Last fall, Ralph McGill repeated in his column what he had written years before about Richard Russell when the latter was governor:

“I wrote about Gov. Russell lighting the watch fires of democracy on the thousand hills of North Georgia… and how their purifying flames burned away the darkness of demagogic distortions, and destroyed the curtains of falsehood.”

A day later, in opening our Synod, I spoke as follows:

“…to light new watch fires of faith on a thousands hill of northern Georgian. These flames will purify the tears and hatred, the indifference and falsehoods of our troubled society.”

A good friend, Mr. J. Murphy of Smyrna wants to know:

Is this coincidence? Are you, Archbishop, paying tributes to the Honorable Mr. McGill? Do you, Archbishop, subconsciously paraphrase him on Monday? Are you both in collusion?

The answer is, in my opinion, yes to all counts. But it reminded me of a quote of five years ago. When asked what I usually had for breakfast, I replied, “Ralph McGill and a cup of coffee!”

Perhaps it was coincidence. Verbal paraphrase on my part might be reckoned as collusion with a man by whom I hope the South will someday be measured.

Probably the best answer to Mr. Murphy is to plead guilty to paying unconscious tribute to a man who has said something with flair, merit and imagination—and I needed just that!

Life Cheaper? A Correction

Last month I wrote an editorial, at the request of the editor, on the two bills before our legislature. Under the heading, “Is Life Cheaper Today? Two questions were asked:

May the state prevent it?

May the state destroy it?

Neither the sterilization nor the abortion bills came up for vote.

The case of conception resulting from rape always raises questions. Touching briefly on this subject, I incorrectly stated: “In the case of rape, direct abortion may be permitted in some cases.” This statement in the editorial was false and misleading.

Theoretically, there have always been two views about the time that the human soul is infused into the body. Is it at the moment of fertilization or at a later development of the fertilization of the ovum.

Scientists and moral theologians are found on both sides, and Catholic are free to speculate on the subject since there has been neither approval nor condemnation.

But a human being and his human right to life are at stake. The safer course of action must be followed. When doctors seek an answer, Catholic moralists hold to this rule:

“The doctor may do anything medically possible to remove the aggressor’s semen, but he may not do anything to remove or kill a fertilized ovum.”

This discussion is summarized in Father Gerald Kelly, S.J., “Medico-Moral Problem”, pp. 62-28.

There is a parallel in sacramental theology and canon law. When a fetus is aborted, no matter when or for what reason, it should be baptized without condition if certainly alive; and conditionally if life is doubtful.

The reason: We must assume, for the physical and spiritual good of this fetus, that this is a human person with all human rights.

The statement in the editorial was wrong. I am sorry.

Good Wish For A Bishop

Monday as I was driving away from the Christ the King School, after a short give-and-take with the boys and girls framed by the window-panes of two classrooms, I left with a happy thought, especially after a day crowded with collusions, corrections, etc.

One charitable lad called after me:

“Well, keep the faith, Bishop!”

Paul J. Hallinan

Archbishop Of Atlanta