Archbishop v. Sun

Michael Joseph Curley strolled happily along the banks of the River Shannon last week. He gazed thoughtfully at the Irish farmhouse in Golden Isle, just outside Athlone, where he and his eight brothers & sisters were reared. He sat with closed eyes in a pew of little St. Mary's Church where, nearly half a century ago, he and a reedy-voiced youngster named John McCormack were altar boys together. He wandered in the ruins of the Clonmacnoise Abbey, just as he had wandered as a moppet, when the spell of the place impelled him to study for the priesthood. Now he was an Archbishop, second youngest in the U. S. It had been no easy job to suceed the late, great Cardinal Gibbons in the Baltimore Archdiocese and Archbishop Curley could not help sensing a difference in public attitude. But he had been an able, aggressive organizer and had built an excellent system of parochial schools throughout Maryland. If dark thoughts marred the serenity of the Archbishop's Irish vacation, it was because he could not get the Baltimore Sun out of his mind.

Last month the Sun engaged Stephen Miles Bouton, oldtime European correspondent, to write pieces about Germany from which the Nazis had practically expelled him. In mid-June he wrote thus of Adolf Hitler, a personal acquaintance : "It has seemed to me at times that there is a kinship between him and Ignatius Loyola. One finds in both men the same complete faith in their mission, the same readiness and determination to exercise their power with utter ruthlessness and brutality in order to carry out that mission. No consideration of personal profit or glory ever entered Loyola's mind, and I believe the same can be said of Hitler." Such an expression was bound to anger devout Catholics who, for 400 years, have been obliged to refute the persistent notion that Ignatius Loyola, sternly militant founder of the Society of Jesus, expounded the doctrine that "the end justifies the means." First to protest to the Sun was Father Henri J. Wiesel, S. J., President of Loyola College. Paul Patterson, president of the Sun, wrote Father Wiesel:

"I regret very much that such a passing reference to the Founder of your Order should have been made in a way that was so offensive to you."

The Sun printed Father Wiesel's letter without comment. Also it printed letters from Father O'Malley, S. J., dean of Loyola, and Father Theodore Daigler, S. J., president of Woodstock College. No other clergyman filed complaint. The weekly Baltimore Catholic Review printed a moderate objection. After four days quiet, Archbishop Curley returned from a trip out of town, heard what had gone on, reached for his telephone. An underling on the Sun's desk took the call. To all the Archbishop had to say, that unhappy deskman could only gulp and stammer. Later in the day Editor John W. Owens visited the Archbishop who demanded a public apology by the Sun on his own terms. Editor Owens refused.

On June 29, the Catholic Review burst out with an open letter from the Archbishop to be read from all Catholic pulpits in the diocese. Excerpts:

"I am not saying that Catholics of this archdiocese should not buy the Sun and should not deal with its advertisers. I am saying, however, that our Catholic priests and people have no obligation in law or morals to buy the Sun or to deal with Sun advertisers. . . . We have stood enough of the insults of the Sun. We are now through. We ask no favors of the Sun. We demand justice. The organized Catholics of the archdiocese know exactly how to act. . . . Let us have action!"

In case any of their flock did not know how to act, priests added a postscript to the Archbishop's letter: "Your pastor and the other priests of this parish have discontinued their subscriptions to the Sunpapers. ... I am notifying the firms with which I deal to send me statements in full. ... I shall notify them it will be impossible for me to be guided by advertisements in papers which I do not read."

How many of the Sun's 137,000 readers followed suit, Publisher Patterson last week did not know. The effect of the circulation boycott, if any, was indistinguishable at short range from the normal July 1 slump suffered by all periodicals. Some advertisers did receive requests from Catholic customers to close out their accounts, but for the most part the requests were ignored.

Through it all the Sun preserved a stony public silence. But not so the Catholic Review. Its issue of fortnight ago was largely devoted to furious attacks, covering the entire front page, nearly half the editorial page, and scattered columns elsewhere. Shouted an eight-column banner:

ARCHBISHOP DEFIED THE SUN TO PROVE IT DIDN'T LIE.

Lengthy articles excoriated the Sun for its refusal to apologize publicly. Here and there appeared little bold-face paragraphs like these:

Insulted by the Sun

Xaverian Brothers, Tell Your Students That Saint Francis Xavier, Dearest Friend of Saint Ignatius, and The Saint Whose Name Your Order Bears, Has Been Insulted By the Morning Sun.

Insulted by the Sun

Mothers and Fathers Who Have Daughters in the Religious Sisterhoods, Your Daughters have Been Insulted by the Morning Sun.

A picture of Rev. Dr. Fulton J. Sheen, printed because he had just been appointed Papal Chamberlain, was captioned: ". . . Has been insulted by the Sun which says the Catholic Church has canonized 'an ordinary scoundrel' and a 'consummate blackguard.' "

Last week's issue of the Catholic Review was slightly less violent, but offered advice on the quickest and most effective means of cancelling one's subscription to the Sun.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.