Editorial
Of Fisheaters
And Horseflesh
Our sympathy goes out to travel agents. Their norm
ally busy telephones must be fairly exploding this spring
as their Catholic clients call in to revise their itineraries.
“You can arrive in Phoenix two hours earlier if you
take Pan-Eagle Flight No. 603,” the agent patiently ex
plains, but Mr. O’Malley will not hear of it. He has to fly
Air Appalachia because those who fly Air Appalachia can
eat meat on Friday, while those who fly Pan-Eagle cannot.
Inasmuch as the inflight meals are not really a bonus,
but must be paid for by the airline patrons, the Church
has been fit to grant a dispensation from the normal Friday
abstinence. However, the dispensation was not given di
rectly to all those who fly, but rather to the individual air
lines for their clients, and only upon their request. The
result has been confusion for the traveler, the airlines,
and the travel agents. Now, by way of extension, those
who travel by railroads have also been dispensed, so again
the agent must be perplexed to find his clients altering
their routes, taking more time, and paying more money,
so as to make at least part of their trip by train.
Next, we expect to hear a protest from the family
man who can’t afford public transportaiton for his wife
and five kids. Why should he be denied a slice of beef or
a hamburger after a gruelling Friday on the highways if
his bachelor friend can sink his teeth into a T-bone as
he is being whisked along to his destination in air-con
ditioned comfort?
Similar incongruities result from the varying regula
tions which obtain in neighboring dioceses. Pretty soon, we
expect some Catholic publisher will issue a map of the
United States showing where the Lenten fast is in force
and where it is not. There are probably enough Catholics
with early vacations each year to make the venture profit
able.
Last month the faithful of one diocese were dispensed
from the Friday abstinence so that the weekend of a
major horserace could be properly celebrated! Again, there
is the implication that the man who must work five or six
days a week needs to do penance, while those who have
the leisure and the means to make a carefree jaunt to
the racetrack need not.
We believe that such a hodgepodge of regulations and
counter regulations and dispensations threatens the respect
which is due to the laws of the Church. If a law which
is binding under pain of mortal sin, can be whimsically
discarded for a trivliality like a horserace, why should
anyone take that law seriously? And if one Church regula
tion falls into disrespect, what of the others? It is our
opinion that the laws regarding fast and abstinence should
be recast in such a way that they can be promulgated in
a uniform fashion throughout the United States. If that
- is not possible, then let such laws be done away with
entirely.
LA TIN AMERICA NOTES
With the announcement by
Bishop Waters that two priests
t?f the Diocese of Raleigh would
be leaving in 1966 for work in
Latin America, some of our
North Carolina Catholics have
been prompted to ask: “Why this
Tremendous demand for Priests
in Latin America? Doesn’t North
Carolina need all the priests it
can get?”
Certainly North Carolina needs
«U its priests, and for that matter
many, many more. As a matter of
fact, this is true of almost all
Parts of the World. Why then is
the Need of Latin America so
seemingly more desperate than
the rest of the World at this
time?
Perhaps this has been best
answered by Cardinal Cushing of
Boston: “No matter how we look
at Latin America, the first and
foremost problem from the
■Spiritual viewpoint is the scarcity
°f Priests. The population is in
creasing five times faster than
the priesthood, which currently
provides only one parish priest
for every 5,000 Catholics. To
®eet this situation the Church in
tne United States, despite its own
needs, must accept its share of
^responsibility. Other countries
n®ust do the same. “Consider the
following:
1 Probably 90 percent of all
k
the energy and money expended
by Catholics for the support of
their Church is devoted to the
preservation of the faith in their
parishes and dioceses. But what
have we done and what are we
doing for the preservation of the
faith in Latin America?
2. These countries to the south
of our borders have a population
surpassing that of the United
States. This population may be
trebled in the next 40 years. And
it is overwhelmingly Catholic.
Besides the extremely low num
ber of priests, many were even
without bishops for some thirty
years.
3. What is the result? Today
millions of Latin Americans
never see a priest, and millions
more wait for years for the sac
raments.
4. The unthinkable possibility
of losing millions of Catholics in
Latin America to Communism.”
With the help of the Grace of
God, the Diocese of Raleigh hopes
to have two priests working in
Latin America in 1966. They will
need the support of all of us
Catholics in North Carolina. First
of all, our prayers. But also, our
financial support to send them on
their way, and to help maintain
them in their Latin American
Mission posts. Please send your
contribution to Latin America
Fund, Box 9503, Raleigh, N.C.
Feast of Corpus Cbristi—June 17
Tke BODY of CHRIST, Amen.
I Reckon by Earl Heffner
The Issue Behind the Great Debate
What’s the fight all about?
Some 175 faculty members of
the University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill have threatened
to resign because of what they
call political interference in aca
demic affairs.
And the basis of their threat
is the Communist speaker-ban
law passed by the 1963 General
Assembly.
Because of this law, the state’s
schools—those under state con
trol—reportedly are threatened
with the loss of accreditation.
And such a loss would be a se
vere academic and resultant eco
nomic blow to the state of North
Carolina.
The N. C. law banning Com
munist speakers on campuses of
state-supported colleges has re
ceived strong backing from FBI
Director J. Edgar Hoover.
If you read the state’s press,
the argument seems to boil down
simply to whether Communists
should or should not be per
mitted to speak to our young col
lege students.
This is the heart of the argu
ment just as “make the world
safe for democracy” was the
heart of the argument that led
to World War I, as slavery was
the heart of the argument that
led to the War Between the
States (Civil War, to you Yanks).
In effect, this is the emotional
argument.
But it’s not the true cause of
the fight.
At issue is this:
Should the Greater University
of North Carolina be run by the
trustees who are named by the
General Assembly or should it be
run by the General Assembly?
Or put another way, should
the General Assembly maintain
its control of the university
through the trustees it appoints,
or should it bypass these trustees
and run the university itself, thus
making the board of trustees a
symbolic organization rather than
an effective one directing the
progress of the university?
Do you want the General As
sembly to control the university?
Look at Mississippi. There the
legislature ordered 01’ Miss NOT
to enroll a Negro student
I reckon is opposed to politi
cal manipulation of the univer
sity beyond that manipulation
that goes in the selection of the
board of trustees.
And this is what the issue is all
about.
But it’s being fought over the
white-hot emotional factor of
Communist speakers on campus.
With this as the inflaming is
sue, rather than the true issue,
there is little question in my
mind but what the speaker-ban
law will stand—at least in this
session of the legislature. And
little question but what control
of the university is passing from
the trustees to the legislature.
It’s unfortunate that the issue
is being fought over the red
herring instead of over its own
true merits.
So none will misunderstand my
own viewpoint, let me hasten to
write that I would strongly op
pose Communist speakers on any
public forum in this nation, espe
cially one attended by young col
lege students who are often easi
ly misled. (I'm not so many years
away from my own college days
that I cannot remember how easy
it was for me to swallow some of
the Red tripe that was offered
at RARE occasions.)
To some it might appear that
we must choose between the les
ser of two evils—a legislative
controlled university or Commu
nist speakers.
This is not the case.
It should be simple for the
trustees to enforce a ban on Com
munist speakers, a ban that
would be as effective as the pres
ent law. And a ban without the
stigma and threat of legislative
control of a university.
What I Reckon is saying is this:
We haven’t been informed ful
ly as to the true facts of the
fight. We should keep Commu
nists off the speaker’s platforms
of our state schools. We should
keep control of the schools in the
hands of the trustees. The legis
lature, too sensitive to the politi
cal winds, can do great damage to
our schools and to our state if it
follows the Mississippi pattern.
NORTH CAROLINA CATHOLIC
The Weekly North Carolina Catholic newspaper of news and views
Served by N.C.W.C. News Service and NC Photos—Member of
Catholic Press Association—Associate Member North Carolina
Press Association, P.O. Box 9503, Raleigh, N.C.
(Incorporated under name of North Carolina Catholic Laymen's Associa
tion.) The North Caroline Catholic does not necessarily reflect official positions
of this Association nor the official position of the Catholic Church in matters
outside the field of faith and morals.
Entered as second class matter May 3, 1912 at the Post Office in Hunting
ton, Indiana, U.S.A., under the act ot March 3, 1897.
Entered at the Post Office in Huntington, Indiana, U.S.A., at the rate of
postage provided for in Section 1103 of the United States Act of October 3,
1912 and of February 28, 1925.
Circulation office at Nazareth, telephone TEmple 3-5295.
I Editor ___
I Associate Editors:
Rev. Roderick O’Connor
Rev. Joseph Howie
Rev. Robert Lawson
I Advertising .
| Subscription Rate _
June 13,1965
Volume XX, No. 33
Rev. Francis R. Moeslein, S.T.L.
Rev. Ronald McLaughlin
Rev. Edward Sheridan
Rev. William Tefft, Of.
___Mr. John F. Hogan
—.. $4.06 per year