Catholic” in content and presentation, and these are espec ially worthy of commendation. Each week, your Catholic Tunes carries a column with the listing of the coming week's television and radio programs that should be of special interest to Catholics. Why not make it a habit to read this column and watch or listen to these programs and then by card or letter, let the station know' that such programs are watched and appreciated. No Justice Here Increased government expenditures bring the need of increased government income. Increased taxation seems to be the only answer. But there are numerous kinds of taxes. Just any old tax will not do. The boys in Washington are hot on the trail of a “new" federal tax. A national sales tax. To a public who. jokinglv or not. views taxes with a bale ful eye, the prospect of a sales” tax should evince real, heartfelt cries of pain. It can be and usually Is, because of the inadequate incomes of many of those who would have to pay it, unjust. A sales tax is levied on the product itself. It is Indiscriminate, ft does not take into consideration the ability of the individual to pay. Granted that any tax is a burden on all the sales tax becomes oppressive only on those who are living already on a minimum subsistence. And this particular class, according to surveys, is much larger than one would think. Minimum income is a relative thing. It varies with the size of the “unit" or family it supports. It will undoubtedly come as a surprise to many, that even in the present day of full employment here in America. 25 per cent of the country’s spending units took in less than $2,060 last year! Almost any tax levied on such low income groups would be oppressive. A tax that in no way took into consideration the circumstances of the individual, in this case, most certainly would be. And insofar as this situation prevails, the sales tax is unjust and reprehensible. Let us not be mislead by the shyster proposal of a “manufacturers’ excise tax." The lobbies inter ested in the levying of a sales tax, having already met a vigorous opposition, are proposing this high sounding phrase as an alternative type of tax. It is no such thing. It only means that the tax would be collected from the manufacturer. You guess from whom he would collect it! It makes little difference to the man eking out a living who collects the tax money, the manufac turer or the salesman. It hurts just as much both ways—and is just as unjust. A man’s minimum wage is directly proportioned to the economic needs of himself and his family. A man’s tax payments also should be governed by these same economic needs and his wage. Without a view to all factors of a case and means of compensation, it is unjust to tax at the same rate the rich and the poor. As long as we have both classes in this country, the rich and the poor, sales taxes are evil and are to be avoided as such. Just Among Ourselves Passing Comment Considered or Inconsiderate Time for November 2 tells us, in its department headed Religion., of a Presbyterian minister who is agitated by the fact that the Catholic Church is called Catholic. The troubled clergyman says that there has been “persistent propaganda” to apply the word Catholic “to the Roman Church alone.” Further, he says that the “Roman Church has been eager to have the American public believe that it is the ‘one universal and true’ Christian church.” Well, and again well! It is both amazing and highly amusing to read of a modern clergyman,— schooled and all that, and doubtless trained in the university man’s specialty of appreciating the cur rent moment, and of seeing that all books carry the copyright of the present year,—fussing himself up about a controversy that came in with the Protest ant movement in England in the sixteenth century, and on a matter that was definitely settled as early as the second century. Since this ultra-modern minister is so lacking in up-to-dateness, it may be permissible to cull a few facts for his attention from so ancient a tome as the Catholic Encyclopedia, edition 1908. There is a good article.—pretty timeless too, and probably unchang ed in current editions of the C.E.,—by Father Her bert Thurston, under the caption, Catholic. Says Father Thurston, “With regard to the mod ern use of the word, Roman Catholic is the designa tion employed in the legislative enactments of Prot estant England, but Catholic is that in ordinary use on the Continent of Europe, especially in Latin countries." The minister who thinks that there has been per sistent propaganda to apply the word Catholic to the Catholic Church, seems to have in mind a recent or contemporary effort of Catholics to foist something upon the innocent and undevious Protestant bodies of the world, especially those in America. He might be astonished to discover how long this “persistent propaganda” has been afoot. Ixt him read,—as con veniently cited in the Catholic Encyclopedia.—the Catechetical Discourses of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, written about the middle of the fourth century: “And if ever thou art sojourning in any city, in quire not simply where the fjord’s house is nor merely where the church is, but where is the Ca tholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of the holy body, the mother of us all.” Fifty or sixty years alter St. Cyril wrote these words, St. Augustine said, “Whether they wish to or no. heretics have to call the Catholic Church Ca tholic.” He also wrote, “Although all heretics wish to be styled Catholic, yet if any one ask where is the Catholic place of worship, none of them would ven ture to point out his own conventicle.” Are we to think that St. Cyril and St. Augustine have been “eager to have the American public be lieve” that Catholics are really Catholics? The mat ter was discussed and settled a thousand years be fore anyone knew that such a place as America ex isted. News of this thing has finally reached the ears of our little minister, and has set them tingling. He thinks something ought to be done about it. He thinks Catholics should be called Roman Catholics. Catholics are Roman only in the sense that the visible head of the Church, the Vicar of Christ, is Bishop of Rome. This state of affairs is not the re sult of any human policy, political or religious. It is a matter of divine institution. The head of the Ca tholic Church is the Pope, the Vicar of Christ, the Bishop of Rome. Normally, he resides in Rome. But if, as happened in the course of history, the Pope was carried off from Rome, his place and his true title would remain unchanged he would be Bishop of Rome even if he were in Siberia. Rome was di vinely set as the primalial see in the Church. And that is the whole story of Roman in the title of Ca tolics. What Protestant bodies love to call the Roman Catholic Church is simply the Catholic Church. There is no other Catholic Church. Our minister says that our use of the name Catholic makes other churches, in the Catholic view, “mere sects” which teach doctrines only partially Christian “and probably false,” and that all these sects are “in rebellion against the true church founded by Christ.” That is a very fair and compact summing up of facts. Has not the Church for nearly two thousand years been preaching these facts? Is there any thing hidden, or sly, or a matter for “propaganda” in the claim made before all the world since Chris tianity came to mankind? Of course. Catholics be lieve that theirs is the one true Christian Church, founded by Christ, and that there is no other. If they did not believe that, they would have no rea son for belonging to that Church. e A person who really believes in Christ,—and that means that he believes Christ is truly God as well as truly man,—and believes further that Christ established His true Church on earth, cannot be con tent until he knows he is actually a member of that true Church. That Church alone is Christ’s. Others are not. Others are, to use the minister’s words, “mere sects” which teach doctrines only partially Christian “and probablv false.” ♦, This is not a matter of feeling, but a plain matter of fact. Churches of varying denominations, and of varying and even opposing doctrines, cannot all be one Church, and it’s a silly and sentimental busi ness that tries to make them appear ao. Nor are churches clubs that vie with one another for mem bership or “class.” One Church is true. The others are mere sects, teaching false doctrine. It is a man’s business to know that his is the true Church. If he does not know it, he must seek the true Church till he find it. And then he is to get into that Church and conform his life to its teach ings. You hear a lot about “the church of your choice.” The phrase is pridefully human. We need not the church of our choice, but the church of God’s choice the church of our sure and undeviating convictions. Meanwhile, let us recall that Roman is not an es sential adjective in the title of Catholics. Iff mi iff I# WASHINGTON LETTER WASHINGTON Slogans like “the Church must keep out of politics,” or “the pulpit must not be abused for political pur poses,'* are as old as the hills. They were heard a thousand years ago and they are still heard today, the countries of the free world as well as behind the Iron Curtain. Behind these catch cries stands, of course, that perpetual problem which arises from the relationship between the world ly powers on the one hand—be they represented by an emperor, king, parliament or communist dictator and the Church—as represented by the Pope and the various national hierarchies—on the other. Whole libraries have been written on this problem. Bloody wars have been fought over it. The calendar of saints shines with hundreds of names of men and women who have died mar tyrs’ deaths as a result of the conflicts arising from disputes over the rights of Caesar and the rights of God. One particular aspect of this problem, which has innumerable ramifications, is brought to the fore by the tragic situation in Poland. It deserves to be singled out and pondered because, with LOUIS F. BUDENZ Under its “amended Trojan Horse policy” the Communist Party is now making a big play for alliances with and infiltra tion of the “con s e v a five” trade un ions of this country. During e past year, a long series of directive arti 1 e s has ap peared in Po litical Affairs, detailing how the comrades should strengthen their influence in the “Right-led unions.” More recently, in its Au gust and September issues, the theoretical organ of the conspir acy presents the way in which the “Left-led unions” are to has ten this process. In addition, it. is in the labor movement that the Reds see the opportunity “in the first instance” of “weak?n ing” American defense against Soviet Russia. Old Trick, New Trappings Just when the expose of espi onage in our radar defenses is revealing the extent of Red pen etration, the Communists are counting on a trick in propagan da to make headway in the labor movement. This is an old scheme, dressed up for the new occasion: the representation that any in jury to the Soviet fifth column is an injury to the unions. Such a contention is thoroughly untrue. No union has been hampered by the campaign against the Communists. Such representa tions are as false today as they were when successfully put over in the past. When the Voorhis Act, tight ening up registration of foreign agents, was adopted 13 years For Certain People I pilR 111!Z W 3 a 1tyr I i I I I Now it Is, of course, true that the Church can never permit her self to be restricted to the four walls of the sanctuary and ac cept a mere freedom of worship as a substitute for freedom in the true sense of the word. But even if the Church were, under force of pressure, willing to lim it herself to a narrowly circum scribed field of strictly religious activities, would she thereby sat isfy the demands of Red secular rulers? No, not in the least. She would, then, as happened in Po land, be accused of being “apa thetic” to, and “sabotaging the interests of the people." Her Bishops would be maligned as “foreign agents,” and her priests and lay folk would be persecut ed as “enemies.” The fact is—and the Polish The Plot Against Labor ago, the Reds made out that it would really injure the AFL and CIO because they had certain con nections with unions abroad. This has been proved to be an absurd contention. It is now clear that this act was aimed at the Soviet fifth column. But, ironically enough, the conspiracy itself evaded the law by its fictitious “withdrawal” from the Commun ist International. Let Labor Take Heed Today, the Communists frank ly let us know that they are counting on the thoughtless statements of certain “conserva tive” labor leaders to forward their Red game oi infiltration. The September number of Polit ical Affairs quotes, with plea sure, assertions by certain trade union publications and labor of ficials that moves made against the Communist Party and its fronts can become moves against labor. In such declarations, those labor men who make them are unwittingly helping the Reds to rc-penetrate the unions and make their policies those which the Kremlin desires. If this pro-Red propaganda ad vances to any extent among the unions, it will be fatal for them. Those forces which unjustly are opposed to the organization of workers will take advantage of this to turn public opinion against the labor movement. The Communists, on the other hand, growing in influence by this route, will capture the un ions in order to destroy them. The wreck of the labor move ment throughout the countries tinder Soviet power is a warn ing that cannot go unheeded. Malenkov's Theme A few weeks ago, 1 referred to the big use that had been made by the Daily Worker of Kenneth J. Kelley's report to the Massa THAT'S BAPf i 1 11 I I i 111 1I i I 5 1 I $ i I II I iII ty I More Red Double Talk In Poland slight modifications, it also pre sents itself in other countries. In Poland, the communist re gime asks that the Church “keep out of politics.” Common sense would interpret this demand as meaning that the Church refrain from any criticism of the poli cies pursued by the Red regime and restrict herself to preach ing the Gospel and administer ing the Sacraments. idyl I I -5.' 1 3 1 I III i i Bishops’ memorandum of last May to the communist president of their country makes it clear beyond doubt—that the catch cry “let the Church stay out of poli tics” does not at all mean what it appears to mean. The communist rulers are not at all satisfied with a Church that keeps “out of politics.” What they really want is a Church that “stays out of poli tics” displeasing to the regime and “goes into politics” a hun dred per cent in support of the regime. They don’t want a ruly inde pendent Church despite what their constitution says about the Church being separated from the State, and the right to free exer cise of religious functions. What they are aiming at is a Church that serves as a willing tool of the government subservient to and dependent on it. W’hat they aspire to bring about is really a new kind of union of Church and State camouflaged as "a sep aration of Church and State.” It would seem useful to bear in mind the experiences of the Church in Poland when the catch cry calling for the Church “to stay out of politics” is heard nearer home. chusetts Federation of Labor. An official of that organization has sent me excerpts from the pro ceedings of the convention to which the report was made. His purpose was to point out that the Federation is opposed to Communism, as I knew to be the case. But he also sent Mr. Kel ley’s full report which, in gen eral, assails “the evils of Com munism” but adds that “Ameri ca is in greater danger today from McCarthyism than from Communism.” And he proceeds to state, “the headline hunter’ from Wisconsin has slandered and slashed his way across the national scene with a fury rem iniscent of a Hitlerian storm trooper.” By such unrestrained language Mr. Kelley, unfortunately, offsets his general statement in opposi tion to Communism. His words are precisely those the Commun ists want him to use. Though he has done so unwittingly, be is giving support to the instruc tions of G. M. Malenkov in Oc tober. 1952, that the United States be represented as follow ing in the steps of Hitler. This is the whole theme of Malen kov’s discussion of this country, repeated over and over again. Nothing In Common Beyond all that, the charges are not accurate, to say the least. I have been present at several hearings of the Sub-Committee under the chairmanship of Sen ator Joseph R. McCarthy where witnesses who are hostile (even notorious Communists and espi onage agents) have been given courteous and considerate treat ment. What “slander” was com mitted against the Soviet agents in the Government Printing Of fice, or at Fort Monmouth, I am at a loss to understand. INQUIRY CORNER 1 51 i I I 11 III |!h I if I tiff & I I I fill i lit Did St, Paul Deny Equality Of Women? A. Was St. Paul denying the equality qf women when he said that wives should be subject to their husbands “in all things?’* A. No. This text from St. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians (5:24) compares the man and wife to Christ and the. Church. Such a comparison makes it obvious that St. Paul is not “belittling” wives. He does point out the Christian father is the head of the house. Many women confuse equality with identity. In the first letter to the Corinthians he points out in a magnificent passage (12:12 31) that “the body is not one member, but many.” The voca tion of woman is different, not inferior. In marriage the man has the responsibility of making fin al decisions, but the Christian husband “is head of the wife, just as Christ is head of the Church.” Again in commenting on this question he states: “Yet neither is man independent of woman, nor w'oman independent of man in the Lord.” (I Corin thians 11:11) Q. If a man has several wives who die and he remarries which one will be his wife in heaven? What kind of a body will a mis shapen person have? A. A similar question was put to Christ by the Sadducees (Luke 20:27-33), inquiring as to which of seven husbands would be a woman’s husband in heaven. Christ replied that marriage is a part of our life in this world, but that in heaven there will be no marrying and that we will be like the angels. No doubt there will be association with our loved ones on earth who are with us in heaven, but there will be no con flict of personalities. St. Paul gives us some light on the re surrected body (I Corinthians 15:24-44) indicating that the ris en body will be incorruptible, glorious, powerful and spiritual. No doubt it will be enough like our present bodies to be identi fied yet lacking all the fections. Kiplinger ’s answer as re ported in the course of an ar ticle in the October 18 New York Times Magazine, “imper What s on the mind of the Business Man?” is unexpectedly frank. Most business men, he says, don ’tLitany really like the unions and would rather get along without them.The Q. What does the invocation "Ark of the Covenant” mean in the of the Blessed Vir gin? A. Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament contained the tablets of the Law arid other gifts of God. It represented, even after these sacred objects were lost or stolen, God’s presence among the Jew’ish people. Even when its contents were gone it was kept in the Holy of Holies because of its representation of That doesn ’t sound too encour aging. It could mean, for exam ple, that the business commun ity is patiently waiting for a fa vorable opportunity to eliminate the unions and return to the open shop. Progress of a Sort According to Kiplinger, how ever, this is not likely to hap pen. "The unions,” he hastens to add, “have been in'egrated into business life and operations, and business men know they are here to stay.<p></p>Kiplinger FATHER HIGGINS Is Right? This is progress of a sort, but it is a cry from the milleni um. If Kiplinger is right, it means that the attitude of the business community towards the unions is based on expediency rather than Christian social prin ciples. Such an attitude can only be compared to that of a group of socialists who would reluctant ly “accept” the institution of pri vate property as a matter of practical necessity or political expediency and not for reasons of principle. The right to pri vate property is no more sacred than the right to organize. W’hatfar does the American busi ness man think about unions? This is a big question. Few men are better qualified to an Hswer it than W. M. Kiplinger. o u nder and editor of e well- known Kiplinger Let ter, prototype of the many conf idential “dope sheets” u 1 ished in Was hington for the infor It is possible that Kiplinger has exaggerated the opposition of the average American busi ness man to unionism. There is reason to believe that a number of American industrialists are beginning to realize that union ism is not only inevitable, politi cally speaking, but desirable and necessary from the point of view of Christian social ethics. Our own opinion is that there are many such employers the United States and that their number is increasing. mation of influential executives in the business community. Th* Woefully Benighted We should not lose sight of the fact, however, that while many employers are probably better than Mr. Kiplinger’s aver God’s special presence. Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, car ried in her womb Jesus Christ, the Son of God. She is honored as the one whose body was a tab ernacle for the Son of God, real ly present within her, Whom she brought to us, as God’s greatest Gift. Q. What are the conditions for a just war? A. First, it must be necessary in order to defend the rights of the state in a grave matter it is to be adopted only as a last resort when all other means have failed. It must be conducted justly in accordance with natural and international law, and it cannot be continued after due satisfaction has been offered or given by the aggressor. Q. What are the days most suitable for a mass for the dead? A. All Souls’ Day is the day set aside for special rememb rance of the dead, and the month of November is considered es pecially appropriate for Re quiem Masses. The day of the funeral, the thirtieth day after death or burial, and the yearly anniversary of death or burial are most suitable days for re membrance of the dead by a Re quiem Mass. Whether Requiem Mass is said or not, however, the Poor Souls in general or a par ticular person may have a Mass offered for the repose of his soul any day in the year. Q. What is the Church’s stand on the “Back to the Land Move ment?" A. The interest of the Catholic Church in such movements is lim ited to their relationship to man’s moral and spiritual wel fare. An indication of this inter est is the organization of the Na tional Catholic Rural Life Con ference in 1922. It was founded through the efforts of the Most Reverend Edwin O’Hara, now Bishop of Kansas City, to strengthen Catholicity in the ru ral areas and to promote the general welfare of the rural pop ulation. The four aims of the movement, with more than 10.000 members are: to care for under privileged Catholics living on the land, to keep on the land Cath olics who are there, to settle more Catholics on the land, and to convert the non-Catholics there. Send questions to Father Ed ward F. Healey, The Inquiry Cor ner, The Catholic Times, Box 636, Columbus (16), Ohio. age business man, many are con siderably worse. One group in particular is woefully benighted in its attitude towards unionism. We refer to the owners and man agers of some of our large agri cultural plantations, which have come to be known as “factories in the field.” These men, who employ hundreds of farm work ers at incredibly low wages, are violently opposed to unionism. Their attitude is reactionary in the worst sense of the word and thoroughly indefensible from the point of view of Christian social ethics. The general business commun ity owes it to itself to repudiate the arrogant point of view cur rently expressed by a group of these plantation owners and man agers in south Louisiana. As of this writing, approximately 3,000 farm laborers on four large plantations in the sugar fields of south Louisiana are out on strike for the right to organize. The union representing them, the AFL National Agricultural Workers Union, enjoys the con fidence and support and has benefited greatly by the counsel and guidance of a zealous group of well-informed priests in the Archdiocese of New Orleans. No Alternative The owners’ response to the union's courteous request for recognition was uniformly nega tive. All flatly refused to meet with representatives of the un ion. One was bold enough to state, in so many words, that agricultural workers do not have the right to organize and bargain collectively. Another added in sult to injury by attempting to speak for the very workers who are out on strike. “Because of our concern for the employees’ welfare,” he stated in a very patronizing letter to the vice president of the union, “we are of the opinion that it would not be in their best interests, either now or ultimately, for us to con sent to a meeting with represen tatives of your union.” It is obvious that the union had no alternative but to call a strike. There is only one issue in the strike. “That issue, tran cending all others,” the New Or leans unit of the Catholic Com mittee of the South has empha sized in a public statement, “is one on which the Catholic Com mittee of the South may not re main silent and that is the basic right of any workers, in dustrial or agricultural, to organ ize.” The Catholic Committee of the South, in supporting the right of agricultural workers to organize and bargain collectively, is only doing “what comes natural”—or ought to come natural—to those who are well instructed in the social teaching of the Church.