The Catholic times. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1951-current, 1959-11-20
JOSEPH BREIC-
Just A Note
To Our Brains

| was just thinking, it's a COMPOUNDED nuisance
that we don't have a publication in which Catholic
thinkers could dispute nose to nose, instead of each
talking chiefly to himself, the way it is now.
| mean to say, there are some pungent words !
would like to have with Donald Mcdonald, Father
Ginder, John Cogley, William F. Buckley, Father
Murchland, Father Thurston Davis, Ed Skillin, and
Who-not.
Likewise, | am positive-Sure that some of these
would welcome a chance TO say a few choice things
to some or all of the others, and even to me-although
how anybody can question my wisdom is a mystery
to me.
FATHER cINDER and Don Mcdonald Ito take
an inStance) disagree about everything; but the for
mers Graders don't read the latter, and vice versa, be-
cause their views appear in different periodicals. So
there they are, like / said, talking to themselves
This is frustrating. | would like to tell Father
Ginder off myself, and stick a needle or two in Nc
Donald, and also ask Father Murchland why he
doesn't write SO that somebody aside from God can
get his drift-but | can't reach them.
If could, | would point out to Father Glnder, Bill
Buckley & Co. that they are spelling their own case
if they have a case = by their obsession about calling
themselves conservatives in every second or third
paragraph.
CONVERSELY, | would dress down John Cooley.
Ed Skillin and their compadres for everlastingly talk
ingly about how liberal they are, until it begins to
look like you have a choice of either being one of
them, or a bad guy.
/ suppose I'm s~impleton, but l still think that
either the Ginders, Buckleys, Cogleys and SkilhnS are
right. or they're wrong. Calling yourself a liberal or a
conservative won't make you right if you aren't.
The meanings of such words skitter all over the
place like quicksilver. Now me, | think a Catholic has
got to be ready to be conservative when conservatism
is true, and to be radical when what people denounce
as radicalism happens to be right.
BUT WHAT'S THE USE j of trying to S~traighten
out these thinkers thinking when you know that if you
can't talk to them in their own publications-and usll-
ally you can't you can't talk to them at all? They're
not listening. .ee
Another thing. Father Thurston Davis and his staff
on America hold periodical brain sessions in their
aaonavin nanafian fhn lack nf h11nanr IN thc Ca&hn ~
than all the complaining; but how can | put that
thought across? .
Or take Don Mcdonald again. Just the other day,
CommonWeal reprinted his piece of a couple of years
ago, in which he alleged that there's something wrong
with the Catholic Press when only a few papers publish
his Syndicated column.
HIS was that he tells people straight
out what the popes say, and this makes him a nasty
word with certain reactionary editors of diocesan
WeeklieS.
Now resent that. A whole lot Of those editors
publish my column. The logical deduction would be
that | ignore or water down. what the popes teach. I
deny that-but what's the use of denying it outside.
"Commonweal" where the complaint was made?
Catholic editors have left me, by and large, free
to say whatever | think, even when they think what |.
think is idiotic. Only once or twice in a long career
has my column been dropped by a paper because Of
my views. -
So how free can you get? But here | am, talking
to myself, because there's no publication in which |
can come to grips with the opposition. Like | say, it's
downright frustrating.