Suchergebnisse

1. Prologue. About the title of the book. Risks of writing this book. The title revisited. What has gravity got to do with this book? One-handed scientist. Information cornucopia. Will the Y chromosome decay and take men with it? A goal of this book. Inside this book. Best use of this book -- 2. A primer on genetics. Living things. Tinkering using technology. Survival of the fittest. How genetics changed the course of history. Timeline of genetics -- 3. Sex, a primal instinct. The primal instinct for sex. Emperor penguins. Salmons. Pacific grunions. Other aspects of sex. Sex reigns, birds and bees do it, but why? Models of co-evolution. The deleterious mutation hypothesis. The Red Queen hypothesis. Computer simulations. Supporting evidence. Scandal without sex. Selfish genes. Selfishly altruistic kin selection -- 4. Mating dance. Basic instinct. Scents of love. Cupid's chemicals. Mating dance. Of man and ape. Sexual matrimony and polyamory. And less love. Tug of war, In Utero. Back into the past and future -- 5. Quest for perfection. Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder. Ancient definition of perfection. Search for the perfect face. Search for hour-glass figure. The myth of beauty. The cute factor. No choice for baby. Selective paternal reproduction. The founding of Rome. Selective maternal reproduction. Eugenics. First stage. Second stage. Third stage. Fourth stage -- 6. Invisible hand in the human body shop. The human life cycle. The reproductive cycle. Sex hormones. Inside the womb. Birth defects. The invisible hand in human body commerce. From alchemy to algeny. In vitro fertilization. IVF the Aussie style. The business of in vitro fertilization. IVF children. Donor insemination. DI half-siblings. Hello Dolly, good-bye Dolly -- 7. Clonology. Parthenogenesis, virgin birth. Cloning. Clonology. Cloning Hollywood style. The celebrated Dolly, but second to computer chips. Clones of clones of a clone. Jerky bulls and Yang cows. Second chance, clone of the oldest bull. Artificial monkey twins. Clone of a clone - more bulls. Cloned piglets. Reversing aging. Other notable cloning efforts. Jurassic amusement park? More calves and piglets. More endangered species cloned. Multi-legged bio-x. Multi-legged bio-reactors. Multi-legged bio-facturers. Nature versus nano. Multi-legged bio-models. Multi-legged bio-factories -- 8. Petory and biofactory. PerPETually yours. K-9 cloning. Snuppy. Dupli-cat. Cc: genetic anomaly. Commercial grade pet cloning. Cloning rabbitly. A stubborn clone. Cloned equine twin of surrogate mother. Ethically yours. Odd-inarily yours -- 9. Cloning techniques. Twins, twice the fun. Nonidentical twins - siblings of the same age. Identical twins - natural clones. Mirror image and conjoined twins. Interest in twins. Identical twins are more identical than clones. En route to commercialization. Artificial twinning technique. Nuclear transfer technique. The Roslin technique. The Honolulu technique. The chromatin transfer technique. Twinning Roslin in Honolulu. Honolulu versus Dolly. First male clone -- 10. Reproductive human cloning. Super clones? Tinkering with conception. Natural birth versus cloning. Hardware and software of sexual reproduction. Hardware and software of cloning. Physiology of human cloning. Key human cloning mavericks. Richard Seed. Claude Vorilhon and Brigitte Boisselier. Severino Antinori. Panayiotis Zavos. Avi Ben-Abraham. Human embryo "clones". Clone abortion. Why hybrid? The "clone" stork, real or Rael? -- 11. The alchemy of stem cells. Organ transplant. Growing human organs? Stem cell. Derivation of stem cells. Banking embryonic and fetal parts. Lifeline - cord blood. Multipotent adult stem cells. Stem cells from fat. Medical uses of stem cells. Stem cell gold mines. Growing breast from a stem cell. Regenerative medicine. Why regenerative medicine? Regenerative medicine and stem cell research. Regeneration, stem cells and aging. Master cells and master genes -- 12. Stem cell entities. Stem cell nations. Sweden. United Kingdom. Australia. Singapore. Israel. Japan. India. China. Korea. United States. Case study: Harvard Stem Cell Institute. Case study: California Institute of Regenerative Medicine. East versus West. A shenanigans of scandalous proportion. The rise to international stardom. The fall from grace. The repercussions. How did it happen? The way to the top. The way to demise. The bits and pieces. The characters: accomplices and foes. Hwang versus Raelians. Synopsis of the dogged reports -- 13. Legal and ethical issues. How? What? Why? Therapeutic and reproductive cloning. Secret projects. Stigma of cloning. Ten AD (after Dolly). Cloning as an assisted reproductive technology. All is fine unless you are the clone. Where science meets the public. Issues with human cloning. Cloning as reprotech. Ethical issues with cloning. My father is my twin. Can a clone run for U.S. Presidency? The genie is out of the bottle. In vitro fertilization debate. Reproductive cloning dé jàvu. Overcoming legal and ethical impasse. Private funding. Model organisms. Vertebrates. Invertebrates. Plants. Microorganisms. Circumventing ethical impasse. Message in a bottle from the future. To clone or not to clone? Why? Why not! Clone the law -- 14. At the crossroad. Relatively and genetically speaking. Divinity versus greed. The invisible hand. Fictitious commodities. Tapping into human resources. Mendel and Darwin. The invisible body. Sexual reproduction versus cloning -- Excellent references -- Food for thoughts.

The defeat of the Confederacy, the prospect of military occupation and Republican state government, and the financial collapse of many plantations and businesses sent a number of white southerners in pursuit of life in a foreign land during the late 1860s. Between 1865 and the early 1870s approximately five thousand white and black southerners trekked to Mexico (28, 37).1 Todd W. Wahlstrom examines this resettlement by studying colonies in the Texas border state of Coahuila. Much of The Southern Exodus to Mexico chronicles the rise and fall of ambitious colonization plans of such ex-Confederates as Matthew Fontaine Maury (scientist and naval officer from Virginia) and former Louisiana governor Henry Watkins Allen (12, 22). Wahlstrom revises earlier histories, engaging Andrew Rolle's The Lost Cause: The Confederate Exodus to Mexico (1965) that describes Confederate flight as "an attempt to snatch some sort of victory out of defeat"2 and as an expression of delusional efforts to preserve Dixie in the Mexican highlands. Wahlstrom seeks to revise Rolle's contention that the southern exodus was a "failure" through revealing "the scope of the vision behind it" (xv). Although Rolle largely ignores the northern Mexican borderlands, Wahlstrom also emphasizes colonization in Coahuila, arguing that border states contributed to a "hemispheric south" where planters and railroad promoters envisioned business and trade networks across the Mexican borderlands and into Latin America during the last third of the nineteenth century (xxvii). Wahlstrom also considers the experiences of African Americans and non-slaveholding whites. Contra Rolle's account, southern emigrants to Mexico did not solely represent a "Lost Cause" flight of renegade whites, but a commercial vanguard. Economic interests yielded unlikely collaborations between Confederate exiles and Mexican liberals who returned to power in 1867 (85). Most of these commercial efforts involved agricultural enterprises, ranging from grand schemes for cotton plantations to the homesteads of black and white yeoman settlers who saw Mexico as an "agricultural paradise just waiting for southern migrants to build up its economy" (23). Mexico might seem an unlikely destination for defeated Confederates, as its government formally abolished caste distinctions and chattel slavery after it gained independence in 1821. Additionally, Mexico had engaged in a war with pro-slavery Anglo settlers in Texas during the 1830s, and was still reeling from the effects of US invasion and occupation from 1846 to 1848. Nevertheless, a unique set of political circumstances made settlement appear promising in the summer of 1865. Under the imperial rule of Maximilian, the republican opposition forces of Benito Juárez were at low ebb, despite growing US pressure for France to decrease its presence in Mexico. Even after Mexico's loss of its northern territory to the US in 1848, vast areas remained beyond government control. Imperial forces, republican resistance, local strongmen, and indigenous peoples all contested Mexico's shifting borderlands.3 Over three centuries after Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca and Estevanico traversed the region, nineteenth-century Coahuila remained a "middle ground" between Apache, Comanche, and Kickapoo Indians, indigenous peoples who migrated into the area to either avoid white settlement or raid white settler outposts. Readers of James Brooks, Pekka Hämäläinen, and Brian DeLay will recognize the "network of violence, theft, and trade" that characterized Coahuila's society during much of the nineteenth century (63–68).4 Wahlstrom does not go as far as these three historians in describing Indian nations as primary powers of this territory, as he finds their sway over Coahuila to be somewhat diminished by the 1860s (64–66). These indigenous groups figure primarily as vexatious raiders in The Southern Exodus to Mexico, not as existential threats to ex-Confederate settlements. Confederate migration to Mexico is one point in a longer arc of Spanish and Mexican efforts to attract settlers to their northern borders in order to control the region. Andrés Reséndez documents the motives that led Mexican officials and, particularly, an ambitious northern Mexican commercial class to attract US settlement and trade during the first half of the nineteenth century.5 Wahlstrom's research makes clear that the US-Mexico War did not diminish economic and settlement patterns. Instead, ex-Confederate migration mapped onto earlier patterns of migration from southern US states to the borderlands of Texas, New Mexico, and the adjacent areas of Tamaulipas, Nuevo León, Coahuila, and Chihuahua. There, white southerners from a slaveholding society found familiar class and labor dynamics. While Mexico was a multiracial nation that espoused the equality of all citizens before the law, it retained sharp divisions between Spanish-descended creoles, mestizos, and indigenous groups. Throughout the nineteenth century, Mexican liberals "argued that white immigration would bring economic advancement," modernization, and a whitening of the Mexican population (21). For their part, many white colonists brought a "racial exclusivity that only included elite Mexicans in the colonization plans." These transplants did not share the goal of transforming their host nation through assimilation or absorption (85). For many African Americans who escaped slavery or the new forms of bondage that emerged after the Civil War, Mexico often represented freedom from racial oppression.6 Sean Kelley, in a study of runaway slaves before the Civil War, vividly describes how Texan African Americans viewed Mexico as the land of liberty.7 While employment by white colonists—often former slave owners—brought an unspecified number of black southerners to Mexico, Wahlstrom argues that their migration "corresponds with other forms of African American agency in the postwar period" (133). However, Wahlstrom also states that black southerners often relocated "under duress" with their former masters (39). In such instances, this agency involved escaping the oversight of former slave owners, as was the case of Thomas C. Hindman, an ex-Confederate general who witnessed the flight of former slave Charlie and the "defection" of other former slaves to Mexico (39). A desire to acquire land and earn economic independence attracted blacks to Coahuila, even though many white colonists envisioned for them only a subservient role on estates that recreated southern plantation life (46, 132, 133). At times, black southerners attempted to form their own colonies. Wahlstrom describes the efforts of William Ellis, whose short-lived 1894 colony in the Laguna area of Durango stands outside the temporal scope of his study but warrants consideration as an emblematic representation of both Mexico's potential and peril to blacks. The settlers experienced "exploitation" as agricultural workers as well as a "swath of yellow fever." Ultimately, when the settlement disbanded, the seventy remaining blacks left the Laguna colony to work in nearby mines. Wahlstrom simply asserts that "seventy of these colonists picked up their hopes and went to the mining town of Mapimí to continue their pursuit of freedom" (46). However, William Beezley's discussion of mining in northern Mexico during this period casts a stark shadow on these optimistic notes; miners endured grueling labor conditions in unlit, poorly ventilated shafts, working with simple hand tools and suffering from exposure to mercury and other toxic compounds.8 Relocation to Mexico offered freedom from Jim Crow; nevertheless, opportunities for economic advancement were often limited for African American emigrants. Wahlstrom's emphasis on leading colonizers such as Matthew Maury, and the political machinations between elite southerners and Mexican officials, obscures insights into the everyday experiences of black and white southern emigrants. While Mexico's leaders found "common ground" with former Confederates in their quest for white immigration, popular Mexican reactions to this influx of American settlers, aside from frequent references to "banditry," do not appear in The Southern Exodus to Mexico (21). An overall impression emerges that white southern colonists created isolated, self-contained enclaves characterized by a southern Protestantism in sharp relief to Mexican Catholicism (143). Wahlstrom's study affords little insight into the competing concerns over religion, language, legal procedure, intermarriage, and schooling that marked the settlement of other Mexican colonies. Aside from passing references to marriages and women and children held as captives, this history centers almost entirely on male settlers. Nancy Brigham, a widowed woman who settled with a group of Texans in the Córdoba colony of central Mexico, is one of the few women mentioned. Wahlstrom ventures that "her involvement reflects the appeal of Mexico as grounds for economic revival, a way to resuscitate her family's future" (24). Nevertheless, beyond ambitions for new farmland and speculative business prospects, Wahlstrom does not investigate how settlers attempted to recreate Dixie on the Mexican borderlands in cultural or spatial terms. Instead, Wahlstrom traces US investment in Mexican railways, contending that economic interests were central to early efforts to link the two nations. He documents the competing efforts of former Union general William S. Rosecrans, who promoted a Mexico Pacific and Rio Bravo Railroad from New Orleans to Mazatlán, and Edward Lee Plumb, who planned to connect Laredo to San Blas on Mexico's Pacific Coast (115–117). As both proposals ultimately failed, Wahlstrom can only make limited claims about the "bilateral benefits of trade and economic development to Mexico and the South" (117). He nonetheless argues that these promoters "helped instill new pathways of prosperity and steer[ed] a course of transnational connections between the United States and Mexico during the second half of the nineteenth century" (127). Such glowing descriptions aside, the efforts of Confederate exiles in Mexico produced few tangible results in railroad and industry in the decade following the Civil War. The final chapter of The Southern Exodus to Mexico makes a more convincing case that southern emigration to Mexico was a harbinger of a "New South" where white leaders embraced industry, finance, and commerce to progressively diversify an agrarian economy, while maintaining a conservative approach to labor and race relations (124–125). At a general level, Mexico's leaders shared these conservative tendencies (21). The transition from imperial rule to liberal governance made economic interests paramount in Mexico's immigration efforts. Several of the Mexican officials who brokered for southern colonists in the 1860s later worked to forge a borderlands economy through the promotion of railroads, mining, and commercial agriculture under Porfirio Díaz. Santiago Vidaurri, a regional strongman and ally of Díaz who exercised political and military dominance over Coahuila, facilitated these emerging trade connections (71–72). Wahlstrom details how this particular migration period anticipates a coming era of US empire-building, where extensive commercial interests, especially in agriculture, created semi-colonial regimes in Mexico and Central America. Importantly, however, Confederate migration does not mark the beginning of US or imperial interest in Mexico. Juan Mora Torres, who also explores the emergence of a transnational economy in northeastern Mexico, dates the foundation of this "hemispheric" economy to the cotton trade that flourished before and during the Civil War.9 The Southern Exodus to Mexico makes a more convincing case that white southerners endeavored to promote cross-border business after the Civil War and that the increased publicity of Mexico's economic potential strengthened the case for foreign investment and more direct transportation linkages (111–112, 127). Ultimately, Wahlstrom provides few examples of lasting economic success or significant social transformations within these attempted southern colonies.

Transcript of an oral history interview with Mrs. Carol Todd, conducted by Sarah Yahm at the interviewee's home in Roxbury, Vermont, on 12 May 2015, as part of the Norwich Voices oral history project of the Sullivan Museum and History Center. Carol Todd was the wife of Norwich University president, W. Russell Todd, and the founder of the Norwich University Center for Volunteer Management. Included in the interview are reminiscences of Mrs. Todd's early life and education as well as her experiences at Norwich University. ; Mrs. Carol Todd, Oral History Interview May 12, 2015 At interviewee's home Interviewed by Sarah Yahm Transcribed by C.T. Haywood, NU '12 May 20, 2015 SARAH YAHM: You know what hold on I haven't turned this on yet and we're talking about interesting stuff that might be good to have on tape. But what were you saying about "should?" CAROL TODD: Well I, when General Todd was a young officer and we were first living at Fort Knox I learned a good deal about what I came to feel was my responsibility or at least what I should do for those wives who are around me, who might need me, who were just like I was with their mother wasn't there, their family was far way. And in those days when you were in Kentucky and your folks lived in New England it was a long way away. There was none of the technology that we enjoy now. Now I never was very good at this but I tried my best and I eventually did the work not directly for these young people but through an organization called Army Community Services, which was a social work organization, which now has become very strong and has professional people that do it. But when it started it was folks like myself who saw the need to be available. And we did what people's family would do for people who are in need or really need, kept an eye on folks is what happened. We all lived on post in the 1950s almost everyone lived on post in government quarters, government apartments. And we were neighbors. We were friends. We knew each other. We did things. We went for walks with the babies in a baby carriage. It's a different world and I understand that but I don't know how we got on the subject but it's…. SY: Well it's interesting because JoAnn Kelley who I interviewed talks about… CT: Oh yes! Interesting yeah… SY: Yeah about um when they were in Germany I guess you know Mike Kelley was away for a couple days for some reason. CT: Sure. SY: …for some reason she had already lost most of her vision and she talks about the incredible support of the women living on post with her enabling her to be able to do what she needed to do, right? Her kid got hurt and needed to go to the hospital and the degree to which the other, the mothers just dropped everything and took care of her kids and got her to the hospital and got her kid x-rays. And she felt that very powerfully in Germany. CT: Yeah and isn't it wonderful that she was the recipient of that kind of attention, because it must have been pretty tough to be alone. I think the whole ethos of this type of 2 community has changed in this whole country. It isn't just the military that it's changed in but and it isn't just the Army. I think the whole, but, for instance in those early days wives did not work. Ha! Heavens no! I knew of one of my friends who had a job who worked for a while. And I had come from a pla--from a situation where I had been working full time and could have probably managed to continue doing personnel work which is what I was doing. But I thought, "Huh," but nobody does that, you know, that isn't what we do here, you know. SY: Did you miss it? Because you, I mean you were you know you'd had a very good education, you were trained, you were? CT: I really didn't miss it at all. I really didn't. It was, we had such a good time. It was really fun. It was really fun for a while and one of the couples to whom we were close then, they lived around the corner and down the street a little bit, we are still close to. They live in Saco, Maine and the name is Nutting, Jane and Wally Nutting, and we still talk a lot and send birthday cards and visit once or twice a year. Unfortunately they both have some health issues, well don't we all at this age if you come right down to it. And so we don't see them as often as we'd like. But there was some very, very strong bonds. We took care of each other's children, we took care of each other. It was, it was easy and it's what people did and it made it easier to do I think than perhaps a different situation. And we were poor. You've got to remember in those days there was no extra cash. Everybody was counting out to see how much money they have left for the last week in the month and… SY: And were some--were you paying for your housing or was your housing free? CT: No we were paying for it. Because there were all kinds of arrangements but everybody paid for it in one way or another. Either they deducted it from your salary if you lived in certain kinds of housing. We lived in what was considered contract apartments and I think we paid $65.00 a month which seems like, it seemed like a lot then. It was for us then. And everybody and nobody, everybody, all the women were wearing their clothes from their trousseau you know because that's, there was no running out and buying new outfits and stuff like that. Yeah. SY: So let me actually, let me officially start this interview because I need to get us on tape. CT: Please do. SY: So I'm here interviewing--though I'll transcribe that and use that it's super interesting. So I'm here interviewing Carol Todd. Its May 12, we're at her house in Northfield. Is this technically still in Northfield? CT: As a matter of fact the house is in Roxbury though the garage is in Northfield. SY: [laughs]3 CT: Winch Hill Road is, you know the dividing line goes right through our garage as a matter of fact. We can show it to you. It's painted on the floor the garage. SY: That's hilarious, yeah. It's like the Derby Line Opera House and Library. CT: Oh yes, right, right [laughs]. It's true. SY: So okay let's actually, let's start from the beginning because oral history it's a story of a life. So I guess where did you grow up? Where were you born? CT: I born in Beverly, Massachusetts which is just north of Boston - 28 miles we used to say - in 1928. I can remember, we've got a picture somewhere in our files of the funny old car that my father had to, came home from the hospital, a funny sort of thing, an open sort of sedan thing. My parents were older parents which made my birth very exciting because my mother was 37 or 8 by the time I was born and that was considered geriatric practically. She never had the first labor pain. She didn't have the baby and didn't have the baby when it was due. So finally the doc went, "Hmmm better do something about this," and it was determined well before I was born that I was no doubtful a boy. There was no question about it. I had such a slow heartbeat which I still do. But no I wasn't a boy was I? And he was to have been named for my father, it would have been William Henry. So when I was a girl, some of the doctor or one of the nurses said, "Well, what are you going to name her?" and she said, "Well I guess I'll have to name her Wilhelmina Henrietta" which caused everyone in the delivery room to have a good laugh. But instead I was named for my grandfather's mother who had died giving birth to him in 18--what is it? '34 I think, yeah. I get the numbers kind of mixed up. But no he was born in '54, 1854. And anyway, but I was named for her my name being Caroline but I've been called Carol ever since. Because at the time in the thirties Carole Lombard was very, very famous and very fancy. So lots of people who were named a word like Caroline would be named, called Carol and that's, I still use Caroline for my legal name but other than that. And then I grew up in Beverly, small town, 20,000 people more or less. Went to the public school there. Could walk to school, could walk home for lunch, back for the afternoon, back home in the afternoon, play outside in the in our yard or in the yard next door. Go sliding on down the street on the little hill in somebody else's backyard. I had ah [cough] (pardon me), I had friends that I knew in kindergarten that I graduated from high school with and one of them I still play Words with Friends to this day with. One of these girls is still my friend. It's really fun. Everybody went to a different church and I thought, was only thinking about that this morning. My sister and I and one other, Eleanor, went to the Washington Street Congregational Church which is around the street from us. But my friend Pauline went to the Baptist church which was up the corner, and Elizabeth Ann went to the Episcopal church and then another friend went to the Dane Street Congregational Church and nobody thought this was odd. I mean this is how it was. People were all mixed together I think in the public school system which was a really good thing. I can remember in the sixth grade how thrilled I was when a new student came whose name was Emilio Zarzanello. So my last name being Wyeth I was no longer the end of the alphabet when we lined up by names. So I loved Emilio Zarzanello.4 I thought that was grand. Went to all the way through the public school there, went to junior high. It was a building called Briscoe which still stands in the center of town which is the same school that my grandfather had gone to and it had been condemned during the time he was there so you can imagine what it was like then. Went to high school there at Beverly High School and that's where I met my husband whose family lived in Wenham, Massachusetts, which is an area just north of where we lived that had no high school. So he was tuitioned into Beverly High School, and I guess we just, we had lockers, adjacent lockers, you know how kids used to in high school. And l loved that high school. It was really great. Had extremely good teachers, some. A wonderful English teacher who pushed and shoved me hard to love words, to recite poetry, to do this sort of thing. And a history teacher named Mr. Bellmore who taught us how to take exams which was a marvelous thing to do. Every Monday morning he passed out a piece of paper on which there were 5 questions and these were things we were going to learn this week in American history. On Friday he would choose one of these topics, throw out a question in regards to this, give us blue books just like you had in college and said, "You now have 20 minutes to write me an essay on this subject." Well once you got the idea and got onto it all you had to do is learn the material and recite it back in written form, which he then corrected, spelling, punctuation, to say nothing of the facts and by the end of senior year I could take an exam in almost anything if somebody would frame it just correctly. And it helped me tremendously in college to have had that training. It was a good high school. SY: Absolutely. Do you remember your first impression of your husband? CT: Yeah I do. I just thought he was so handsome and he was wearing a bright red cable knit sweater that his grandmother had made for him. Isn't that funny? Yes I do. But the interesting thing was his mother had just had a baby. A what? We were astonished. And that baby is his brother Dick who we still are very. very close to but all those years through high school Russ was a big draw for girls who loved to go up to his house and push the baby carriage and knit mittens for Richard and this sort of thing. It's funny isn't it yeah? Our parents, both sets of parents sensed it once this was an important relationship for both of us. So my mother called a woman whose name I've really tried hard to remember, but she lived in Wenham and mother knew that - her name was Miriam something - she knew that Miriam would have known the Todds through the town. So she called up to ask Miriam who these people were. Meanwhile the Todds who lived down the street from this ladyhad called her to say, "Do you know who these people are that live in Beverley?" And she assured both parents that this was okay that this you know is a good relationship and everybody relaxed and said, "Okay." We went to a lot of activities together in high school. SY: I was just gonna say. So this is what year? You were born in '28 so this is… CT: We graduated in '46 so it's late forties. SY: Okay so, yeah what were, what was dating like in the early forties? What were the protocols? 5 CT: Well, the boy usually called up or said, "Do you want to go to the movies?" That's what we did; we went to the movies. And the first few times we dated we went with his parents, his mother and father, because Russ didn't drive because he, I suppose he wasn't 16 come to think--oh he must have been. Well I don't know why we wend, but anyway we did, we went with the Todds and a couple of times. And then my mother and by then my father wasn't well, but anyway and we were living with my grandparents. But my mother said, "Why don't we have him for dinner before you go out?" I don't know where we were going so he came for supper and that was a big success because he was reasonably comfortable doing that. He had met them and we lived about 5 or 6 maybe 7 miles apart. They weren't really in our neighborhood but it was another town. And that we also used to do things like go to a large picnics that the coll--school would have like the chemistry department would have a picnic and we'd all go. And I can remember one time we won a three legged race. Because you see physically we were very much the same size. Of course we're not now because I've shrunk more, but we were then. I have longer legs and he had a longer torso but we could do things like, we're very much the same shape and size which was handy for three legged races if nothing else. SY: Exactly. I'm also realizing that you grew up during the war. And so I'm wondering what your memories of wartime in Beverley were like? Do you remember blackout curtains? Do you remember rationing? CT: Oh yeah, all those things. Blackout curtains were fun. Well they weren't fun but it was interesting because you had to have them, and you had to pull them down and sometimes you pulled them down and fasten them on the sill. But if you didn't do it just right they'd unroll and go "brrrt" go up and everybody'd "oh no." We also had to paint the bottom half of the headlights on the cars because we lived near the ocean. You know we lived right there on the Atlantic Ocean. So you had to do that in order that the, to take care of the submarines so they wouldn't see you when they came in close to shore. Which of course we learned they did later. We learned quite a bit about that. My father was in the Coast Guard Auxiliary. He was of the wrong age to be in the second world, in either of the world wars. He was too young for one, too old for another. And so he used to go out with the other men on his team and walk on the beaches in Beverly and sometimes in other towns nearby looking for lights in the ocean and he'd come home. All night they'd be out, you know, like 8 or 9 hours maybe longer at night. I can remember how tired he would be and every once in a while he'd say to my mother, "It was worth it, it was worth it," meaning they'd seen something and notified the people in Boston who took care of it, you know. They had a telephone system. It wasn't like a cell phone but they had some sort of a telephone system they could call. And he also in the summertime went out in a boat with his friend Homer Riggs and looking for people who are off our coast that didn't belong there. Which was sort of interesting too. We collected tin foil when you chewed gum. You got, you know each one was wrapped in a tin foil. Maybe it still is I don't know, and we made balls of tin foil. We collected newspapers. As we recycled them then we recycled them then in the World War II. We 6 also collected bacon fat. Nasty trick but you put any fat into a tin can or some sort of a receptacle that would have a lid. I can't remember what else. Oh my mother was a hoot. She decided if my father was going to be in Coast Guard Auxiliary she'd have to do something so she joined the Red Cross Auxiliary and learned to cook for large numbers of people. I have a recipe book somewhere - cocoa for 100, meatloaf for 250, you know. She never did it, she never had to do it. But they were prepared for any kind of emergency. Well the only emergency we ever had was in our town. There were icehouses full of saw dust where they stored the ice from Wenham Lake and Kelleher's Pond which was near our house and stuff. Well time had come for those things to burn. Nobody set fires but I went to at least 3 icehouse fires during those years which, because my father would get us up in the middle of the night. They always burned at night it seemed. SY: Why would they being set on fire? CT: They weren't set on fire it would be combustion, you know, some sort of combustion, internal combustion. No, they were not set on fire. SY: Oh okay. CT: No, it just, they were accidents that happened I guess. SY: But there were a lot during that time period which is interesting. CT: Yeah, I guess, maybe I'm wrong. I don't know. SY: I don't know because it would be hard for an icehouse to be set on, it just seems strange to me. CT: When icehouses empty and there's no ice in there dripping. SY: Oh the sawdust I didn't realize that. CT: You see, would dry out [phone rings in background] I suppose that maybe lightning set it on fire. I really don't know. SY: But you would wake up and you would go - CT: And my father would say, "come on quick!" so my sister and I we'd jump [sound of getting ready in a hurry] and run down and mother would be in her suit in case she had to make coca for 100, and the 4 of us would go off. And the thing was to be sure to be watch your step because my mother like both of my sister and I tend to trip on things. So my mother once tripped over a fire hose and skinned her knee. Caused great trouble because then the other Red Cross volunteers all came around in excitement to give her a bandage. That was big stuff. SY: Because everybody was all dressed up with nowhere to go, they had nothing to do but make hot cocoa for 150 [laughs]. A Band-Aid for the woman who tripped! That's hilarious. 7 CT: And she's one of our volunteers too, "Oh dear there goes Helen again." But anyway it was sort of an adventure for us. Now the other thing about World War II that made a huge impression on me - down at the end of our street, the end of our street was right on the water itself. We lived about 5 or 6 houses up. I could count them maybe I'm not sure how many. Anyway, lived a family that had a little girl that we babysat, I babysat for and my sister did and we helped take care of this girl. Nice little handicapped - she had I'm not sure what but she was handicapped. But we, so we enjoyed her. She was a nice girl. And their father whose name was Les Buck was on the train. His father, her father was on the train going into Boston one time because the Boston went in from the, from Beverly, every day so people could work in what we called in Town. In town was Boston, not, and uptown was Beverly but in town was to go to Boston. So he goes in, he's going in town, and he's sitting there minding his own business and he had had language lessons when he was in high school like so many of us do, and he could figure that the people in back of him were speaking German. Didn't know quite what they were saying but it was clearly German. "Hmm," he said. So when they got to Boston, to the North Station, he just got off and walked into where - in the railroad stations then they had a lot military police and there were shore police from the Navy all the way around Boston - and went up and said what he'd heard. And said, "those are the two men right there," and they run right over and took them away. Just because they were speaking German which sounds awful doesn't it? SY: I mean who knows? They could have, right… CT: It could have been German. Who knows, but we always thought they'd come aboard out of a submarine which is apparently did happen many times, but we thought that pretty exciting. SY: Yeah because it happened on your street. Yeah, yeah, yeah. CT: But if Russ were here, he'd tell you another story about our family which is World War I that he unearthed, and that is that somewhere in the papers that he's got of our family there's a letter that my grandfather got beginning of World War I saying: "Dear Mr. Lee, because of your exemplary behavior and your role as president of a bank in this small town you are hereby appointed by the governor of Massachusetts and the President of the United States to be on the alert on anything untoward that might happen in your community. We are aware that on the same street where you live there is a Mr. Carl Klink and Mr. Klink is now a U.S. citizen but has many relatives overseas." And you can just hear this letter. Mr. Klink, charming man, ran a bakery uptown and they said, "if at any time you have concerns about anything going on your street. You are at once to…" you know it's terribly officious letter… SY: And it's good that it was your grandfather and not somebody else who was sort of a paranoid bully, right? And would have taken him out of the bakery. CT: It's possible, yeah. We knew them really well. His wife was a friend of my grandmother's. His daughter went to school with my aunt. His granddaughter was in my 8 sister's group of friends, you know. And so my grandfather just filed it under you know, but Russ found it not long ago which it's funny. SY: It's so interesting. CT: There must have been people all over this country that got letters like that, don't you think? And now we wonder about you know privacy and all that kind of stuff, yeah. SY: That's fascinating. CT: Isn't that interesting? SY: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well and the "if you see something say something", right? The post 9-11 signs everywhere. I didn't realize that that's how it was done in World War I. That's fascinating. So what about the Depression, how did your family fare? CT: Well my father had a very bad experience. We're never going to get to, we're never going to get me grown up at this rate. But my father had a very bad experience and I'll try to tell it straight because it's a little difficult. He was co-owner of an automobile agency and they sold Chryslers and Dodge and maybe one other kind of car. I was pretty young when this happened. And he went off to work every day and they sold the cars and everything worked fine. His partner was a man named Mr. Berry like in strawberry, Ralph Berry. And the story goes that one day he was ah, he got up go to work, went down to the garage what they called it, where this agency was, there were no cars, there were no records, there was nothing in the office and Ralph Berry was gone and so was every single cent in the bank that belonged to this agency. This was before the days when we had limited partnerships and we had legal protections for people who entered partnerships. In other words this man stole everything and it caused a great deal, a great deal of distress as you could well imagine. My father eventually after a few days had what they called a nervous breakdown. Now I suspect it was a depression of some sort. I don't know what it was. But I know I don't what it was. But I know that he had he to stay in bed and the curtains had to be down and my sister and I either had to be very quiet or go across the street to where my grandparents lived and go stay. We stayed over there for a little bit. And I, how long it went on I don't know, but eventually of course he got over it, whatever it was. But what else could it have been but depression? He didn't have a stroke. I don't know. He, as a result of this always had high blood pressure so it must have happened in 1937 or '38. Or no even before - '36 or '37, because by '38 when I was 10 years old, he was okay I can remember. But anyway and he died very young from auxiliary problems from having high blood pressure which in those days they didn't treat. The only thing they did he was he was supposed to be on a salt free diet. You know almost everything, even eggs have naturally some salt in them and you don't have to add anything. But my mother made salt free bread. Oh there were all kinds of goings on but he just continually got worse and worse and he died when I was a, well he died in 194-, he died in the November of 194-, October of 1949. So the last few years of his life were pretty uncomfortable for him and for all of us you, know. But Mr. Berry got off from this scot-free to the best of my knowledge I don't know otherwise. Had the nerve shortly 9 after my father died to buy a beautiful big house in Hamilton which is another small town outside Beverly, with horses and big yards, and gardens and stuff. Married a second wife and came back to town. And I thought, "What gall?" now somebody, I hope nobody listening to this ever was a relative of this man. But he just caused an awful lot of heartache in our family. But shortly after that I think it was this didn't happen to my father alone. This sort of thing was going on all over the country. Times were getting hard, the Depression was hard on people and my mother and father managed to take care of us somehow, I don't know. There was no social security. I'm sure they used up every cent of savings they'd ever had. I know when we needed things like when we got to be a certain age and wanted to go to camp my grandparents always gave it to us for our birthday present. Winter coats magically appeared, you know. I can re--the only time I ever remember anything happening that affected me personally was I said to my mother, "I really need a new pair of shoes these are getting so worn out," blah, blah, blah. And she said, "Carol I know you do," and she said, "and you can have a new pair of shoes. We're just gonna have to wait until the first of the month." And so we waited until the first of the month and I got what I needed. But there was no ah, they didn't. We were very very fortunate. SY: And they protected you from--I'm sure they were filled CT: Absolutely! SY: with money anxieties but they protected you from that? CT: Oh yeah. Oh yeah. SY: And so your father never really got his footing back? CT: Well in a way he did. Because after he sort of got his wits back together he and a friend of his who is a doctor, and the father of one of my girlfriend's, and another gentleman who we knew got together and bought cranberry bogs in Rhode Island, in a little small town called Greene, Rhode Island that's on the border with Connecticut; in Marshfield, Massachusetts which is near Quincy and Duxbury; and a third one that I for the life of me can't remember where it was. And they formed little company called the Summit Cranberry Company. These were all cranberry bogs that at one time had been very productive and had been let go and they had the great pleasure of investing enough money in it to make them all productive. It was just the time that Ocean Spray was getting going and Ocean Spray kept trying to buy them out or buy their product. "No," said these strong New England gentlemen, "we are independent growers." They loved being…well of course it was their downfall but they remained independent growers and they sold through an independent agent. Only berries to be sold in crates in the grocery store, never anything boxed or barreled or made into juice or jelly [laughs] certainly not. Just straight cranberries and they had various, all these different kinds and my mother used to go and help during harvest season. She used to go down and live at one of the bogs with my father while he was managing the harvest and she would go and I don't know did things with the various women and stuff. 10 SY: A lot of the Cape Verde immigrants worked? CT: They did, yeah. Except the foreman who was the only man I remember. His last name was Thibodeau and that's French isn't it? SY: French-Canadian. CT: So he probably was French-Canadian and he had a daughter named Lilian who was my sister's age. And one year at Christmas in the midst of all this my family got together and they said now, "We want to tell you we always put aside a certain amount of money for your Christmas." And they said, "But we just feel this year that Lillian and her sister (whose name I forgot) need Christmas treats more than you do. Would you mind if we took some of your money and gave them?" We said, "No fine with us, we like these little kids too." Which they did and you know to this day I have no idea that we got any less or any different than we ever did. We never knew the difference, you know, but I love it that they told us what they were going to do. SY: Well I think they were modeling. They were teaching you something, yeah. CT: Yeah. SY: That's very interesting so he did manage to do it. So okay do you remember going down there during harvest time? CT: Oh yeah. Sure. SY: Did you help harvest? CT: No. We were always too small. They used women and no. And I think it sort of would have been against the ethic to have the boss's children paddling around in the. But interestingly enough wherever cranberries grow so do blueberries, and we would always pick all the blueberries we could and we'd bring them home and blueberry jam and blueberry pie, and give them to the neighbors and you know stuff like that. We picked blueberries. And if my sister were here she'd tell you a story that I'm not sure. She always says that one time when she was picking blueberries she began to feel really cross because my mother was sort of supervising her and saying, "Don't pick this one we don't want any green ones" [nagging sound] and she looked around and it wasn't my mother it was a bear that was standing by her. But that was the presence she felt was a bear. SY: Oh that's Blueberries for Sal. That's a children's book that I've read, she mixed that up. Blueberries for Sal is a story in Maine of a little boy named Sal picking berries. CT: It's Robert McCloskey isn't it? SY: Yeah, yeah. CT: Isn't that, that's where she got it. SY: That's where she got it. She thought it was her own story! [Laughs] that's hilarious. 11 CT: She probably--you can see as a little kid it just seems so much like the experiences she'd had. What a hoot and a half. SY: That's hilarious. CT: We're not going to let her hear this. Sorry, sorry. SY: You should buy her a copy of Blueberries for Sal and send it to her in the mail [laughs]. CT: Golly isn't that funny. SY: It's one of my favorite children's books it's lovely, yeah [laughs]. CT: Oh I am blushing here. SY: It's so funny. Okay so that's the forties at that point? CT: Yeah and then we went to high school and we worked hard and we had 2 or 3 good teachers, but some hm-hm. Oh Latin, my mother insisted we take Latin because she majored in German in college and she thought Latin was absolutely essential that everybody have lots of Latin. Because it was so good to help you figure out what all the words in other. To this day playing Words with Friends I'll give Pauline a French word and she'll say, "No you know you can't do that." But so we took French and we took lots of Latin in school and we had a French tutor whose name was Madam DeBesey and she was a French refugee of sorts, who made us come to her house and have tea and crackers after school one day a week. And have conversational French. It's so awkward you know, but we both learned a good deal. So that when I actually went to live in France I just turned on my high school years and was able to manage. SY: So your family wasn't part of the military. It doesn't seem like the military was part of your upbringing. CT: Oh, no, no except my father being in the Coast Guard Auxiliary. No, no we didn't know anything. But Russ' family was and when you talk to him he'll tell you about his dad and stuff. SY: And so when you and Russ started dating and seeing each other and it looked like it was going to get serious, you must have realized that you were probably going to be married to a man in the military. And what were your thoughts about that about that life? CT: Oh that's a good question. I don't--certainly in the high school years and in the first few years in college I just thought it was interesting that he was up here at Norwich going to school. I was in Northampton which isn't that far away and used to come up on the train to see him, and it was kind of fun except there were those fraternities. And I'm just too much of a stick in the mud or too, I don't know, I didn't find all this hilarity and all this drinking and stuff. I was just, I was just uncomfortabl,e it just didn't suit me. And so we became friends with several couples literally who were married and we were just 18-19 years old, but who were married and lived a more somber life here in the, you've 12 heard them talk about people who lived in the trailers down where Kreitzberg Library is. And some of these people who were, I was more comfortable with because they were more staid I suppose. And but we used to do things with the fraternity too. Russ had a good time working with them and we came up here, Junior Week was so much fun where they had polo game matches. SY: Can you pause for a second? Because I realizing your chair is making noise. CT: Oh yes I squeak this chair. SY: Let's just switch out the chairs is that possible? CT: Okay, sure. SY: Because I don't want because it's squeaky yeah. CT: I never even noticed it. SY: Yeah I didn't notice it until a little a while ago. Do you want me to move it or you got it? CT: No, no I've got it. Let's try that one. That's a newer one, give it a wiggle first and see. Better? SY: Quieter, way quieter [laughs]. CT: Yeah these are pretty old chairs. Alright good, I'll try not to. SY: Oh don't worry about it. It's not a big deal. I just thought you know why not get a less squeaky chair. Okay alright so you're coming up, so do you remember your first impressions of Norwich? CT: Not really, but one of things I really miss terribly is how beautiful Central Street was. When I came here Central Street was an arch of the most gorgeous trees all over the top and they took down the last of them, the one between the president's house and the next door just this spring. Beautiful trees. It was a very pretty place in the right weather. One of the times I came up here we've got a marvelous picture somewhere of me getting off the train and being met at the station downtown with the, by Russ and our friend Jim Ricker who was in, he also went to high school with us, and he was there too. So Jim came down too and a band from the university to meet the girls getting off the bus, ah, off the train. And I thought that was pretty swift you know. We always, the women in those days dates did not stay in the dorms [laughs] heaven forbid! We stayed with people around town and Russ can tell some funny stories about trying to get dates, places for me to stay because of course his father had gone here and his mother had come up to visit him and these people all remembered his dad because Dad Todd was a terrific dancer and they all thought this was fun to have Tommy Todd's son, you know, now coming to see him. So I got to know a few people who lived in town that way because I stayed at their house. It was fun. I was glad when put do--I was glad when they closed down the 13 fraternities it didn't make sense it and we still know people who fuss at it at with us and Russ just nods his head and said, "What can you do you know, it's how it is." SY: Change tradition, grumble, grumble. CT: Yeah. SY: Yeah. CT: But and you see that was talking about too and I'm talking about the changing tradition how it bothers me in another way when it's something that affected me more such as what goes on in Army life. It's just hard as you get older. It is. SY: It is hard, yeah change is hard. Okay so you would come up and you would stay with people in town? CT: Right. SY: And you would, oh so Junior Week you were talking about Junior Week. CT: Oh yes I had, let's see they had polo matches, which were great fun to watch. They had equestrian fancy riding, what do you call that? Dressage. They had all kinds of basket--not basketball, baseball games and other things that were really fun to do, as well as a dance. But the dances were really big time, they would pay somehow to have very big bands come here - Artie Shaw and all these people. Do you know who the Ink Spots were? Now the Ink Spots, I never saw them, but apparently they did come to Norwich once because as we speak somebody on behalf of the museum is trying to buy a poster that says the Ink Spots are coming to Norwich University. SY: I interviewed a guy two weeks ago, I'm blanking on his name, super nice man lives in town. Northfield, I mean Norwich graduate, who or I don't know if he graduated but he was at Norwich for a couple of years ,and he was in a band that played all the time during that period of time. CT: Oh I'm sure. SY: But I'm sure you know him but I can't remember his name right now. CT: I'm glad to hear you say you have the same trouble because I really can't remember a lot of these people's names. My vision and mentally I can see so many of these people and what fun it was. SY: Ha-Hammond? Hammond is his last name I think. He's in town, yeah but he was he played the saxophone and he played at all of these events on campus. CT: I'm sure. SY: Yeah. CT: I don't think….14 SY: Who knows? CT: I don't know that name. SY: Okay so you're at Smith during this time and what's your vision when you're at Smith of what your future's gonna look like. Are you thinking like when I graduate, were you thinking when I graduate I'm gonna get married, when I graduate…? CT: No I wasn't. Now that's interesting because Russ was always a part of my life from the time I met him. I think in a different way than most people get married so quickly to each other. He was just, I knew so much about him and his mother and his father and his brother and his sister-laws. But I also knew that somehow I needed to do something. I wanted to do something before I got married because in those days once you got married you probably weren't going to have a career. I don't know that I put it in words or said I wanted a career, (oh dear there's the rain) but I did want to, I guess try my skills. I guess maybe that's what I was thinking. So when it was time for me to graduate I majored in sociology with a lot of economics which I wasn't so good at, a lot of French, a lot of English literature. But the best courses I'll just don't mind telling anybody I ever took at Smith or anywhere else were art appreciation my senior year and music appreciation my French year. Those have lasted me so well so well. I oh well that's another whole story but so I always say to people I know going to college, don't just focus on what you might do for a career there's so much more to learn, don't sell yourself short. SY: That's what the liberal arts are about, developing yourself, right? CT: That's right yeah. Oh that art course was fabulous. Well anyway the upshot of all this is, so it's time for me to graduate and my sister however has still got another year. she's two years younger. But she was just a year behind me in school. So she was at Smith too and my father had died so I went into the--we all has appointments with somebody in the administration. Her name was Mrs. Mindel, but I don't know what her title was. And she said, "What are you going to do when you graduate?" I said, "Well I don't know for sure but there's a course at Radcliffe I'd really like to go to, a one year program in business administration. It is essentially the first year of the Harvard Business School which does not accept women as you know. But it's very much the same thing and I just would really love to do that and see if I can get some skills there that I could use." And she said, "Okay, let me think about this." So she called me back and she said, "Here's the deal," she said, "I'm going to call your mother and I'm going to suggest that if she will pay for you to go to this program at Radcliffe, I will give your sister full room and board and tuition for her senior year at Smith." What she was doing was giving me a graduate program. And they did. SY: Wow and I wonder….what an interesting arrangement because she wanted. CT: And my mother was just thrilled. She wanted me to have that opportunity. SY: That's great! 15 CT: It is--I have never heard of anything like it. SY: Me neither. CT: And I said, "really?!" And I know that the course I went to was nowhere, it was nothing dollar wise, I don't know what my mother paid but it was nothing like. But she knew, she knew that I was, that the family was having trouble financially and that we would've, they would have seen that Anne went, she would have finished, we would have found a way. So, "oh great," I said so off I went to be a bridesmaid in 2 or 3 weddings the way you'd often do it after in those days after college. And started in August at this program. Lived in Cambridge on Brattle Street. It was just a wonderful experience, learned how to write a one page memo that told, said everything you wanted to in you know 3 paragraphs. I just learned so much a lot about personnel work a lot about accounting. SY: Were you in classes with the men in the MBA program? CT: Oh no, no, no. We weren't even supposed to talk to them. No, no, no. SY: How did they make that clear to you? They said no talking to them or no interacting? CT: No, one of my classmates eventually, Jan Campbell eventually married the guy she met there, no. It was just. We were on the Radcliffe campus which was on Garden Street, do you know that area on Garden Street? And I lived at 69 Brattle Street and we had, we fixed our own breakfast, had lunch at the dining facility that was on campus, and then took turns fixing dinner. There were 9 of us that lived - I can make something for 9 in a flash - that lived in this house. And then the rest of the students who did not live in this house of which there were another maybe 10 or 12 lived at home or boarded somewhere else. But they were people that, I was the only person, there were two of us from Massachusetts. Everybody else was from another state. There were woman who were old as 30 [chuckles] old ladies. There were people who had majored in all kinds of different things, and the jobs they went onto afterwards were fabulous. One of my classmates had a seat on Wall Street. She was fabulous, Marilyn whatever her name was. And people worked for Bergdorf Gord-Goodman, Bergdorf Goodman as a buyer. Ah Jane, became the alumni, alumni director of Radcliffe before it amalgamated with Harvard. Interesting people. And it was a fabulous year. We had classes for a while then we had the first internship program, and I was sent to a--if I say Raytheon it was, it may have been Raytheon factory where I assembled the starters in the ends of a fluorescent tube. Did you even know there was one there? [laughs] Ah I am not dexterous. I never was dexterous and I tell you my experience on an assembly line where dexterity counted was so interesting. Because I didn't, I was not the star, I was the one that was holding them back. I was the bum. I was the rich girl from the college who was interfering, and the task was to win over my place in this --you know. Nobody said this, but that was the idea, to see what I could do in a situation like this. And it turned--and in the midst of this Russ has graduated from college and gone into the Army, and in the midst of this he came home to say good-bye to everybody when he went to Korea. And those were pretty bad scary days 16 so it was kind of a tough month in lots of ways. So he went off and I finished the st--this job and then went back and had some more classes and then in the spring this whole bunch of us got sent down to New York City where I worked for B. Altman which is, you remember which was a big. I had wonderful time doing that. I worked in their personnel office interviewing employees who had grievances and all kinds of things like this. It was very interesting. SY: And so you were living in New York on your own? CT: Well we, but we all had to live in a female hotel. Did you even know there was such thing? On 34th Street. And we lived there, just for a month. We were just there for a month and then we came back and had some more classes and finished up, I suppose in June. Meanwhile the recruiters are coming out and looking to recruit some of us and I got a job offer to be a personnel assistant at Mill Parr Incorporated which was an electronics research firm in Alexandria, Virginia. Well I knew what research was. But electronic research was really, I had no idea what they were talking about. It was such an experience. So I moved down to Virginia because I had a good friend who lived there and I could stay with Betty. And eventually worked there until Russ came home from Korea and we were married not too long afterwards. But it was a wonderful experience. SY: Do you want to get some water? CT: Yeah I think I'll just have sip here. SY: So do you remember -- did you see him off before he went for Korea? Do you remember, did you talk about if he didn't come back? Like what were the conversations? CT: Oh no, nope, no. He took me out to dinner at a local hotel, Hawthorne Hotel in Salem, which is nice hotel. And we had gone a lot of times I guess, well I don't know. But I just remember that we sat there and looked at each other and no we didn't. And I think we both knew that it was a go but we just had to wait. And I had told him before and he had asked me a million times to marry him and I said, "no, no, I got things to do, I got things to do." And I said, "I've done some things, you know, I'm good." I just had to fulfill that part of me I guess is what it comes down to and talking to you about it helps me clarify for myself what I was doing. I was just needing to know who I was, I could do things, I could succeed, not only academically but I could succeed when you put that thing to work. If not in the eyes of everybody but for myself I knew that I was good to go, you know, I could do things. SY: Yeah you had to live on your own in the world for a little while. CT: Yeah, and my mother who interestingly enough had gone down to Smith too and graduated in 20-in 1913. She was determined that both my sister and I would have that background, you know, that we'd be able to be on ourselves if we needed to be that we could be strong women, yeah. SY: Yeah it's important to know.17 CT: Yeah. SY: You never gonna know what's gonna happen in life and she'd certainly had enough upsets in her life to know that you needed to be able to make it on your own. Um, I had a question that I just lost. Okay so you're living in Alexandria by yourself, are you guys engaged at that point? CT: Nope. Nope. Russ called me from Kor--no not from Korea from Japan. They had R&R in Japan and he called me up and said he would be home on the (I don't know--I've forgotten it was January something) I said great and he said, "Well would you come to New York and meet me?" His parents by then had moved and were living in Scarsdale, New York. And he said, "Come, you know, spend the weekend at the folks." I said, "I will and let me know when," and he said, "I will." And we just talked a little bit. And said, well that's what happened. I guess we were past having to really verbalize a lot you know? We knew what we were doing. We just had, I had to grow up, time had to pass. People would say, "How could you date somebody for so long?" and I said, "Well we didn't date exclusively," We--oh he used to date a friend of mine, not a friend, a woman I knew that I couldn't stand, and I swear he dated her just to make me mad, you know. It was alright. and I dated this guy Jim Ricker a couple of times and he was practically engaged to somebody else. It didn't matter. It was something else. And I dated some guys from MIT who were a funny bunch. We just needed to have some experiences before we settled down is what it comes to. SY: But it sounds like you also knew that that was eventually where you were going. CT: Yeah. SY: Yeah. Oh this is what I was going to ask. In his oral history interview he talks about how he was kind of messing up and not doing so well in school at first and how you were like "you get it together, or we're done." Is that true? CT: Yeah it's true. Let's see when that was. I don't know exactly but it was in the summertime and I was staying at my grandmother's house which because they had what they called a maid's room upstairs. They used to have, they used to have full time help of course nobody did then. A wonderful bathtub with claw feet you know. But anyway so I was staying there. So he came down and we went out to play tennis one afternoon and we were hitting balls around and I finally said to him, "You know if you don't settle down and get some good grades and make some sense out of going to college," I said, "I just am not going to marry a loser. This is just ridiculous, you know you've just got to." And he just [sounds of bickering] and he was furious. He was mad and I was mad and he went home. He went back to New Hampshire or wherever he came from and then after that he's always done well academically. Because he just, he was acting like Maggie like our granddaughter I told you about. He was just having "such a good time." SY: At those fraternities? CT: Yeah. And in the military part of it. He really liked that, you know. 18 SY: Yeah. So okay, so you've been working on your own, right? You get married and suddenly your whole life changes. So what's your new life like? How do you learn what you're supposed to be doing? What the expectations are being married to him? What's his rank at that point? CT: Second lieutenant. SY: Second lieutenant, okay. CT: Or maybe first, he may have been a first lieutenant by the time we've, yeah he was. He'd gotten promoted in Korea. See he was over there during the worst of Korea and he…. SY: And did you know what was going on with him over there? CT: He wrote letters all the time. SY: And were they honest? CT: No, no not really, no. Just as well. He had a classmate that was killed you know? Somebody from Norwich, Pete DiMartino, maybe his name was. Be sure to ask him to tell you sometime because we should remember that. No not really. I just trusted him. I wasn't, he's been in a lot of bad scrapes and I never really have worried about him. I just trust him to know what to do. He has more common sense than most people I know, and he wouldn't try to second guess something, he'd do what was right. And he'd rather do what's right and fail and do what's wrong, you know. And he had a strong sense of doing the right thing and he did. Has he told you about how he won a Silver Star? SY: No. I haven't but I haven't interviewed him yet, so I've read other people's interviews. CT: But do make, be sure that he does tell you that. Because he never tells people. He won a Silver Star in Korea at a very young man. SY: So okay, so you're, where do you get married? CT: Oh where'd we get married? We got married in Beverly at home. At the church around the corner where I grew up. And some of these same people that I told you I had known in kindergarten were bridesmaids, plus Russ's sister who's a bit younger, then my sister too. It was really nice, it was the kind of wedding people had then where we had the wedding at the church and then walked back to the house and had a reception in the backyard with beautiful garden that we discovered florists will help you make if your garden isn't looking so well and you want to have a party. You call the florist and they bring in big pots of things and dig them in. Most gorgeous garden you ever saw. It was all gone the next day or the day after they just dug. It was fabulous and yeah, we had a good time. We went on a honeymoon down to Cape Cod where some other cousins had a cottage at the beach at a tow--place that's now called New Seabury but I know it's near Barnstable I think. But anyway we went there and had a nice time. And then we drove 19 out to Fort Knox and I'll tell you that summer I had been hot in my life but nothing like that humidity, you know? I thought this place is the pits. One of the wedding presents, he'd love to tell you this story. One of the wedding presents we got was a hand mixer, but it was so hot in that house he said, "I'm going to take the hand mixer and I'm gonna make us a window fan." I said, "Russ you cannot make a window fan out of a hand mixer," and you said, "You watch me." I don't know what he did. It had do with baking pans and ice cubes and the motor from this poor little hand mixer which can turn two little beaters. Well we laughed so hard we almost died laughing. But it helped not at all, but he had a great time thinking he could fix it for me you know. SY: Taking care of you that way. It's very sweet [laughs]. CT: I have learned to say when he tells me about a new invention, "ah I don't think so." [both laugh] He's usually right. He fixed something yesterday. He's a good fixer. It has to do with being so practical and having such good common sense. I don't ever fix anything I just "oh look it's broken," you know. SY: So what did you do during the day because he was working on the base? What were you doing? CT: What did I do? SY: During that time….? CT: Gosh I don't know. We lived next door. Well one of the fun things we lived next door to young George Patton and his wife Joanne who we have been so fond of all these years. And well that's one of the things I did now come to think of it. Joanne had gone to fancy place for her honeymoon, so I think that is not a good thing to do. She'd gone I think they had gone I think to Bermuda. I think they'd gone to Bermuda and she had gotten rheumatic fever. I think that's it. I think it was Bermuda but I may be wrong but I think so. And so she had to go to the hospital because she was really sick. Well the hospital was not air conditioned naturally. So one of the things that her husband George who had no common sense you may know, he decided that we would provide her with cold drinks and it would be nice if I could help with this. I said sure. So he had a pitcher and I, we still have one like this, a pitcher that has an insert so you put ice cubes in the middle and then you. So about every so often I had to run over and change her ice cubes [laughs] but I was glad to do that. I really liked her and I still do. She was a good, she's almost 3 years younger than we are, maybe more. She'd just graduated from college when they were married. Oh so many funny stories about them. Gosh, well anyway we had a good time. I also had this friend, this Jane Nutting that I mentioned before, who I'd known from before and she was my friend. And there was a girl named Ann something lived across the street who was pregnant and that was kind of fun watching her because we were all pregnant because that's what you did then. SY: So you were pregnant? 20 CT: I was pregnant right away. Char—Tom was born in April, so. But I didn't feel sick or I didn't have any problems for a while, all through the summer. And then I came down with something that I still have because it's a really funny disease. It's called erythema nodosum which you may never heard of because most of the doctors I've run into also say they never heard of it. But it's an allergic reaction to catching a cold in the spring or the fall. In that first fall I caught a cold and then my legs, and I didn't have it as much in my arms as on my legs would break out in huge areas of black and blue. And every time a new area popped out my temperature would rise and I would look like I was sick. Well I wasn't sick it was just until that black and blue got established. Then my temperature went down and I went on my merry way. But because I was pregnant they were sure something dreadful was wrong with me. Well it wasn't and somebody finally must have checked in the medical dictionaries and found out what this was, and decided not to worry about me because I had it then and I've probably over the years had it 5 or 6 times. Which is in the spring and in the fall if I get a cold I make every effort to get rid of it right away because I don't want to go into the next stage. And I haven't had one now for a long long time. But that was that was part of it and so the first Christmas that we were married Russ's sister Jane, who was young, a bit younger, was teaching school in New York state somewhere and she said, "I think I'll come down and spend Christmas with you so you won't be so lonely." Wonderful. So she came and flew down to Kentucky and we got her a date with a British foreign officer who was there attending a class, who fell head over hands in love with Jane. Jane was appalled really his name was Anthony, "really," she said. He kept saying to her, "Oh I want to take you back to England with me. You'll love my mom." My mom, and her woollies and her tea and I don't know, Jane was, she kept saying, "I'll stay until Christmas, but I got to go home." We had parties, lots and lots of parties in those days in the neighborhood next door and parties were just people getting together and bringing your own beer, you know, and maybe somebody would get some crackers and cheese out but no big deals. And then the units would have parties and you'd get invited to the post to a party. Meanwhile Russ has gotten to be the aide-de-camp to the commanding general, partially because George Patton's mother, Mrs. Patton - darling, darling lady - had come to visit. And one of the funniest memories I have of that early summer, Joanne's in the hospital with rheumatic fever. I'm running around trying to take Mrs. Patton to where she wants to go. She doesn't have a car. So every time she needs to go somewhere, "Oh Carol would you mind running me?" "No, I'd be glad." So one day she came over to our house and she said, "I am just too exhausted, so can I just sit in here and visit with you?" I said, "Certainly, Mrs. Patton." Well my mother and aunt had given me an old two-seater couch that must have belonged to I don't know who, whose springs had long since lost their elasticity. She was a little tiny lady, she sat down and disappeared. So that she was sitting with her knees up around her -- you know how people do it? I thought, "Oh this is so bad!" Well I said, "wouldn't you like to sit," I had one decent chair, "Wouldn't you like to sit here in my wing chair would you like to sit here? I would be so happy to you know." "Oh, no, no, this is fine." So she sat there until Russ came home from work for lunch. Because they came home for lunch and he said, "Oh hi Mrs. Patton, what are you 21 doing in the hole there? Can I help you up?" "No, I'm fine." So she said, "What's up with you?" and he said, "Well they just they asked me if I want to be aid to a General Collier." And she said, "Oh good idea, aren't you excited about." And he said, "I don't know if I should be doing that or not." And she said, "You should, you should, it's a good thing to do." She said, "Go upstairs and put on a clean uniform while Carol gets your lunch on, I'm going home now and you just be your natural self. You'll get chosen." Well of course that's exactly what happened and he did it for the next year or so. But I'll never forget her sitting there in that yellow couch with her knees, oh how I felt bad. But she was always friends with us ever since, and when Tom was born she sent him a lovely baby present. And well then she went home and Joanne Patton's mother came who also is a general officer's wife but instead of being the kind you'd put in your broken couch. She was Mrs. Holbrook and she was a bit fancier. By then I'd caught on, you see, and I managed to keep her sitting in the good chair. But she used to come over all the time and it was the same sort of thing. She'd come over and say, "I do need to run down to the PX," or "My friend Peggy so and so is having a coffee would you mind dropping me off?" well it was lucky that Russ - I don't know how I got the car, Russ must have gone in with a friend knowing that I needed to, because we lived about 2 miles from where the guys were working. Oh it was a hoot but that was one of the things I did that summer and that maybe is how I learned about the community you know come to think of it. This is such a good experience for me too, I'm thinking about these things that are more critical. Maybe that's how I learn this is what you do when people need you, you fill in and do what you need. And it's fun as long as you, I didn't have anything else to do you know. That was good and I wore all my, I can remember wearing one of the dresses I had from my trousseau, a really pink really nice beautiful cotton dress and I decided to put it on one day because we were going to drop off Mrs. Holbrook I guess at an event. She was going to a coffee and could I come back at x hours let's say 11:30 to take her home again. Okay. Don't--nobody says would you like to come in, or I'd like to introduce you to my friend, no no. So I come back at the appropriate hour and I park where she told me to park and I wait and I wait and I wait. By and by all the ladies come out, the coffee it's over, and they're leaving and getting into their cars and she walks across the street and interestingly enough her hostess--oh I can see her now--she walked with her. They came over to the car and Mrs. Holbrook jumps in but her hostess says, "Oh Carol," she said, "You're so kind to take," what's her name home and all this. I said, "I'm very glad to do that," and she said, "And what does your husband do in the Army? And what does your husband do in the Army my dear?" And my dear cleverly remembered and I said, "Well he's working as an assistant instructor at the Armored School," or whatever it was. And she said, "Oh that is so interesting. My husband works for the same Armored School." Course he was the commander, you know, and she said, "I was hoping he has a wonderful time with…" She was so gracious as compared to what the other side was doing. I thought even then I thought "ha ha this is what makes a difference" you know. She was so gracious and she was so sweet to me when she had no reason to be, you know?22 SY: And do you think she said something to her husband too? Do you think like your relationships with women and other wives in some ways helped your husband's career? Is that the way it worked? CT: If so I don't know. I don't know, maybe, maybe, but I don't know. SY: If you'd been rude it might have hindered his career? CT: Well that's right. "Oh boy he married a dud," yeah. And in a way, in a way it was interesting because most of the lieutenant's wives were college graduates. Most were. I'm trying to think of anybody who wasn't. Either that or heiresses, a couple of them were really very wealthy ladies who whenever they had a party served champagne, yeah champagne this is [inaudible]. But that's right but that marriage didn't last either that's interesting. She's the only person I ever knew who got infected by dropping a pickle, a pickle fork that she was polishing on her foot when she had no shoes on. It went [makes dropping sound] and she didn't pay any attent--I thought now that is a odd thing to happen to somebody. SY: That's a strange injury. CT: But I haven't forgotten it have I? SY: And you're careful with your pickle forks I bet. CT: Never polish a pickle fork is the answer. SY: Clearly. Alright note to self. CT: If you could even find one. SY: Yeah I was just gonna say. CT: Yeah, long time ago. This is way back in the 19, early 1950s and the Army was a different game than it is now. It was a different game. It was, it was always good that Russ had graduated from Norwich. Always, it always was even so long ago. And now it's really, but when Russ got to be a general officer he was the first one in years and years and President Hart was so thrilled because they hadn't had anybody promoted in a long time. SY: Yeah. Okay so then where do you go next? I mean we don't need to go through every one of your placements. CT: Oh I can't. SY: But I guess where were the places you liked best? And what were the places you liked least? CT: And people ask me that too and I can't help but say the same thing that has sort of been my whole life. I seem to be pretty adjustable or limp I don't know which it is. But wherever I am at the time for the most part I'm fine, I'm just fine. Ah we had a really bad 23 experience - our Tom was born as I said the next April, cute little guy and he was fine and life went along until the spring when he was (in January he would have been what 8 or 9 months old) and he was learning to crawl. And I was in the kitchen, I don't know, just fixing something for dinner. Russ was reading the newspaper, watching the baby, and the baby crawled across the floor. We didn't even know he could crawl this much you know, we just had plunked him down. He crawled across the floor and I had started a coffee pot. We used to call them a Silex pot, they had [oops] two sort of bulbs, the water went "brrrp" went up into the top and then dripped down. And I had started a pot of coffee for our dinner and he heard this noise I'm sure, crawled across thought: "Hmm what is this?" and saw the cord hanging down, you know, like this. Put his hand on the cord and it broke open on the back of his neck. Ah we picked him up rushed him to the hospital and they had moved the emergency room the week before or something. Of course we didn't, who pays attention to stuff like, so we got to the hos--we got to the right place and the person, the doctor on duty was a dentist. Nicest man you'd want to know but he was no surgeon and he said, "I'm going to I'm going to have to cut off this beautiful handmade sweater this child has got on." I said, "Why not, oh yes." He said, "I'll ruin the sweater." I said, "Ruin the sweater," you know. He was in the hospital -- it was January 13. He was in the hospital in the hospital for about--his birthday, probably until the first of April. Had numerous, not transfusions, but trans--what do they call it? When they take your skin from one place put it….? SY: Transplants CT: Transplants, numerous transplants. He was just a baby. They had never worked on baby before at Fort Knox. The doctor was terrific, the surgeon, he got on the telephone with the same burn center I told you about before where Steven was in San Antonio. This is 50 years before and tells, says, "Okay, when you go to do the transplant you get on the phone with me. I'll take you through it step by step and you can do this, you can do this." And if you just see my son right now without a shirt on all you'd see is a ring around his back like this where they hooked on the transplant. Everything took and he's fine. He's never had a minute's problem with his, they took all the skin off his chest and put it on his back. They took it all off his thigh and put it on his arm. This arm unfortunately after he'd been, it turned out alright, but after he'd been in there awhile all bandaged up with catheter tubes running though it to keep his wounds soaking wet so they could work on him. They said to me, "Say Mrs. Todd. Funny little thing on your son's arm," he said, "What is that?" I said, "I don't know," "What do you mean what do you mean what is it?" he said, "It's looks as though he might have had a vac" I said, "Oh yes he had his vaccination done just before this happened." And they said, "Well you are the luckiest people in the world because it has festered and scabbed over, and all this water running through it has not opened the scab. If it was he'd have generalized vaccinia all over his whole body." But he didn't, he didn't, worked out fine. He barely has a tiny little mark there now. He's a great big 60 year old man with, you would never know. It was just if and they were so good to us and we stayed in a private room in that hospital at Fort Knox with him. One of us was with him all the time except when people began to say "We can 24 stay with him. We can keep him happy." He was-he is a very good natured person. He still is, he's very patient and even as a baby he would just lie there and look at, you know, we had a thing what do you call it, twirly thing over his head so he could…. SY: A mobile… CT: Mobile, yeah and he had a music box that he loved. I bet I used to wind that thing endlessly and as long as there was a little music going he'd be quiet. SY: You must have been beside yourself though with worry? CT: We were, we were, yeah. But people were very supportive. He was working for General Collier and Mrs. Collier used to come and babysit him. She said, "I'll stay with him. Go get your haircut or something. Run around the block. Get some fresh air. Do something." It was a long winter. And yeah, yeah. And then he came home from the hospital. He could not sit up he could not stand up of course. SY: Oh because he missed all those developmental milestones? CT: Within 2 weeks he was not only sitting up he was pulling up and he was walking in a month and he was, he just made it all up in no time at all. It was amazing. SY: And I assume, I mean he was so young he doesn't have any memories of that time? CT: None. SY: Okay. CT: The only thing he remembers is the last doctor we saw during this said to us, "When he is," I think 12 was the age, I remember 12, "I want you to take him to a plastic surgeon and have them check out these sites and there may be a place where they'll feel it needs to be repaired." They said, "We can't guarantee this will last him his lifetime." But he said, "Take him and the guy they'll know." So we were living in Germany at the time and we took him to a, wherever this was, Stuttgart to the hospital where the surgeon was, and explained the story to him. And he said, "Okay. Okay little guy come on over here. Can you climb on my lap? Sure." He loved to climb up into your lap and they played and talked and you know made his arms and legs go and he said, "If I throw a ball down the hall, will you run and get it?" he said, "Sure," so they threw it down the hall and he ran down. He was not that old, he was near 6 because he was still, and he ran down the hall picked up the ball and came back and the guy said, "Everything he's got, every muscle moves the way it's supposed to. He's fine," He said, "There's no indication to do anything." He said, "if the time comes when he gets psychotic about it, and hates the fact." He hasn't looked at his back, how often do you look at your back? Like never. He has no more and his legs and place and his chest they grew back, it all grew back. He's fine. Isn't that funny? It's wonderful. We used to say to each other that if we ever had to pay for this in a private hospital Russ would have had to get out of the Army and get a big paying job or something because the bills must have been huge. 25 SY: But they took care, it was all taken care of? CT: It was 7 dollars a week to keep him in the hospital because you had to pay for the food. Well he ate 2 jars of chopped liver, I don't know what it was they were eating you know. We were worried. On the other hand, you know I think it had gone past, we couldn't worry anymore and we had to have faith that they were gonna and I think having a good attitude helps in all these things. SY: You don't have time to be filled with anxiety. You just have to do it. CT: No, no, that's right. SY: Yeah. CT: And and neither of the girls ever had anything serious so we were fortunate, yeah. SY: Now, Phyllis Greenway has some crazy stories of you know of her husband you know her being I don't remember where they were maybe it was Fort Knox and her husband being assigned to Hawaii and her having to fly across the country with all of her stuff and the baby and do all this stuff by herself. Did you have experiences like that of just sort of having to manage these moves alone? CT: Oh yeah lots. Yeah. The first move overseas Russ had gone in the fall and I went in probably in mid-December and took Tom. He was, let's see. Yeah and he was fine by then. This was, but he had the cutest little red snowsuit with a little head and we, he and I went down to Fort Hamilton which is Staten Island maybe, and went out with a group of Army wives in a chartered flight. But we swear that the pilot had a date in Paris because we flew to Paris and they put the plane down and it was 6 or 8 hours before he came back. And we thought, "Just a minute, just a minute, we need to go Heidelberg, get over here!" and then we flew on to Frankfurt or wherever it was, yeah. But yeah and then lots of times when we moved I moved I would be -- they seemed to have a way of finding they have to be somewhere else when the. But the one thing I insisted on was that somebody else was gonna do something else with the equipment like the TV and anything else that had a cord that I didn't know how to wind up and put an elastic around sort of thing. I said, "If you can't do it, you got to get one of your buddies to come and help me. I'm just not gonna fool with this stuff." And it got more and more complicated as the older we. And the last person who ever was the one who got tapped to come and do that was John Greenway. When he was Russ's deputy he came and organized all my stuff when it was, when we were moving from Fort Hood to Georgia I guess to Fort MacPherson, yeah. SY: That's funny you guys have known each other for a long time. CT: Oh yeah we knew them well before that. Phyllis is a wonderful cook. I hope you've talked to her about that. SY: I have actually. And she's made motions about having me over to dinner. So I should remind her of that. And she has all that beautiful French cookware too [laughs].26 CT: She does and she's a good cook. SY: I believe that we talked about cooking a little. I'm trying to think because there's this, you know there's so much to talk about here and I don't want to skip over important milestones but we should also probably get to Norwich huh? CT: I think so. Well time passes [both laugh] and um let's see…. SY: Oh well let's talk about volunteering. So you begin to take on this sort of professionalized volunteer role it seems like the Army started to recognize that what you were doing was critical. So could you talk about that? CT: That's absolutely true and I'm trying to think where we were. I think it was those years we lived in France, '63 to '66. We lived oh goodness this is so--I'm gonna have to write a book. So it was such an interesting thing. We lived on the French economy. Fortunately my lessons came swirling back standing me in good stead because our youngest Ellen went to French school, the words I didn't know she probably did which was handy. But we had, we lived in a really nice house. Odd situation but it was nice and you could walk to the over to post. And during those years there were lots of young enlisted people who lived in very difficult places. They didn't speak French, they didn't know the people, and the Army Community Services began to be formed to offer assistance. You had to come on post but there were buses that ran around the community that brought people and we taught things like how to run a, do a checkbook. We taught people very basic things - here's where to find out how to buy food, you know the things that you want, here are the words in French. If you can't get to the commissary and you do go to a, here are the things in a French grocery store that you can buy that are gonna be almost exactly like you'd buy at home if you buy this, you know. It's just very very basic things but even before that, even before I had Tom I had developed somehow a reputation of being somebody who could give talks to other groups of women about really simple stuff. And it started out being with Army etiquette. That was way back when, way way back before I had any children, that first year because I knew one of the colonel's wives. I don't know how well I knew Betty Chandler or how I knew her but I did know her and she said, "Well you know could you do this?" So I started giving these talks which has led me to feeling more comfortable addressing groups of people. Particularly if it's about something I know something about. Tough when you don't, but you can usually fake it some [laughs] and then call on so and so to fill in the gaps or something. But that's really how I started doing this and then time passes and I'm always volunteering to do something. Some things I loved doing, some things I was terrible at. I really really was not good at working in a hospital. I have to go to the hospital you have to make me well if I'm sick. I will be nice to, you know, but I don't want to be there. I really did not like being a Gray Lady but that's what they used to call them Gray Ladies. For one thing you had to wear these awful gray dresses. They were made of heavy, heavy cotton and every time you went it had to be starched and cleaned. Well I couldn't afford sending mine to the cleaners so the day before I went I'd spend, you know, starching and ironing this thing. Well the whole thing was absurd so that I decided that was no good. 27 But I could do things like teach somebody how to balance a checkbook. I could talk to people about the basics of baby care and this sort of thing, and so I was glad to do it. But I began to realize as many, many senior people did the longer you're in this game how great the need is help other people use volunteers well. And how important it is that volunteers be used with compassion and common sense so that the gift that they're giving you of their time and talents and everything else are maximized for their benefit and yours. Because when you go and do something as a volunteer for somebody and come home feeling disappointed or abused it's no good. It doesn't have to be that way and that's how I got into this volunteer administration role which eventually is what became the sort of the climax of my time doing this. I worked in thrift shops, I worked every sort of thing, organized all kinds of events in this sort of thing but the best thing I really think I did was begin to show them how important it was that the people who manage and lead volunteer programs have an understanding of some of the basics. Such as a volunteer needs to have a job description. A what? I said a job description. You don't need it be very long, it does not have to be complicated, but if you ask someone to do a task you have to know what the parameters of this job are. Ah amazing! Ah and because of this I wound up going with Joanne Patton as it turned out to Colorado to the University of Colorado at Boulder, and that's a wonderful place, to go through a summer program and I did it twice with her about how to help people become good volunteer managers. And that woman's name was Marlene Wilson and she wrote the first book ever for volunteer managers - and I think I've still got my tattered copy in there - in about 1980. And so it really was during the time that we were here that I began to do more and more of that. And I think that may be one of the contributions I made was generally to people I ran into I kept trying to say, "Let's get this straight. Exactly what are they supposed to do? How are you going to thank them down the road? Is there a chance that they could be the boss of this? They could be the team leader? Or no." Those things need to be thought through and you need to put the whole task in language that everybody feels comfortable with. SY: Yeah what was the assignment that the chief of staff gave you in Europe? CT: [chuckles] Well that's right. That was the last time, that was in late '70s before we came here in '82. They began to realize how important this sort of thing was, so they asked me to take this assignment to, on behalf of the Army, to go around the various places where Americans were stationed and talk about this with the commander and the commander's wife and anybody else would listen, and some of the volunteers to be sure people were having a good experience volunteering. And I wrote a quarterly newsletter for them about what was going in Bad--what's her name over here in Frankfurt or Heidelberg just sort of encourage people and just say we were all in this together and we're trying to make life better for all of us here as volunteers and it's worth it to do it. And you met with various levels of success but it was worth doing, it really was. SY: And did you also see gaps in the kind of Army infrastructure? CT: Oh yeah. 28 SY: Yeah, yeah, what did you notice? What did you? CT: I noticed that there would be places where the commander and his wife could care less about the situation. And perhaps there were needs for transportation for one thing, so that people who lived what we called on the economy, lived out in the community, could not easily get -- if the husband went off to a duty somewhere else or on the "into the field" as we used to say to do exercises, the wife would be stuck out in the. So we used to talk about setting up transportation networks, you know, could Mrs. X contact Mrs. Y and they could work out something together or not. Or do we need to work on finding some way that a bus goes around talks to people, yeah. That was one of them. But mostly there was a tremendous, very, very nice response to my interest. And because I was doing it sort of with a little bit of authori--I didn't mean authority, but people knew that they were supposed to listen. And I enjoyed doing that. And that made it very easy for me to move into the role that I had here because it's the same thing, or least it was the same thing. SY: And that's actually a question, how do you think you -- I mean the first lady of Norwich, the president's wife, that role of being sort of the president's wife - how did you conceptualize it? And how do you think you conceptualized it differently than the women who'd come before you? CT: I knew Marilyn Hart and we must talk about this again before we go further. I knew Marilyn Hart because they used to come and visit us a good deal. Wherever we were there would be Norwich events and often, I don't know often but enough that I felt like I really knew her. You know she's a really nice lady had 2 kids, got a son Matthew and a daughter whose name is I've forgotten I'm sorry to say. But and we would talk and visit I would take her on functions and things like that. And I knew darn well that I never could never fill the same function that she did. She had been a faculty wife. She had worked with him all the years helping him do things. I'm sure she corrected papers. I'm sure she did everything. She was really smart. But she had a fabulous memory a fabulous memory. I admired that so much. She would -- the receiving line he would be first and she would be second and any number of people, they could be students, they could be people from the State Department would come through, she would know who they were just from seeing them. And she would say to him, "Joe Smith, English class of '64, '64, he shoveled snow for you one time." And he would say, "Joe, remember the time you came and shoveled snow?" I could never do that. That wasn't, I couldn't do that. On the other hand she wasn't comfortable organizing a luncheon or saying, "I think we should do something or support." There was a woman here whose husband was the athletic director her name was Jen, his name was Wally Baines, her name was Jen Baines. And Jen wanted to have a faculty picnic twice a year. "Good. Let's do it." The Harts had the role in this, not of encouraging them and seeing people came and this sort of thing, but of sitting at the door with a checklist seeing who showed and who didn't show up. Well no matter what anybody thinks, no matter how much you might [inaudible] you gotta remember who showed and who didn't show up. It set things off in a bad note. So we29 said well we won't, we don't need to do that. So I'd say to Jen, "How many people you think are going to be there?" "Eighty-four." I said, "Eighty-four? Wow that's great. Just about everybody." I said, "Is everybody who might like to come, do they know about it?" She said, "Well I don't know about the people in physics." I said, "Well what should we ought to do?" I said. She'd say, "Well I ought to." "Or maybe you ought to call up somebody." I said, "I'll be glad to call up somebody just to be sure they know." That's nothing. That doesn't hurt anybody's feelings. I think I spent a lot of time sort of trying not to hurt people's feelings. SY: And easing things over, that makes a lot of sense. Yeah so that was a big part of your job, right? CT: Yeah it was, yeah. I'll tell you something else Marilyn Hart did which I think was amazing. She addressed a Christmas card to everybody on the University's list. I think there were 800 names on that list, not only people who worked here but people in town, people in Burlington. And the first year when they came to me at Christmastime and they said, "Here's your list," I said, "Give me a break here, what do you mean?" And they said, "No this is the job of the president's wife to address the Christmas cards." I said, "Then there won't be any this year. You don't want me doing it believe me you don't." They said, "Whose going to do it" and I said, "Don't ask me, I don't know. You'll have to figure it out." Since then somebody on the staff has just had to start addressing about in September. But you can do that, you know? You can address the envelopes anytime. SY: Yeah but that, you weren't, that wasn't the way you wanted to spend your time. CT: Oh I wasn't--I wouldn't even consider it yeah. SY: So talk about the role you did end up playing. The Peace Corps was pretty critical huh? CT: I wound up working almost working full time in lots of ways as a volunteer, because I was always a volunteer. It's what I did. SY: Though by the end you were getting paid, right? CT: Pardon me? SY: You were getting paid by the end, right? CT: Yeah, in a way. In a way. My hus--did I tell you? explain this to you? Yeah about how Russ took part of his salary and had it given to me instead. SY: So it was symbolic, but it seems important. CT: Well it, by that time it was to me, really, yeah. And I don't know how much the university knows about that. I, I don't care if they do or not. SY: It's the same money going to the same family I don't think it matters, but. 30 CT: Well it did because it helped my social security contributions. But not enough to do any difference. That was okay I was glad to--the whole business about the Peace Corps Prep Program started because I was very active in this Association for Volunteer Administration which was a national organization. Ah really a…a busy, a small organization, but a good organization for people who are in the same area, who are interested in making volunteerism not effective, effective is a good word for it is. And it was before we had national volunteering, before, it was when the Peace Corps was getting going, it was well before AmeriCorps and all this business was started. And these women met once a year and I eventually became the vice, one of the vice presidents for this and served on lots of committees I think because I come across as being efficient, reasonably efficient. And Chris Frankland who was the president asked me to fill out, fill in a second national role and I did that. And I really liked doing it, I liked the people I worked with. It isn't, the organization is now defunct. They made a big mistake in hiring an executive director that they didn't vet appropriately. The man wiped them out every single cent and disappeared and they never, they never could get going again. They had lost all their assets. SY: It's like Mr. Barry. CT: It is! it is! It's the same idea! It is the same idea! Oh my goodness, aren't you smart. I never thought of that. Ah yeah it is. Well anyway, but anyway so that's now defunct. But anyway, still I had these ideas that I should do this. But during the time that I was active in this association we had a national conference as we did each year, and I went and I honestly do not know whether it was in Buffalo or somewhere. But anyway someplace I'd never been and we were having a big luncheon and I was sitted, seated, next to one of the women who was to be a speaker whose name was Loret Miller Ruppe. And Loret Miller Ruppe was the head of the Peace Corps at that time and we were just [chatting sounds] you know just chit chatting, lady talk. And the speaker for the luncheon got up to speak and it was Father, Father Theodore Hesburgh who was the president of Notre Dame. And he essentially said he thought it was high time that higher education took on the role of training students to do volunteer work in the same way they chose to train young men and women to be part of the national service, part of the Army, Navy, Air Force, etcetera. And he said, it is just as much of a need for people to be trained to be good volunteers to head up volunteer organizations. I wish I had a copy of his speech, I never did, but that's essent--I listened to him I thought, "Oh my socks." Russ and I had talked about this ever and ever so many times since when he'd become president that one of roles he saw needed to be fulfilled, somebody needed to do something about the fact that the students who were not in the Corps, most of them at Vermont College in those days when we still owned Vermont but some of them down here in Northfield were not having the same opportunity to become leaders as the people in the Corps were. They were not being given that opportunity to do something beyond themselves, to stretch, to learn the outside world. And he said, he said "I don't know," he said, "I just don't know how to do that." And I said, "Well I don't know how do that either." 31 But when he, Father Hesburgh did, I thought, "I know how to do this. I've got this idea." And I turned to Loret Miller Ruppe and I said, "Ma'am I think Norwich could do that." She said, "Carol, Norwich would be a perfect place to do it. Do you think you can?" and I said, "I'll ask," and I said, "Please don't say anything and I'll go and call and see." So I called Russ, got him out of a meeting and I said, "Don't say anything just listen," and I said, "I need to tell Mrs. Ruppe if we're gonna try." And he said, "We will." He said, "I'll find a way, we will." Well it must have been just before a board meeting because the next time the board met they said, "If you want to try it, go ahead." Meanwhile back at Norwich we have somebody who's a vice president named Peter Smith. Do you know Peter? Who he is? He had run for Congress from Vermont. Well there's more to it than that but anyway and been defeated. No, wrong, he had become a congressman. He, I'm not sure about his career. He had either been in--no he hadn't been in Congress at that point, he had been the lieutenant governor of Vermont. And he had written a Ph.D. thesis on Vermont College which was terribly interesting for Russ to learn when he took on. He knew about Norwich when he took on the job, he didn't know. SY: Why, I wonder what his thesis was about? CT: About the fact that Vermont College had absorbed all those programs from Goddard which is about as far off block as Norwich is you know they're kinda [chuckles]. Well it was a big job to try and pull all this together, but we were giving it a go. So he said, so I called Russ and he said yes to it. The board said yes to it. Peter Smith meanwhile said, "Let me see what I can do about getting you a grant." Good thinking. He got us FIPSE grant, do you know what FIPSE? The Fed, now the Federal, no the Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education, Department of Education. If I was smart enough I could have told you the amount but I don't remember but he got us a grant to get started. Now if I had taken a salary we wouldn't have had much money left so I was, I didn't need anything. So we had some money and I made up out of whole cloth as best as I could a program that looked like ROTC training but wasn't, was focused on various on other things, which one of them was learning how to manipulate, to act in a culture that was not your own. This was one of the things and having appreciation for others, for other communities. And so it took a while to get this thing sort of organized and once I got a program sketched out I had to go before a committee of the faculty to get their approval. Can you imagine? I was a wreck, but I thought, "Okay I can do this." So I went before the committee and I made my little talk and do you know David Westerman? Oh Professor Westerman, David Westerman he's a geologist. But he's also the guy who is the head of the program at the University for Student Research. You guys really need to be aware of this. SY: Oh you know his name's been mentioned to me because he also collected some geology artifacts I think. CT: Oh I'm sure. SY: Yeah, okay. 32 CT: I think he goes to South America and brings home chips of stuff. I don't what he does. He is the most understanding, thoughtful, articulate. He's, I'm a big of David West--. David Westerman was on that committee and he said, "Well Carol, I'll tell you what, I think you've got some good ideas." He said, "You need to smooth it out a bit but I say you're a go." And he met with the rest of the committee and I said "What did they say?" "Oh sure, good, approved." And I thought, "Oh, he saved my life." I mean he just and then he was helpful in giving me some ideas. And what I'd really like to do is to, maybe another time when we get together is to get into your records, what it was the program looked like. It was a 2 year program for anyone who is not in the Corps. That's all you had to be, not in the Corps. You had to be any elsewhere. And you took classes and you did internship in the summer. And the internships were on Indian reservations. I can remember somebody went overseas on their own ticket to get into something, you know. I really have lost a lot of the details but I spent about 2 years maybe 3 working on this. And one of the big things I had to do which was very helpful was send reports into this FIPSE organization. They assigned a women, I'm sure I'll remember her name if I think of it long enough. She wanted a report from me every Friday. Well I couldn't do it. I finally got to every other Friday, you know you'd spent too much time writing the report then actually out doing something which got to be kind of old. But with their support we were able to get this thing rolling. We were able to hire former Peace Corps volunteers to act as professors. And one of them was Don Hooper. Does that mean anything to you? He lives here. Do you know Don and Alison Hooper? SY: You mentioned it to me, yeah. CT: They make the wonderful cheese, goat cheese, Chèvre. Well anyway I'm sure that somewhere I've got the list of who those people were. Then it got to the point where it had gotten too much and there was enough money left in the FIPSE pot to hire a director, which we did. And it worked reasonably well. But when my husband's time here was over and President Schneider came and things changed there was, I don't know how to put it, it just didn't work out anymore. And they had not been a big success. There hadn't been hundreds of students flocking to it. Every once and awhile you'll hear about somebody from the, from Norwich that goes into the Peace Corps. The Peace Corps itself is not what it was. It's nowhere near as near well-funded. They don't have the leadership of somebody like Loret Miller Ruppe. You know things change. But it wasn't a bad idea, it wasn't a bad idea. SY: No it's a really good idea. So because you know you can go into Peace Corps without previous training right? CT: Absolutely. SY: So this was just to create more effective Peace Corps volunteers? So it was sort of an auxiliary program to the Peace Corps training that would follow? Was it sort of like a? CT: Well no they weren't that interested in it but it was a way of encouraging people to do this kind of service, and to do it effectively. Yeah that's right. And there were people 33 that were int--there was a guy named Mike Kim and Michael Kim was one of these ones who went through it and he eventually became a priest interestingly. SY: I'm interviewing him next week. [interview pauses and resumes] SY: So what were we, what were we talking about? Oh yeah so another thing I read in your husband's oral history was that when you first got up here it must have been mud season, looking at the place you were like, "I don't know about this?" CT: Well of course I'd been up here a lot as a student. But then you're sort of rose colored glasses, you know. But the day that we drove up here to be interviewed for the job it was March at its most March-like, and as we came down the road, which was not this lovely access road we have now from 89. Oh no, twisty turny. There was a cow - did he tell you about this? There was a cow standing beside the side of the road behind a fence. Literally it was up to its udder in the mud and I thought, "Russell," I said, "We cannot live here. This is just awful." He said, "Oh for heaven's sakes. It's just one cow…" I said, and I thought to myself, "Okay, if…" I knew he wanted the job so much. He would have loved, he always hoped he could get the job to be the facilities manager here because he said, "I could love fixing it up." He said, "Never mind, we'll get a facilities manager to fix it up." He said, "Oh this is going to be so great." I thought, "Uh huh." So we came to the interview and we stayed in guest quarters where at the time where the infirmary is, not the new one the old one. And as I told somebody once long ago and I thought it was rather apt, it smelled like your grandmother's cottage after it had been shut up for the winter you know that awful musty [sniffing sound], "Oh it's getting worse here by the minute." And then Jackie and Jerry Painter who you don't know they live in Micminnville Oregon, he was the treasurer, they came and picked us up in their lovely new Buick and it made all the difference in the world. We had a wonderful, fun dinner and they had us in stitches laughing it was so friendly and nice and it was, I thought, "Okay, we can do this. This will be alright. We can clean up the guest quarters. We can do this." Then we were interviewed and I don't remember much about the interview except when we were all siting around. Nobody interviewed me much I don't think. I don't know what I did. But finally Ken Smith, who you don't know, he's dead now but and you wouldn't know. But nice, nice guy, said, "and now General Todd I see that you have no Ph.D." Russ said, "That is correct." And Ken Smith said, "and what do you intend to do about and when will you be getting your Ph.D.?" And my husband said, "I intend to do nothing and the answer is never. Any more questions? No, alright we'll move on." But Ken Smith became his dear, dear friend just a wonderful. Ken Smith could write one of those citations on a, on a, on some sort of a document or when you get an honorary degree, the citation, oh they were wonderful. His use of the English language was just gorgeous. I really loved him. He was great. But anyways so I really didn't like it much so I said, "Okay," if you get the--Oh and then we went to New York City to some lovely club I don't know where, to be interviewed by the board who was meeting there too to interview us the very same weekend because we had just come home from Europe to do this. Fortunately I had new Blylie suit so I was feeling very fine. I always bought a 34 new suit or a blouse if I was going to be in an interview and it seemed to help and I do advise that for interviews. So we went to New York and we got--and Russ was starving, you know if I'd get nervous I don't care if I ever eat. He just gets hungry and hungry. And so we went there and went into this interview and these people were all finishing their lunch and they said, "Have you had any lunch?" Russ said, "No, I haven't." And they said, "Let's get a menu for the Todds." I have no idea what I had, no idea at all. But he decided he'd have French onion soup. Can you imagine eating French onion soup? Nope. I thought, "Oh my God can you imagine so stupid to have?" well of course he managed to get the job and eat the soup at the same time. But it was, I thought, "French onion soup! Idiot!" [Laugh] So that and when we left that interview I knew it was a go. You know I knew it. They told us the next day or something but I felt really good about that. No it was longer than that. Because Russ went back to Europe and I stayed with mother because that's when Sarah was getting, our daughter was getting married about a month later so I stayed home. And George Patton called from the board meeting to tell Russ because we'd been friends for so long. And Russ was really pleased. And then he started getting ready to you know come, reading stuff. And it was a fairly in a way a hard transition because we'd left everything in the military, put it down, and we had a month off. And meanwhile I had taken a tumble somewhere and cracked my hip or something, so I was on Motrin when Motrin was brand new which was great. And we went to England, had a wonderful time in England. I had a friend who's not there now. Lived there, we spent some time and then we came home and then we came here. All pretty, we retired on one day and started here the next sort of thing. It was good. It was good. SY: Wow and then? CT: Loved the house. Was thrilled with the house on Central Street - you know where it is on top of the hill? Because my grandmother lived in a house not unlike that so I knew where the furniture was supposed to come, sort of thing. Oh I liked that house it was fun to live there. SY: And were you glad not to be moving? CT: No I don't mind moving. SY: You don't mind moving. And then clearly you've come to love Northfield and this area. CT: I know it! Oh so originally I said, "Okay now here's the deal. If they offer you this job 5 years, I will stay here 5 years because you'll have plenty of time for you to make an impression." But I said, "I don't," and he said, "Fine, should I tell them 5 years?" I said, "Tell them nothing, just know that I'm telling 5 years." You know "Okay." So after about 3 years he said, "Well now I'm going to have to tell them I'm leaving in 2 years." I said, "You're what? You're what?" I said, "No we live here." He said, "Alright we stay 5 more." I said "5 more." But I knew he was very certain from the beginning that 10 years was what he wanted to give, that he felt anything that could do he could do in 10 years. After that he was afraid he would not be effective. That was his rule to himself so I knew 35 we weren't gonna. But then we said, "Hmmm what are we going to do after that? Hmm I don't know." Let's find some land here in this area and that's how we found, a friend found this and suggested it. SY: It's beautiful. CT: Yeah. But there's another part of my career that I've never gotten to and we don't need to elaborate this, but after the Peace Corps Prep Program I started the Center for Volunteer Administration and taught volunteer administration for 2 years or 3 through Continuing Ed over at VC. SY: You did? CT: Oh yeah. I had a friend named Anne Mills who worked with me and the two of us did this and I felt good about it. I trained maybe about maybe 50 people around here. But you know the thing is they have the same problems, you know the problems don't go away. People don't write plans, they don't take it seriously. I've gotten some of the worst fundraising letters lately and it makes me, of organizations I care about! Good Beginnings - did you get a fundraiser from them? They didn't sign it! SY: I don't. I mean I'm just friends with them on Facebook. I don't get letters from them. CT: Yeah it's a wonderful organization I really think what they do is super, but all you need to do a little, pay attention. No, but way too much of that. But I, nothing that I can do, or nothing that we can do could change that except make people more aware. National Life was a big supporter, really helped, always gave us space and we had a friend who'd been an officer in National Life and she got us a couple of grants to help run that program. So but I mean and then Russ really retired retired I did that for a little bit and then I just thought, "This is just too much fun you know." And then we since '92 I can't believe we've traveled a good deal and we've been all and I was down there looking through some of the scrapbooks and there's tons of pictures of various interesting people, and had a good time. SY: Yeah, so um so was that were you getting paid for was for running the program? CT: No, no, no, no. SY: No. CT: No. SYU: I don't know why I keep asking that. It's just because I'm thinking about the arc of your life and I'm thinking about you wanting to take those couple years before you got married, and I'm just wondering if it mattered to you in that way as validation? CT: No. No. You see when Russ was first, when we were first in the Army and Russ was a lieutenant, we and during the first, even after Sarah was born we were so, they did not pay Army officers a lot of money. We were so tight to the chest and we were so careful even to this day it kills me to pay more than I think I should for a pound of bananas. We 36 just were really careful, and we, even when we had 3 children even by the time Ellen, we were still really, really watching. It wasn't until Russ made general officer really that we got enough money that I didn't have --I remember one day Russ said, "You don't have to worry anymore. You do not have to worry anymore. There's always enough money. There's always enough that you could." Well he knew I didn't have too fancy taste. I didn't want anything fantastic. But he said, "You can stop worrying." It's meant an awful lot to me. I suppose I'm worrying because my mother worried and never said anything. And I'm sure the children didn't have any idea of this, why should they? This is just a burden I bore but it was my own doing. I didn't have to. I just was like that and it's been lovely. I can remember you know lots of times when I thought, "Hmmm if I spend $25.00 for that, no I can't do that," you know, this sort of thing. SY: You were a Depression baby. CT: Yes. SY: This is what your generation did. CT: Yeah. SY: You knew that the rug could be pulled out from under you at any moment. So it makes sense. CT: Yeah, even at the point when you're in the Army you knew that. Well we never had any concern that Russ would lose his job you know. I suppose he could have done something awful but he never did. I sort of trusted him not to do that, but that's right. I never thought of it that way but that's what it is. But it wasn't, it wasn't easy. And then when we came here of course we had not only had his retirement but we had a very modest salary from the university, because for one thing the university could afford nothing else. They - Russ had said, "I think I'll just tell them that I'll work for the first 5 years for no salary." I said, "No, no, no. That's not fair. Even if it's a little we can manage on very little, but." Mary Roux, you know who is our - you know Mary Roux runs the Uniform Shop? She was our, she came to work for me the day the moving man brought us to Northfield and she stayed with us the whole time until we retired in '92. And she was our housekeep--she was supposed to be our housekeeper but of course she became a third daughter which was really great, and yeah that was really nice to have full time help that the university gave us. She did everything for us, she cooked, if I needed her to she ran errands, she did anything. SY: You hosted a lot dinner parties you needed help. Or you need your mother's cook book on how to make hot cocoa for 100. CT: I know it. But she and I cooked a lot because we couldn't afford to pay the food service to have dinner parties, so Mary and I we made apple crisp, not for 100 but I think for about 60 one time, you know. And we did a lot that--hors d'oeuvres and stuff, and I have lots of recipes of Mary's, little recipes that she found that she whip up on a Thursday and I could serve on Friday night if I had to sort of thing. She was wonderful 37 about that. And that was in the days when this University was just going on but we were determined to put up a good face you know. SY: Keep up appearances. CT: Keeping up appearances, yeah. SY: Yeah, yeah. CT: But it was, it was, it was a great life. I wouldn't, I wouldn't have done it differently. I wouldn't have wanted to live in one place. I guess a regret, I suppose it's a regret although it isn't to, our 3 children live all over. They've gone their own separate ways. They're very successful kids to me. They've done what they've needed to do or wanted to do, but they're far away. I think it would be so nice to able to say, "Come over for coffee," or "You and your family come for Sunday dinner or something," and there's none of that. We make a lot of effort to talk a lot on the telephone and they're wonderfully good to us. But I can't see moving to California, I certainly don't want to walk, move to Washington, D.C. and Tom even worse he lives in Olympia, Washington which is charming. We have no connections except them there you know? We have to, our connections are here and in Massachusetts because Russ has cousins there and I have 1 cousin there, and we have our high school friends and we have new friends that we've met there that are good to us too. So this going back you know when I say I don't mind moving that's kind of a falsehood because I fuss and fume but I can do it and we do it twice a year. We move and pick up and [laughs], I left my winter coat down there this time instead of bringing it. I will need it in November here particularly since now those Todd Lecture Series people who've been told 100 times, "Please don't have anything after the first of November," November third next year, November third. And I need my winter coat. Now that sounds like a minor thing, but we've got to go back because I am not going to go to that parade in November without my winter coat and I'm not buying another one. Well I might. There you go, that's a thought. SY: You're a Depression baby you're not going to buy another one [laughs]. CT: It's true. SY: So ingrained, not gonna happen. CT: And I suppose people study Depression and of course you get into the end of it aren't you? I mean people who are much older than I am aren't around too much. SY: Yeah. CT: Yeah. SY: You're getting to be that last generation. CT: Yeah. SY: Yeah. 38 CT: But it was a hardworking generation. Think of our parents. Gosh yeah. SY: Yeah. CT: Yeah. SY: How long have we been talking? 2 hours! [laughs] This was, I was fascinated the whole time. I don't know if I have any other questions. Do you have any last thoughts?

Issue 28.2 of the Review for Religious, 1969. ; EDIT~)R R. F. Smith, S.J. ASSOCIATE EDITORS Everett A. Diederich, S.J. Augustine G. Ellard, S.J. ASSISTANT EDITOR John L. Treloar, S.J. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS EDITOR Joseph F. Gallen, S.J. Correspondence with the editor, the associate editors, and the assistant edRor, as wel! as books for review, should be sent to ~EVIE~,V FOR RELIOIOUSj 612 Humboldt Building; 539 North Grand Boulevard; Saint Louis, Missouri 63~o3. Questions for answering should be sent to Joseph F. Gallen, S.J.; St. Joseph's Church; 32t Willings Alley; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ~9~o6. + + + REVIEW FOR RELIGIOUS Edited with ecclesiastical approval by facuhy members of the School of Divinity of Saint Louis University, ~be editoria| ot~ices being located at 612 llumboldt Building; .539 North Grand Boulevard; Saint Louis, Missouri 63103. Owned by the Missouri Province Edu-cational Institute. Published bimonthly and copyright (~) 1969 by RI-:'¢IE\'¢ FOR REt.'I~,IOt:S at 428 East Preston Street; Bahimore, Mary-land 21202. Printed in U.S,A. Second class postage paid at Bahimore, MarTland and at additional mailing offices. Single copies: 51,00. Subscription U.S,A. and Canada: $5.00 a ),,ear, $9.00 for two years; other countries: $5.50 a year, SIO.00 for two ),ears. Orders should indicate whether they are for new or renewal subscriptions and sbnuld be accompanied by check or money order paya-ble to Rr:','~;\v :.'OR REL~tOt:S in U.S,A. currency' only. Pay no money to persons claiming to represent R~2"¢IEW roR ]:~ELIGIOL'S. Change of addrcss requests should include former address. panied by a remittance, should be sent to Rr:vmw Maryland 21203. Changes of address, husirtess R~t.mto~'s ; 428 East Preston Street; Baltimore, Maryland 21202.Manuscripts, editorial cot-sent to Rr:wr:w :-'o~ Rr:t.teious; 612 Humboldt Building; 539 Nortb Grand Boulevard; Saint Louis, Missouri 63103. Questions for answering should be seni to the address of the Questions and Answers editor, MARCH ~969 VOLUME 28 NUMBER 2 ANDRE AUW, C.P. The Evangelical Counsels: Ways of Becoming Free- Many years ago a young man walked into a Jewish synagogue and at the time for the readings, arose, took the scroll that was handed to Him, and read the follow-ing lines: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me Because the Lord has anointed me To bring good tidings to the afflicted, He has sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, Toproclaim liberty to the captives, Andthe opening of the prison to those who are bound. The young man, of course, was Jesus Christ, a man sent by God to be a liberator of men: And His mission was never more beautifully described than in those words of Isaiah which he read to the assembly: "He has sent'me to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to .those who are bound." The mission was one of liberation, of enabling men to become free. If it is true that our mission as religious is the same as Christ's mission, then it is important thatwe .examine the vows, and the counsels on which they are based, in the light of freedom. And so I have chosen to do this, tO discuss the vows as possible means of liberating us as persons, so that we can help others to become liberated. I would like to begin this consideration of the vows with a personal reflection that might serve as a frame-work for my approach. For the past five years I have been working with a great variety of groups: college students, married couples, priests, religious--men and women of all faiths or of no faith. And I have been surprised at the consistency of their impressions of re-ligious, Gradually I have been able to weave together a fabric + ÷ ÷ Andre Auw, C.P., writes from the Center for Students of the Person; P.O. Box 2157; La Jolla, California 92037. VOLUME 28," 1969 .175 Andre Auw, C.P. REVIEW FOR RELIGIOUS from their attitudes and responses. It is a fabric that is not pleasant to touch. I have the impression that their one dominant way of evaluating us is ~in terms of free-dom. For the most part they see us as terribly unfree. They see us as dedicated, well-intentioned men and women, who are, nevertheless, imprisoned by our way of life, trapped by our traditions, hemmed in, and, as the c.ollege students say, "hung up" by our systems and legal prescriptions. The most vocal expression of these feelings has come from the college student groups. And perhaps that is why my initial reaction to this consistent message was one of annoyance and irritation. I found myself rather defensive at what seemed to be an adolescent smugness on the part of these students, and at what appeared to be a. very unfair and unbalanced evaluation. Not all reli-gious are so rigid, unfree, trapped, and hemmed in. That was my initial reaction, But when I reflected a little more I discovered that I was reacting to things I did not want to believe could be true. And when I could be more honest with myself, I had to admit that this is the very image that many religious, including myself, have projected. My pondering also gave me some other valuable in-formation. Not only were these people telling me things about myself that I found hard to hear. They were also trying to tell me things about themselves which they found hard to bear. They were speaking of their fears. Seeing me unfree they were reminded of their own fear of never becoming free enough to be a mature loving person. They thought of their fear of being swallowed up in an impersonal, computerized society, of their fear of .being trapped by outdated traditions and hemmed in by unreasonable laws. All of their fears and frustrations which have been spilling out in bloody streaks from Watts to Washington, D.C., from the lawns of Berkeley to the halls of Columbia, were freshly underlined. It seems that they had turned toward, me, a religious, in hope, but finding me unfree, had turned away from me in sadness. They felt they must search elsewhere to find someone free enough to be able to show them the way to freedom. ¯ And so it seems to me to be a vital need to consider the vows in the light of freedom, to measure them by the manner in which they measure up as liberating forces in our lives. Nietzsche once said: "If they¯want me to believe in their God. they are going to have to sing better hymns for me; they are going to have to show me that they are men who have been liberated." Mod-ern man is saying the same thing to us today. He knows the message of Christ is essentially ]iberative, and be wants to see how well that message has liberated the religious who call themselves witnesses, before he will. consider buying it. In order to understand the vows as ways of becoming free we should understand what we mean by .freedom. It is not the ability to do whatever pleases me. That is narcissism. St. Paul has described it beautifully in the following instruction to the Galatians: "You should be free to serve one another in love" (Gal 5:14). And Doctor Carl Rogers spells that out a little more sharply when he talks about "a freedom which. [man] courageously uses to live his potentialities., which assists [him] in becoming human, in relating to others, in being a per-son." This is a freedom which makes us responsible lovers, concerned about responding sensitiveIy to others and not inhibited by the shadows of our own fears. How can the vows be ways of enabling us as religious to possess this kind of freedom? Let us examine them separately. First, poverty. What is there about this way of being a.nd living which can be liberating for us? In view of the definition of freedom as the ability to serve my brother in love, I would see poverty as a statement of value. For me, the true spirit of poverty is a way of being which can help me to tell my brother that I consider him more important than the material possessions I can acquire. And by not being so dependent upon .having things I am truly freer to share myself with others. Not needing to satisfy so many of my own desires, I can be more open and responsive to the needs of others. This is certainly the accent that we find in Scripture. Having things or not having things is of secondary importance in New Testament reflection on poverty. The emphasis is not on having, but on being: being able to "be" for others. The tragedy of the rich man Dives in the Lazarus story is not that he was wealthy, but that his wealth had made him insensitive and in-capable of meeting the needs of his suffering brother. There is, I feel, a parallel today in the attitude of people towards the poverty of religious. I do not be-lieve that intelligent people are harshly critical of us be-cause we possess large buildings and bank accounts. But they are severely critical when our buildings or our money keep us aloof and uninvolved in serious social issues. They can tolerate our need for some kind of. status but they cannot forgive us when we are incapable of service. As religious we need help in order to appreciate pov-erty as a way of freeing us from the paralyzing effect of accumulated material possessions. Freeing us from the demands of our own egos, so that we can walk--or even + + + The Counsels VOLUME 28, 1969 177 4- REVIEW FOR RELIGIOUS run--to meet the needs of others. And so that we can do this without wanting a lot of "extras." When we do not have this spirit, something rather ugly happens to us even though we do not consciously promote it. We become very protective of our own in-terests. Speaking in another context, Charles Davis re-ferred to this self-service: The official church is racked with fear, insecurity and anxiety, with a consequent intolerance and lack of love. And what frustrates any effort at remedy is the perpetual dominance of the system over the person., the system always comes first. I would like to hope that I could become a different kind of religious, one who is seen as valuing the human person above any thing or system. I would like to be seen by those whom I serve as poor in material posses-sions, but rich in caring, unselfish as I serve them, and sometimes even a bit joyous in the sharing of myself: what I am and what I have as a Christ-person. This is the kind of witness that modern man needs and wants. He is terribly frustrated and unhappy with his accumulated wealth. He finds the things he possesses getting in the way of his relationships with the people he loves. And he does not know how to free himself. He needs people who can show him a new set of values and a new way of being with people. And finally, in regard to poverty, it is worthwhile re-calling that when Christ, after the miracle of Naim, was asked: "Are you the Messiah?" He responded not by pointing to the miracle of new life given to a dead man. Instead, He said: "Go and tell John what you see., the poor have the gospel preached to them." That was, and is still, the sign par excellence of the messianic liberator. It is the sign that shows people what Christ and His message are all about. Next let us examine obedience as a way of becoming free. I especially like Father Van Kaam's concept of obedience. It is taken from the root meaning of the word, "obaudire," which means "to hear." For me, obedience can be a wonderfully freeing thing when it is understood as a sensitive listening to the heartbeat of the Christian community. I think I would also add, a responsive and responsible listening. This means that those in authority and those under them have a need to listen to one an-other, to listen together to those they are committed to serve. It is responsive, and this implies a kind of generous spontaneity which is far removed from docile acceptance of an order. And it is responsible, which implies the recognition of an obligation that stems from a love com-mitment. For many the word obedience conjures up fantasies of force and control and restriction. How then can obedience be seen as a liberating force? I believe that one factor which can truly make obedience liberating is the factor of trust. The social and behavioral scientists have done con-siderable work in the area of authority relationships and they have discovered some interesting facts. They have found that when a climate of trust exists in a group, the people who are in positions of authority, are more re-laxed and do not feel a need to maintain tight kontrol and supervision. They are inclined to be open to sug-gestions for change. Those who are working for them tend to produce better and to assume responsibility for the welfare of the group as well as for the work they must do individually. One of the elements which Doctor Jack Gibb isolated in groups where authority relationships were poor was the attitude on the part of those in positions of leadership. These leaders held two assumptions regarding those who worked for them: that they were not to be trusted, and that they were irresponsible. Unfortunately, in many cases, these assumptions became a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy which created the very conditions that man-agement sought to avoid. There may well be similar assumptions on the part of religious superiors. We have had a long heritage of pro-tectiveness, and it is hard to effectively break away frown these patterns. Undoubtedly the atmosphere of trust is much better now than it was ten years ago, but there most likely is still a great deal of work to be done in religious communities in this area. Our obedience can be lib-erating for us only when, together, we can begin to as-sume that we can be trusted and that we can be re-sponsible for ourselves. Paradoxical as it may sound, a person must be truly independent before he can surrender himself to another. Thus I, as a religious, must experience your trust and my own responsibility before I can surrender my needs and desires in such a way that together we can listen sensi-tively to the needs of the community we serve. It is then, and only then, that I can find it possible to accept a diffi-cult assignment or perform unpleasant tasks as a respon-sive and responsible lover. Doctor Carl Rogers has said that in order to be a really effective teacher a person must have a profound trust in the human organism and its potentialities. Otherwise he will cram the student full of all the information he thinks is good for him rather than help the student to learn what is important for him. Having worked with Doctor Rogers I can state that this is not mere theory for him; it is the way he functions with people. He pre- + + + The Counsels VOLUME 28, 1969 179 ÷ ÷ ÷ Andre Auw, C~P. REVIEW FOR RELIGIOUS' fers to be gullible, to take people at face value, .and to believe the things they say to him. And oddly enough, people are so warmed by this kind of unconditional ac-ceptance that they soon stop telling lies and cease trying to impress. They find they no longer have to hide their refil feelings, and it is a very wonderful experience for them. By experiencing the trust of a loving person they were.able to begin to surrender a bit of themselves. I believe it is this kind of trust which is needed to transform our understanding of obedience. Obedience should not make us docile conformists, but responsible lovers. Today more than ever before we need a concept of obedience which will enable, us to assume responsi-bility for our actions and our lives. We need greater power to freely surrender our self-centered desires and needs. The example of Peter in the New Testament seems to be a striking illustration of the kind of obedience I am talking about. Peter began his authority relationship with Christ feeling very insecure. He made a great many mistakes, yet each time he did so, Christ confirmed him as a person by making him feel that He still trusted him. The peak experience for Peter came during the meet-ing with Christ outside the palace of the high priest. Peter, ashamed at his betrayal, finally found the courage to look at Christ, and that loving glance of the Master made Peter aware that Christ still believed in him, still trusted him. It was only after this that Peter felt secure enough to accept the responsible task of shepherding the flock for Christ. It was Christ's trust of Peter that made' possible the entrusting of the flock to him. And it was this same trust that transformed Peter into a re-sponsive and responsible lover. This is a way of being that modern man wants to dis-cover very badly. He finds it so hard to reach beyond the limits of his own ego. He is searching for someone who can show him an obedience which is an exercise of responsibility freely chosen, and yet something binding and demanding because that is the way of love. Modern man needs to experience this kind of trust-filled loving so that he too can become free to love. He wants to be able to say in the words of The Little Prince: "I am re-sponsible for my rose." That would be for him the state-ment of a truly obedient man, rejoicing in an obedience which is richly liberating. Finally we come to the vow of celibate love. I have chosen to discuss it under this title rather than that of chastity because I believe this best expresses, the real meaning o.f the vow. There has been so much written on celibacy in the past year that I iliad it difficult say something which will ,1 not be excessively redundant. Perhaps the best approach will be to share some of my reactions to recent articles that I have read. Frankly, I am not impressed byo being told that I am an eschatological sign because I am a celibate. I really do not think that the men and women who come in contact with me are go.ing to experience a love that. is redeeming simply by being aware that I can point to a way they will love one another in heaven. They need to know how to love here and now. I am not denying the theology of eschatological witness; I am saying that it is not a good enough reason to justify my be!ng a celibate. But perhaps the thing that disturbs me most about recent discussions on celibacy is the somewhat naive as-sumption that the celibate way of life "ex se" or. auto-matically will produce good results; that it will make us better lovers. Anyone who has worked closely with re-ligious in different communities 'knows that this simply is not an assumption based on fact. The fact is that we find it hard to be generous and warm lovers, in com-munity as well as out of community. And for me that is the very heart of the matter: being able to love others humanly, warmly. One of the most beautiful compliments that I.have re-ceived is a statement that has poignantly sad overtones: "You know you don't seem like a priest; you're so hu-man." What kind of celibacy is it that 'contributes to such an image? On the other hand I am equally disturbedby propo-nents of some undefined "third way," who speak so un-realistically of married love. Marriage can be just as de-humanizing as celibacy, as any counselor knows. Sexual expression :without sexual integration can be just as dev-astating for married persons as the lack of sexual expres, sion without-sexual integration can be for celibates. Neither marriage nor celibacy guarantees any(hing in the way of mature loving. However, both can be Ways of becoming free in order to grow as lovers. Both demand sexual integration as a prerequisite for personal fulfill-ment. And botl~ take a great deal of work and pain and perseverance and patience.' What then is there about the celibate .way of loving which can be for a religiousa liberating experience? First of all, I believe that celibacy, lovingly and. freely embraced, enabIes me to say to those I am committed to serve that I can love them in a way which is rich and deep and truly human, but in a way which is not demanding. And this is a magnificently freeingkind of awareness. It means that when I have accepted my sexuality and be-gun to integrate if, I can add another dimension to my VOLUME ~'St 2.969 "~, ; ISt 4, 4, Andre Auw, C.P. REVIEW FOR RELIGIOUS 18~ relationships. I can show people what it means to love someone just ~for himself. Not for his usefulness or phys-ical attractiveness. Not for his fine mind or remarkable talents, but just for himself. I can show him a way of loving and living which inte-grates se~xuality in a way that is different from married people. "It is a way which recognizes the splendor of sexuality, but which at the same time chooses to refrain from sexual .expression. I can show this person how to love both men and women warmly and deeply, with tenderness and even affection, without the overriding fear of automatic sexual involvement. And this, I believe, is precisely the kind of loving that modern man is hungry for. He is very confused by his sexuality, and it has become for him the alpha and omega of his existence. Deep within him he senses that ful-fillment iiavolves more than sex, but he finds it hard to translate this vague inner feeling into the language of everyday living because he does not find enough lovers who think much differently from the way he does. Modern man can learn a great deal from a religious who appreciates his sexuality enough to give it just enough importance in his life, but no more than that. How much it can mean for the confused modern to experi-ence a love which accepts him not for anything he has, but only for what he is. This alone is enough to be redemptive for many men and women. It seems as if there is in the heart of man a yearning for the model lover who is strong enough in serf-mastery to be free to be a kind of savior for others. In the folklore of most nations and tribes there are redemptive figures who, most often, were celibates during the time of their inessianic mission. We have only to recall the mythical warriors of the Far East and of-Indian culture, the many versioned prince myths of the early Middle Ages, the knights of King Arthur, and even in our own coun-try, the man of the West, the hero of the desert and prairie. Let us think of this last figure [or a moment. In story and song he has been pictured as a man of great physi-cal and moral strength. But primarily he is a man on a redemptive mission, living only for others. He rides into a town, bringing his honesty and integrity. He is manly; but also gentle with women. He is compassion-ate toward the poor and helpless. He stamps out evil and plants the seeds of goodness and truth. He brings sal~cation to a village. And when his redemptive mission is accomplished, this celibate lover accepts the love that people can give him in return for his, but he never de-mands it. Then, 'his work finished, he rides of[ alone to anbther ~¢illage and other people who need his kind of loving in order to be redeemed, to be liberated. In a similar way the modern religious celibate ac-complishes his redemptive mission. What he really gives to others is a portion of his own gift of freedom. He too will have to "ride" alone, but only in the sense of not having a single exclusive love relationship. For as he grows in his own mature sense of .freedom he ,will 'be enriched by many deep and beautiful love relationships. And this too becomes a gift to be shared with others, the gift of knowing how to put love and sexuality into a splendid and yet practical perspective. The task of integrating these two elements is always a difficult one. But one insight is very important. A sister, during a weekend workshop with .married couples, ex-pressed it well. She said: "You know, before this Week-end I had planned to leave my religious community. But now, I'm not so sure. You see, I thought my problems were the problems of a celibate religious, and I dis-covered that they are the problems of a woman. I found married women with the same basic problems, and they are making better adjustments to. them than I have been doing." This is so very true. Most of our problems are ,not the result of our celibacy but of our humanness. Neither marriage nor sexual intercourse will resolve our ten-sions. These will be resolved when we learn how to be-come truly human and loving. Then it will be possible for the celibate way of life to be rewarding for us and redeeming for others. It is then that we can demonstrate to others a love that is most beautiful because it is least demanding. Celibacy will not automatically make us great lovers, but a lover who understands and values his celibacy can be a model lover for others, a lover who is free enough to be able to free others. Certainly it is this kind of loving that is needed so desperately today by modern man who no longer feels lovable or loved. It may well be that only when he .ex. periences such undemanding love will he be ~onvinced of the genuine value of Christ's love. It may be that he will be able to believe in the celibate lover of Calvary only after he has come to believe in other celibates who can surrender, as He did, one of the most priceless gifts that God has given them. Perhaps .then, when he sees us free enough to surrender our sexuality for his sake, he may come to believe that he really is worth sav-ing and that God does care about him after all. It is a knowledge that many men still seek when they come ih contact with celibate lovers. These, then, are some of my reflections on the vows as ways of becoming free. I would like to understand the vows as ways of enabling us to be free enough to make it possible for others to believe in themselves. I would.like ÷ ÷ ÷ The Counsels,~ . VOLUME' 28~' 1969" '° :. ,183 + to think that we can be free from the obsessive need to accumulate things, free to surrender ourselves to others, free to love deeply and warmly. And that is why I feel that we must seek new insights concerning the vows. A young high school student, talking, about religious life and the vows, was asked what kind of religious com-munity he would have if he were to start one tomorrow, The young man said: "Well; I don't think I would make them take any vows." But then he paused and reflected on that, and he added a sentence that sums up the whole meaning of the vows and the religious life. He said: "Unless it would be possible to take a vow., to love." If that were truly the spirit behind our vows, they would be, for us, ways of becoming free. Finally, it is well to remember that the way of the vows is the way of Christ Himself. It is the way of a man with a mission to set men free. And the men of Christ's time were not so very different from the men of our day: angry, restless, rebellious, indifferent, frightened, and insecure, yet searching for a Christ-person who would be their liberator. Christ walked into their midst, heard their cry, and showed them a way of life that was for them a way of freedom. He showed them how to be free~ from the de-humanizing demands of the law and tradition, free from the imprisoning fear of what people might say, free from the overconcern about food and power and sex. Christ showed them a way of poverty and obedience and celibate love. Today we, as .religious, stand in the place of Christ to continue His redemptive mission, to be His witnesses. If we can find better ways to be what we say we are, then we too can arise in the assembly and announce to the world that we also have been sent to "bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound." And hopefully, people will hear us not because of what we say, but because of what we are: witnesses. Perhaps the following lines spell that out for us in clearer language: A witness is A man who stands out Because he is not afraid to stand up A man who outreaches others Because he reaches out to other.s Andre Auw, C~P. REVIEW FOR RELIGIOUS 184 A man who lifts others up Because he bends down to their weakness A man whose heart has grown great Because he has learned to become small A witness is all this and more He is a man who walks across the wastelands Of human lives And uncovers hidden springs A man who opens windows everywhere To the sunlight and springtime fragrance Of the risen Christ And passing through the doors of seILfilled hearts He lights and leaves behind An everlasting flame Ultimately a witness is a man who does all these things Because He is not afraid To love. The CoUnsels VOLUME 28, 1969 I85 CARL J. PETER Culture and the Vocation Crisis Carl J. Peter teaches theology and lives at Curley Hall, Box 49; Cath-olic University of America in Wash-ington, D.C. 20017. REVIEW FOR RELIGIOUS A change has occurred in the way young men and women view the prospect of becoming a priest, lay brother, or nun. At the very least they manifest less en-thusiasm or inclination along these lines. One may ask when this began or indeed inquire whether it has not just begun. Few, I think, will challenge the proposition itself. This change of attitude is very definitely evidenced by those who have matriculated in the Catholic school sys-tem. One encounters it in the Mary and Johnny of whom but a few years back while they were still on the primary level in parochial schools, we asked why they could not read. All of this is true and will be conceded by those who regard the situation as healthy no less than by those who regard it as disastrous. Religious Convictions and the Young The change in question has causes that are closely connected with religious conviction or its lack. There is an obvious hesitancy on the part of youth, an unwilling-ness or an unreadiness to embrace as a state of life the ministry of the gospel in its traditional form. But it is a great oversimplification, I feel, to assign as a total ex-planation a weakening or loss of faith. In some cases, + precisely the opposite is true. + At least many of the young people involved are any- + thing other than lacking in generosity. Interest in im-proving the lot of tbeir fellow man characterizes their mental and emotional outlook. Here is where the diffi-culty lies. In ever increasing numbers they fail to see this humanitarian interest connected with the life of the priesthood, sisterhood, and brotherhood. One may contend that this is because of the present conditions in which these callings are lived and exercised, because, for example, so much of a priest's time and 18fi energy is spent in activities that have no apparent con- nection with the betterment of mankind or at least one that is very minimal. Devoting each Monday to counting the collection; running off the Sunday bulletin on the rectory or parish duplicator; keeping the books for the school hot lunch program--the instances could be multi-plied. Now it is surely a mistake to associate a priest's work exclusively with such activities. But to ask young people to ignore this aspect is expecting a bit too much. A large part of the problem with regard to vocations is that prospective candidates see too much activity on the part of the cleric or religious" too little connected with making mankind's future better than its past. Liturgy and a Life Choice But this is not all. Even in cultic functions associated with the administration of the sacraments, there is real difficulty. Whether humanity is genuinely better off be-cause of all this divine worship is a question posed over and over again. Here it is not a matter of poorly or sel-dom exercised functions of the priest but rather the im-portance pure and simple of such fimctions in the world at all. Many adults recognize this and conclude that the vocation crisis connected with such questioning is really a crisis of faith. My contention, however, is that at least some of these difficulties and doubts in the religious realm are caused by a cultural change that affects the entire world of man in all its facets. The crisis of vocations is connected often enough with a corresponding crisis of faith. This is not so much because many have simply ceased to believe but rather because the atmosphere in which they have grown up and live demands a choice between conflict-ing values, religious ones included. As a result, young people find it both harder to reject the latter outright and yet more difficult as well to embrace them fully. The reason is that our day is one of cultural transformation with all that this involves. If this is anything other than self-evident, it is nevertheless important. The Meaning of Cultural Change To make the statement that culture has a great deal to do with the unrest experienced by youth and indeed believers in general is hardly a novelty today. It is intro-duced into the present context with the hope that it will be more than a mere repetition. To achieve this will re-quire making an effort to clarify what is meant by cul-tural change. Only then will others be able to judge whether this is in fact what is taking place with profound religious consequences. Such explanation is precisely what is lacking in a number of other attempts to trace the believer's troubles to this same source. Vocation Crisis VOLUME 28, 1969 18'/ Carl .I. Peter REVIE%' FOR RELIGIOUS Examples may be of help. Leslie Dewart has con-nected the present plight Of Christianity with a retention of Hellenism or Hellenistic culture.x There is nothing to be gained from adding one more name to the list of critics of The Future of Belief.2 It is, however, a far from easy task to determine what he means by Hellenism. And yet this is quite important for his contention. Something very similar is true of Bishop John Robin-son. 8 He contends that the present difficulties of Chris-tianity are in great part connected with the fact that fundamental truths are being rejected wholesale because they are presented in a "supranaturalistic" mode of thought: The latter is surely a cultural phenomenon, but one that is extremely vague. It seems to involve a world picture with God outside the physical and psychic uni-verse but intervening now and again. To retain such a world picture, he writes, is incompatible with being a truly modern man. Meaningful truths fall under the weight of their utterly unacceptable trappings that bear witness to a dead culture. But here precisely is his problem. God, for Robinson, is not intended to be the product of a culture. Yet if one cannot tell what you mean by the latter, you do run the risk of having others hard pressed to determine whether you really stand for a God who endures despite a cultural change. At this point some are probably wondering whether it is not precisely a crisis o[ faith that must be dealt with. Perhaps it is. But to no small degree it is first of all a cultural crisis leaving its marks on all of us. Bishop Robinson may not have been successful in explaining what he means by a change of culture. He has never-theless described well the period in which we are living. It is the age of the overlap, the period in which some-thing very new is still in the process of emerging. Ours is a period of tension or dialectic. Hopefully a beneficial synthesis will be the outcome. One thing is sure; neither of the two extremes in the present picture culturally is likely to remain as is. Both are going to be modified and remarkably so. But it is the present state that must be analyzed, again with the observation that understanding what is happening is a first step toward dealing reason-ably and effectively with the situation. Good practice depends on an accurate assessment of what is involved. Dewart and Robinson call attention to the pangs in-volved in the change through which we are living. Both are agreed on this. An old culture is in the process 1 Leslie Dewart, The Future of Belie[ (New York: Herder and Herder, 1966). '-' See the remarks of Jaroslav Pelikan and Bernard J. F. Lonergan in Theological Studies, v. 28 (1967), pp. 352-6 and 336-51 respec-tively. s John A. T. Robinson, Honest to God (London: SCM, 1963). of dying. It does not offer a form that religious belief will find viable in the future.4 In my opinion they are correct; the. cultural state we are now in cannot last. Indeed it takes no prophet to see that it will not. An-other thing is equally sure. Things will not revert to the way they were before all this began, whenever that was. The present situation makes that abundantly clear. Culture and Values Our age is.witnessing a remarkable conflict of values, and they are not directly religious in nature. At least they can be and are embraced by those who avowedly profess or practice no religion at all as well as by various types of believers in a Supreme Being. Now if this is true, it is also a prerequisite for understanding the cultural crisis of the present. For what 3[ mean by culture involves at0 the very least values and indeed a'more or less connected set of values. My contention is that we are living in a period of.history where there is a particularly fierce struggle between two opposing sets of purely human values. If some sort of synthesis is the most likely and desirable outcome, still, living in the overlap can be confusing. Two sets of values compete; each has something ~o be said for it, something to commend it. For many this is stimulating, but for no small number, ever increasing knowledge, acquaintance, and experience preclude, decisions on a clear course of action. In fact at times the result is paralysis or choices no sooner made than regretted, commitments given and then retracted. But if a convict of values can lead to these practical consequences, what sort of values are in question? The Good and Its Modes Getting things done or a sense of practical "know-how" has from the earliest days been a characteristic of our country. Indeed, it was very quickly identified ~with Yankees and their ingenuity. To put this another way, achievemerit and performance are values long esteemed by our society. And yet as ea'rly as the War between the States they were sought after in two radically opposed ¯ ways. Preservation of a heritage was the performance one section of the nation desired; improvement, refine. ment, elimination of defects and evils inspired the other. Concretely the value of performance, know-how, or achievement was realized in two conflicting ways. Given the question of freedom and human dign.ity, it is dear ~For a case along the same line but developed with heavy dependence on American Pragmatism as a philosophical basis, see Eugene Fontinell, "Religious Trtith in a Relational and Processive World," Cross Currents, v. 16 (1967), pp. 283-315. 4- 4- 4- ¥ocation Crisis VOLUME 28, ,196~ Carl ~ J.~ Peter REVIEW FOR RELIGIOUS 190 that a moral issue was at stake. But there were other as-pects as well; for instance, strict or loose construction of the Constitution. Both forms of interpretation were religiously' neutral if not secular. Both likewise had ref-erence to the value of performance. But the way the lat-ter was realized in North and South led to tension, strife, and conflict. The situation afterwards was never the same again. There is something in this history that repeats itself. Clinging to tradition and the progress achieved in the past claims the allegiance of certain minds and hearts. It is likely true that this will always be the case. Still others are no less moved by the desire to strike out and move ahead in man's endless effort to better his~lot on this planet. Education offers another example. The value of a teacher's performance is judged in terms of pedagogical goals. Some maintain the educator aims at handing on truth, with the supposition that humanity has already achieved it in a way that can be improved but never fundamentally surpassed. By instinct and. reasoned con-viction others look for the teacher or professor to en-gage together with the student in a quest for truth. The assumption is that there is always more worth looking for and in comparison with which the knowledge at-tained is partial and incomplete. Now neither of these attitudes toward pedagogical goals is directly religious. Neither is exclusively demanded by Catholic faith. But the adoption of either as a value has religious implica-tions. An illustration may be of assistance. A question arises that is new and demands some sort of response or answer. Before doing anything else, the man or woman influenced by the value of preserving truth will attempt to solve the present case by recourse to precedents. Only too often this involves making the present in its unique-ness conform, whether it really does or not, with norms that were established earlier but without the slightest intention of binding all future generations. The value of preserving truth and past achievements translates itself religiously into that of fidelity. If the past has no claim to direct our own religious history, then there was no uniqueness in the event we call the Incarnation. Then God has not involved Himself irrevocably and finally in the history of man long before 'our day. When one re-gards0 education as a process of passing on certain truths, he is predisposed to be concerned religiously with the fidelity of God and man. A cultural value, namely pi:eserving the accomplishments of the past, can and does have profound religious consequences in thought and action. But education can also be conceived of as performance involving an unending quest [or truth. In this case, when one makes the transposition to a religious level, the goal is a search for the God who even after revelation in Jesus is still a mystery and to know whom is really to be yet groping even when one gropes with the aid of infallible direction. St. Paul offers a good example of this. In his Epistle to the Romans he spends three chapters (9-11) studying the will of God as concretely realized in the plan of salvation for Gentile and Jew. Interpreting the hist6ry of his own day as God's saving providence, he obviously presupposes that man can .know the divine will. And yet he concludes with a hymn proclaiming "that no one realiy knows the mind of the Lord. All subsequent Christian theology has been an at-tempt to grapple with the great mystery that God remains even after He reveals Himself to man. His ways are mysterious and yet sure, free and yet faithful. To em-phasize one over the Other leads to a lopsided theology. But why would one be inclined to do this? The reason is clear enough. There is a tendency to do so, one deriving from culture today especially. That culture is complex; it evokes diverse responses, some calculated to preserve the truth and goodness that have already been achieved and others aimed at improving both in the future. The result is cultural tension with theological consequences of the first order. When a question arises on a religious or doctrinal level, for those inclined to revere the past it is not a matter of being faithful pure and simple. There is a cultural fac-tor inclining them to their position. Others are more ready to strike out [or the new and unknown. Here it is the mystery of God and His dealings with man that will enthrall them. What has been said of Him in the past, even in infallible "utterances, is true enough but insuffi-cient. Their great law is: "Thou shalt not have strange Gods before me." They do not wish to worship idols rather than the true God; and it is no less idolatrous to worship one's image of God than it is to adore wood, or stone, or precious metals. Here again, however, the inclination is not purely religious; it is cultural. These are the men and women who in any event are more moved by a goal that is worthwhile and possible than by achievements that are already a fact but with clear defects. ,4pplication to Present Conditions It is in the realm of attitudes that one must look for evidence of culture or values held in esteem or disrepute. Our culture involves an ambivalence of attitudes with regard to the present in its relation to the future. ÷ ÷ ÷ VOLUME 28° 1969 .!. ÷ Carl I. Peter REVIEW FOR RELIGIOUS 19~ Contemporary forms are generally considered inade-quate in the long run to meet humanity's needs of the near future. If one insists that this is not true in the religious sphere, youth is expected to assert that m6- rality and faith are somehow not part of the changing world. This is only too evidently false. It is also discourag-ing. If true, it would surely follow that from neither could man hope for much improvement. When the past is loved too much and present values, cherished too intensely, the inevitable result is that fewer and fewer young people will spend their lives ina performance directed to preserving it. This attitude has been wide-spread and is showing its effects. The cultural cry of more and more of the young is "On to the Future" by radical change of the present. Confronted with the evils man has injected into his world, they find an attractiveness in this value. That it conflicts with the former is obvious. That the result is confusion, tension, unease, unwillingness or inability to commit oneself fully to one or the other is not sur-prising. Neither value is directly religious. Each has religious implications and does sometimes presuppose a lessening or even loss of religious commitment. But to concentrate on this would be to try to cure a symptom. Our whole society knows it must change and change radically. And yet unless we learn from the past, from its successes as well as its failures, we shall grope with-out any guidelines or the slightest assurance that what we learn today will help tomorrow and not hinder, Man's leap forward came.from a spirit of adventure and a lack of willingness to be content with the status quo. This is true of man whether he professed a religion or not. Youth today knows it. They look for a willingness to take this risk in religion and its leaders. But they also realize that man's advance has been accompanied by a multiplication of evils in the form of wars, famine, and untold human suffering. It was paid for in the form of untold labor and often shortened life spans "of pioneers. Today many of them are asking whether progress at such a price and with such attendant evils is worth it after all. It is a question of values and attitudes. Not a few seem to choose neither content-ment with the past nor striving to improve the future, at least not by joining existing organizations to achieve this. In the sense of the two alternatives, they seem to be opting out as close to altogether as is possible. Among their eiders, those who cling to the past do so not wholly because of faith, and those who strive to ob-tain the improvement of the future surely are not so motivated solely because of basic religious conviction or its lack. It is in both cases a cultural response elicited by the world in which they live. To be cautious is a value; to be adventuresome no less so. Neither in itself is reli-gious. Those inclined to esteem the former expect it most of all in religion; those who prefer the latter look for it above all in the area of faith and faith-inspired life. There is a crisis all right, but one stemming fi:om a com-plex culture or set of opposing values, each of which has something to be said for it. How easy it would all be if it were otherwise. It would be a mistake to overlook this when considering the situation of young men and women choosing or living out a religious vocation. Maximum E~ciency versus Involvement There is another pair of values related to achievement. Is the latter the work of one or many? Some are loners and find it hard to be any other way. But today it is extremely difficult to stand alone in achievement. The individual source of inspiration, one overseer or director iqith the power to make decisions--this leads at times to unquestionably greater efficiency and permits the de-termination of responsible agents in various fields. For some this is still a most desirable good. Society needs the great man as leader; the Church, the truly independent bishop and pope. But for others worthwhile goals are achieved only in the close cooperation of many laboring in a basically similar frame of mind despite difficulties. This implies the initiative not only of the leader but of many cooperating and participating as fully as possible in the endeavor. Neither attitude is basically religious. This is again witnessed in the pedagogical order. Why do so many professors today have such trouble with classes when they employ the lecture system? The latter is surely not something religious or irreligious. Nor is it that professors lecture without the ability of their predecessors. And yet in ever increasing numbers, courses based solely on this method are being phased out be-cause they are not being heard or listened to. The teacher who simply lectures today has to be a lot better than one who did the same fifty years ago just to accomplish as much. The reason is simple. To such an approach there is opposition that is neither religious nor irreligious but rather cultural. It arises from the conviction that truth and other values are to be sought not solely or primarily through the energy of one man directing the receptivity of others but through the combined efforts of many. The planning of seminary curricula is taking note of this. So must the charting of course for a parish or diocese if they are to achieve their respective goals. To think that papal primacy, episcopal collegiality, or lay initiative will not be affected by this cultural factor is disastrous, especially in dealing with prospective vocations. If this ÷ ÷ ÷ Vocation Crisis VOLUME 28, ].9~9 Cad ]. Peter REVIEW FOR RELIGIOUS ]94 is obviously hard for some to accept, it is important nonetheless. Achievements of the Paso Some men and women tend to concentrate on the good that has already been attained and are pleased with past efforts as well as optimistic about the state of the union, whatever union may be involved. Others view past achievements with guarded reserve or more often criti-cism, positive or negative. These are human attitudes not particularly connected with religion more than with politics or economics. But they do affect the way one re-gards formulations of Christian faith. Have the conciliar determinations helped or are they, though true, in their own way very limited? As regards present institutions, few adamantly deny they have accomplished some, indeed tremendous good. But what of the defects? They are pres-ent as well. Revelation does not direct attention to either exclusively. The way one evaluates other things will have a great deal of influence here. But that is clearly in the realm of rational attitudes more or less con-sciously adopted; namely, culture and not religion di-rectly as such. Analysis or Comprehensive View Is it the big picture or the details that are most im-portant? There is no divine law answering this. In terms of values, is it generality and simplicity in viewing a phenomenon as a whole or rather attention to its com-plexity that matters? Emphasis on the latter assures that whatever is said or decided today may well have to be modified tomorrow. Decisions taken may have to be reconsidered or retracted. Contrariwise one may aim at certain values that at least as goals do not change but are ever more closely approximated. The affective con-sequences of both approaches are clear enough. Com-mitments in the one frame of reference can hardly be irrevocable; in the other they can surely be so. On a practical religious level, are all decisions subject to re-call at will, for example, to the existence of a God, an after-life, the imperative of working to make life better [or others? Or are they simply the best one can give here and now? It is clear that conflicting cultural values have in this instance created tension in human life, not least of all in its religious sphere. Certainty and Conjecture To continue, is certainty a value above others, or is statistical probability all man can ~chieve in most in-stances? But certainty is popularly connected with hope.-- one does not hope unless convinced there is a good chance o~ getting or doing or being what is hoped for. And yet probability is likewise connected with hope; one does not hope for what is already a sure thing, somethingpr~deter-mined and open in no way to chance. To what does one aspire, the certain or the probable?. The Marxist experiences this. Should he hope for the classless society or not? If he does not because he feels that it is certain to come about, lethargy.will likely result. But if its appearance is not inevitable, his efforts alter all may be futile, all of which need not but may lead to despair. As to the Christian, must he hope that the divine kingdom come? If its advent cannot be frus-trated, what need to hope; if otherwise,, why hope when alter all sheer chance may reign supreme?. Antithetical Ideals I have tried to indicate certain human values in two connected sets. They deal with the practical, .the order o~ doing and achievement. Preservation of the past through the work of the leader who sees and inspires others to grasp the whole picture wi.th optimism c6upled with caution and deliberate pace regarding change--this is one set. And yet there is another in competition: the improvement o~ the future through the.cooperation o[ many in thought, action, and suffering, with attention to the manifold of details accompanied with criticism of past failures and a sense of urgency for future reme-dies. These interconnected values art both vying for man's acceptance at the present time. He has opted for neither. Confronted by them both, he is very often at a loss; now this and now that seems better. They affect the very depth of his being and yet are religious only in the sense of having to do with the meaning of life, a mean-ing he has to choose freely. Still his relations with or-ganized religion cannot but be affected by this tension, unrest, and hesitancy. Because religion is obviously con-nected with these values though by no means identical with them, he is probably as interested as at any time in his history with religion as an academic discipline but as disinclined as never before to see any religious organi-zation as offering a permanent way of life for himself. This has affected the attitude o~ many toward religious vocations in particular. In my opinion it justifies the proposition that the so-called vocation crisis is only indirectly a crisis of faith and directly one of culture. Religious Ministry in the Overlap More is called for today than detached analysis in this area. This is especially true in the case of those who are convinced that an increase in the number of religious vocations is o~ great importance for the Church and the 4- .4- 4- Vocation Crisis VOLUME 28, 1969 195 rest of humanity. As a result it may not be out of place to offer a number of suggestions. They will deal with atti-tudes that can be fostered with the aim of encouraging priestly and religious vocations during the period of the cultural overlap. First of all, in both of the competing sets of values, practical certainty is present and operative. The certainty of conviction makes men cling to the past; it drives others to strive for the future. This is certainty at least strong enough to be the guiding rationale and emo-tional factor for living a whole li~e. Too much certainty with regard to the past was an error. A great price has been paid for it. Today, youth is actually afraid of being certain and yet often paralyzed because uncertain. The man who strives for change is doing so only because of a practical conviction that striving is important, worth-while, possible, and not futile. In this sense, certainty is no more missing in him than in' his counterpart. If this impression can be conveyed to youth, the certainty of basic truths of faith will be less repellent. Secondly, another value found in both sets is persever-ance. It is because of a deep-rooted conviction that does not change that the men of science change hypotheses. A religious conviction once thought over and adopted need not shut a man off Lrom the way other men adopt in living. It should not make him closed. Indeed he can be open precisely because he has made a fundamental decision. No one is more closed than he who has made no decision at all regarding the meaning of life. Fre-quently such a man's desire to be open precludes his doing anything of lasting significance. To be con-temporary is not to be a Hamlet. To be ever ready to learn more regarding life's meaning is not to be ready to change one's mind because of simple discouragement or the realization that difficulties will in all likelihood never be completely removed. The applicability of this lesson to the realm of priestly and religious vocations is obvious. It will not, however, be grasped unless one re-calls that these are matters not merely of faith and revela-tion but also of culture. Carl 1. Peter REVIEW FOR RELIGIOUS i JOSEPH E. MULLIGAN, s.J. The Religious Dimension of Human Love The current experimentation with various styles of religiou~ dress is certainly a welcome development in the post-conciliar Church. It is becoming clear to Cath-olics and non-Catholics alike that today's sister is very much a woman of the twentieth century, a woman con-secrated to God and united with Christ and at the very same time intensely concerned about the joys and problems, successes and failures of the present world. She is sensitive to the needs of modern men and women, open to new trends in human thought'(such as personal-ism and Christian existentialism)~ efficient in her use of modern means of serving humanity, and orientated to the near and distant future in her apostoli.c thinking. Au courant styles of religious dress do not insure that all this will be true of every sister who dons the new garb, but at the very least it can be said that the new fashions do not militate against the entirely proper "new image" now being created by today's sisters both young and old. Updated religious habits may even foster an interior aggiornamento where it is lacking or lagging; and where the Spirit has already begun to "renew the face of the earth" so that the love enkindled by Him can shine forth for all to see, the sister will welcome the external change as a true sign of the interior renewal which is under way. While the new fashions serve this purpose of bringing today's sister visibly into the twentieth century, they also serve to bring out the distinctly feminine quality of the Christian charity which fills her heart and inspires her life of service. This important point is receiving its due attention by psychologists, counselors, and theologians; here we need only mention the fact that the changes in the dress o[ religious women are closely associated with the emergence, in their own consciousness and in that of all the world, of their God-given and God-beloved ÷ ÷ ÷ Joseph Mulligan, &J., is a member of Bellarmine School of Theology; North Aurora, Illinois 6O542. VOLUME 28, 1969 ÷ Mulligan, $.1. REVIEW FOR RELIGIOUS 198 femininity. How important it is that the feminine, ma-ternal dimension of the love of God, whom we always address as Father and whom we almost always think of in masculine terms, be incarnated and effectively com-municated to the human family. In this connection we readily recognize (it is not a question of "admitting," as if grudgingly) the truth of a point suggested by a famous psychologist: that in Christian piety a tender devotion to Mary fulfills a profound need of the human heart and soul, namely, to relate to a heavenly Mother. It is true, of course, that God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son manifest many of the qualities ordinarily associated with human mother-hood: tenderness, mercy, compassion, and above all, love which is given profusely without demanding a com-mensurate response. But it is Mary who, in the religious consciousness of the faithful, is the Mother par excellence, showering upon her children her maternal love and re-ceiving from them, often though not always, their love and trust in return. The religious woman has a position in the divine economy of salvation analogous to that of Mary. In the eminently feminine charity shown by the religious teacher, nurse, home missionary, and others, the human family can see and feel the maternal qualities of the boundless love of God for them. The sister can bring this love directly into the classroom, hospital, or home--and in this the sister can be more effective than Mary in com-municating the love of God to men. For Mary is present to her children only in times of prayer, and the experi-ence of her love requires faith; the sister can be present to the human family in all situations of life and in very concrete ways which are perfectly visible to "natural" eyes. Adaptations in dress, then, are worthwhile and valu-able in at least these two important respects: in placing sisters visibly in the midst of the twentieth century and in accentuating the distinctly feminine characteristics of their love and service to mankind. In most instances the adaptation of which we are speaking has taken the form of a reduction or lightening of the habit to the extent that some sisters have only a 'veil of some sort (or even less) as the external symbol of 'their consecration to God and their special union with Christ. This trend is entirely praiseworthy, as we have stated above. How-ever, the question soon arises about the necessity of re-taining any distinctive signs. Should. the nursing sister simply wear the same uni-form as that of her colleagues in the profession? Should the teaching sister wear a variety of styles readily oh, tainable at the downtown department store? Should the i home missionary don a smart and comfortable business woman's suit? In the opinion of this male observer, the answer is a qualified "no." This is undoubtedly the opin-ion of the vast majority of sisters: there is deep value in the external symbols of one's religious profession. Pre-cisely what forms these symbols should take in order that they be appropriate for our modern age'is a matter which will have to be handled largely through experi-mentation; developments to date have been in the right direction, but certainly not definitive (perhaps we should expect and accept constant adaptation in this matter, as in the liturgy). Though all agree on the necessity of retaining symbols, be they ever so "modernized," it may prove worthwhile to review one of the most substantial reasons for our insistence upon retaining externals of some sort. To this writer, one of the most cogent "arguments" for the existence and activity of God is the astounding love which breaks out (who can say how often?) in this world of ours. This love can be "astounding" even if it be only a kind word at the right time, a friendly "hello" offered in passing, or a thoughtful gesture only slightly out of the ordinary. The more dramatic or "heroic" act of love--such as the total personal commitment of marriage or of the religious life--is all the more revela-tory of the power of God operative in the hearts of men. Experience teaches us that there is something wonder-ful in a person who has risen above the childish and petty egocentrism which in various forms infects hu-manity. And in divine revelation we have a clear state-ment of the truth to which experience opens us: "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." Though this writer finds this train of thought most interesting and helpful, many in our modern world find it something less than immediately exciting. The con-nection between human love at its best and the power of God very often goes unnoticed. Deep, strong love (in many cases of a calibre worthy of imitation by many a nominal Christian) abounds in the heart and soul of a great number of men who consider themselves "atheists" or "agnostics" or "secular humanists" but who probably qualify as "anonymous Christians." We have good reasons as well as strong inclinations to consider these noble hu-man persons as brothers of Christ and sons of God, heirs of the same eternal life which we Christians hope to at-tain (see Mt 95:31--45). The modern man who is truly Christlike in his charity is surely a brother of Christ and a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is indeed the Spirit of Love. Such a person need only be brought to an explicit awareness of his true position before God. Whether this Human Love VOLUME 28, 1969 199 J. E. Mulligan, S.I. REVIEW FOR RELIGIOUS 2O0 exp1icitation is absolutely necessary for salvation, is a theological question which we cannot take up here; that it is.desirable and beneficial for the person, that it is the will of God, and that it is the proper task of the mission-ary Church cannot be doubted. How then is the connection between great human love and the power of God to be drawn clearly in the minds of men? How will men of good will come to real-ize their true religious identity? Surely this wonderful moment of recognition can follow immediately upon a strong experience of being loved with a love surpassing the powers of our wounded human nature. Who can know the unsearchable ways of God, the ways in which He can make His presence known in the hearts of men? What we can know, however, is that God has estab-lished in His Church certain "ordinary" ways by which men should be able to see the connection of which we are speaking, that is, the religious context of all genuine human love. The liturgy, for instance, consists basically of ritual acts of human love, no less authentic for being ritual, set in an abundantly sacred context; the religious life as a visible institution is meant also to be a sign Of the intimate link between love and Love. The woman who loves her neighbor with a striking love and who clearly derives the sustenance for this extraordinary love from her union with God stands as a powerful sign of the connection with which we are concerned. The religious proclaims to the world that love, and especially continuing growth in love, depends upon our cooperation with the Spirit of Love whom Jesus Christ pours forth upon humanity, thereby accom-plishing the work of redemption. If this proclamation is to be effective, however, two elements must be safe-guarded and nurtured: the fraternal love must be sincere and genuine, or else it will strike no one and will fail to touch off the wonder which points to God; secondly, the person showing this genuine love must also show some clear sign of her relationship with God, or else her love will be viewed as nothing more than the highest flowering o[ the human spirit. A true combination of both these elements can be nothing short of overwhelming. The student will be deeply struck one day, perhaps far in the future, by the inestimable service given him by the sister in the seventh grade; and he will ask him-self whether her union with God, somehow manifest, might have had anything to do with her capacity to love so generously and so constantly. The patient in the hospital will find kindness and competent care in the person of the nursing sister at a time when he is most in need of these precious gifts; he will undoubtedly find himself wondering whether her slightly distinctive uni- form may signify a Power greater than herself gently assisting her human heart. The family in Appalachia or in one of our big city ghettoes, olSpressed and exploited by an unconcerned affluent society, will be touched by the "no strings attached" help given by the visiting sister; the family will see that this remarkable woman is in love with both God and them at the same time, as if the one love is identical with the other. This, then, is one reason (to this writer the most im-portant and most meaningful) for retaining some form of distinctive religious dress. By all means, let sisters continue to experiment with new styles in an attempt to find more appropriate twentieth century symbols of religious profession. Also, let sisters continue to try on new and appropriate fashions which will not bushel-basket that femininity which is absolutely essential for incarnating the love of God in all its breadth and beauty. However, for the reason which we have suggested in the latter part of this article and for other reasons which may be equally cogent, let us not throw out the baby (appropriate and necessary symbolism) with the bath (outmoded and "sexuality neutralizing" costumes). The religious must be in tune with the times, di.stinctly masculine or feminine, a living proof of the connection between true human love and the Spirit of Love. 4, VOLUME.28, 1969 201 THOMAS DUBAY, S.M. Biblical Concept of Virginal Love Thomas Dubay, S.M., teaches at Russell College; 2300 Adeline Drive; Burlingame, Cali-fornia 94010. REVIEW FOR RELIGIOUS 202 Half an eye trained on recent ,religious thin.king in-forms one that a great deal of literature has appeared in the last decade on the psychology of loving in the Chris: tian context. For the most part this has been a praise-worthy effort to broaden the place and sharpen the orientation of human love within the ecclesial commu-nity; yet one still frequently finds considerable diver-gence of view among, religious men and women as to how the generally agreed upon norms are to be prac-ticed in concrete situations. We wish in this essay not simply to tread over worn terrain but to suggest some specifics, specifics stemming from Scripture and virgin-ity. We primarily envision religious women, although with some modifications what we say concerns men as well. Philosophical Roots Even though our main intent is Biblical and practical, we may preface our discussion with several philosophical considerations. In the long run practical solutions to knotty problems are no better than their (often merely assumed and unexpressed) theoretical substructure. At the same time speculation must always be in touch with experience, with concrete, here and now reality. Because she is a person, a human person, a feminine human person, the sister must love warmly. Her love must appear, be visible. Why? Because virginal love is incarnated, not angelic. It is human and a witness to humans. For a reason we shall point out later this is to say that it is affectionate. But because we are at the moment dealing with philosophy, not theology, we may leave the witness aside. Virginal love is incarnated and therefore affectionate because it is human love--steeped in supernatural moti-vation, of course, but still human. In fact, it cannot be anything else but' human. No being can act otherwise than as it is. We never expect a duck to perform as a camel. A woman can love only as a woman, a human being ot the feminine sex. Now human nature is in-carnated spirit, a dual reality, material-spiritual. Man is not monistic. Merleau-Ponty's negation ot a fundamental dualism in man is an oversimplification of human exist-ence. Man is not merely a body-subject, an I-body. The profound dualism in his sense-intellect knowing, to cite one example, is an irreducible pluralism that renders a human monism an inadequate explanation of available evidence. Human love, therefore, must also be dual,, it it is to be tully human and not something else. Like its source, the person, man's love must be rooted in spirit but shown through matter, conceived in soul but en-fleshed in body. Affectionate love is simply love incar-nated. It is a love that appears. One need not syllogize to its existence. As a daughter of Eve the religious woman does not loveproperly and fully until she loves affectionately. She is no exception to the roots of reality, no metaphysical oddity. She loves as she is. There is yet another reason why the virgin's love for 1hen is warm, composite, incarnated. It is a reason rooted in the deepest center of her being. She is good, a person good, and goodness tends to pour itself out. She is a social good, so she must pour herself out into others and receive these others back into herself. A woman (and a man, too, but not quite so pronouncedly) is never satis-fied until she loves. She cannot be satisfied unless she loves, for until she loves incarnatedly she is violating a law of being: goodness goes out; person goodness loves persons and shows it. This ontological factor works in the opposite direction as well. Because she is good and beautiful, the sister re-quires that her goodness and beauty be acknowledged, recognized in a way she can see and experience. To say this psychologically, she needs a strong self image, a self image she can derive only from others, from their appreciation and shown love. This is to say once again that deeply rooted in her human make-up is a need to receive affection. What we are implying, then, is that the religious woman's consecration does not exempt her from the laws of human nature or from the metaphysical structure ot the real. Scriptural Roots But still more must be said. There are supernatural reasons as well as natural ones tot saying that religious are to love warmly. Christian love is human love. It must therefore be affectionate. Shakespeare was pointing in the right direction when he observed that "they do Yirginal Love VOLUME ~'8, 1969 203 ÷ ÷ ÷ Thomas Dubay REVIEW FOR RELIGIOUS 204 not love that do not show their love." x Christ himself was affectionate. He embraced children for no other verifiable reason than to love warmly and to show it. He "looked with love" on the rich young man, which is nothing other than to gaze affectionately. He wept at Lazarus' tomb, a remarkable display of feeling in a man. He who could fearlessly castigate the Pharisees could also correct Martha tenderly by repeating her name twice as a preface to his admonition. The letters of Paul, Peter, and John are replete with expressions of endearment and concern. Where could these originally rough men have learned this Christian way of loving if not from Christ? The Master had already made it clear that a Christian ¯ can be detected in the world by his observable love. Men are to see how we love, be struck by it, and con-clude from this sight who we are.2 Affectionate love can be seen. Cold or neutral love may not be noticed even when it is proved by deed., witness the merely efficient nurse. In any event merely willed love does not draw men as the Christian is to draw them. If the reli-gious is a gospel woman, she is an affectionate woman. She may be nothing else. Practical Implications So much for basic principles. They are plain, hardly subject to hot dispute. Not so, however, with concrete situations, problems, objections. Even a casual acquaint-ance with convent life makes clear that the whole area of close love relationships has been, and still often enough remains, subject to misunderstanding, to excess, to de-fect. One underestimates the complexities and depths of human nature if he believes that in this matter ~pecifics are as easy to handle as generalities. Because we think we recognize the difficulties inherent in our subject, our intent here is modest. We wish to propose some real questions and to suggest, for whatever value they may have, some honest answers. - How does a consecrated woman show a warm love in a manner appropriate to her state? Our first reaction to this question is to note that ordinarily a woman is a better judge of feminine warmth than a man is. And if she happens to be at the same time a holy woman, she knows by a kind of instinct how to love rightly. Yet a man may presume to suggest a few guides. Obviously enough, marks of affection vary greatly with the situa-tion of the recipient. A sister rightly embraces a first-grade boy who has fallen down the staircase, but she is The Two Gentlemen of Verona, Act 1, Scene 2. Jn 13:M-5. likely to show her concern in another manner toward a twelfth-grader beset with a teenage problem. The New Testament offers many examples of what a holy, adult affection is like. There is the cordial, warm greeting,8 the holy kiss,4 the affectionate embrace,~ the loving gaze,n a warmth of manner in speech,r a kindly gentleness in the face of a brother's faults,s a tenderness and love in correcting others,9 a deep interest in the in-dividual and his concerns,1° an openness to all,ix a com-forting of those in trial and sorrowA~ Peter sums it all up in saying that our love is to be sincere and intense.~3 A prayerful study of these texts and many others like them will disclose to mogt of us that we have a long way to go before we love as Christians are supposed to love. Because the virgin is a model of evangelical life, she may not be anything but affectionate. The program of how this is to be done is plain enough in the Gosp.els and Epistles. She will find its implementation a lifetime task. She ma~ find it helpful to, work at this task in her par-ticular examen, taking as her specific guides one Scrip-tural theme or text at a time. Doing this she cannot help becoming a lovable woman. Is there not danger to chastity in this warm love? Yes, of course, there is danger, just as there is danger in the pursuance of any good, even the spiritual goods of the intellect. But one may not always solve "excess prob-lems" by removing the possibility of excess through a radical uprooting of the good. When the Master re-flected on the risk of worldliness in His apostles, He did not meet the problem by shutting off the possibility. Rather He explicity declared that they were to remain in the dangerous situation, in the world, but were to be kept free from being tainted by it.14 It is interesting, too, ~hat nowhere (as far as we can find) does the New Testa-ment indicate a concern about the dangers found in a holy affection. Perhaps the reason is that the genuine SRom 1:7; 16:3-16; 1 Cor 16:19; Phil 4:21-3; Col 4:7-18. ~Lk 15:20; Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 16:20; 2 Cor 13:12; 1 Th 5:26; I Pt 4:14. ~ Mk 10:16; Acts 20:37-8. ~ Mk 10:21. ~Rom I:11; 1 Cor 4:17; 15:58; 16:24; 2 Cor 7:~,I~; 10:I; Phil 1:7-8; 4:1; 1 Th 2:7-8,20; ~:1-7; 1 Tm 1:2; 1 Jn 2:1,7,12,14,18,28; ~ Jn 1,5,11; Jude ~,20. s Eph 4:2,~2; 2 Tim 2:24-5; 1 Pt 3:8-9. ~ Lk 10:41; 1 Cor 4:14; 2 Cor 2:4-8; Gal 6:1; Col ~:12-~. xo 1 Cor 12:26; 2 Cor 12:14-5; Phil 2:17-8; 1 Th 2:11. ~x 2 Cor 6:11-3. ~2 Cor 1:3-4; 7:6-7; 1~:11; £ph 6:22; Col 2:1-2; 1 Th 5:11; 2 Tim 1:16; Phlm 20. xs I Pt 1:22. :~Jn 17:14-7: "They are not oI the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not pray that thou take them out of the world, but that thou keep them ~rom evil." ¥irglnal Love VOLUME 28, 1969 205 ÷ ÷ REVIEW FOR RELIGIOUS 206 man of God and the holy virgin know plainly enough-- because their honesty bares the deceitful motive--why really they are affectionate and how their love is ap-propriately shown. Warm affection is risky for the fool-ish virgin, the worldly virgin, but not for the wise and prayerful one. On the contrary, for the latter this kind of sisterly love protects and fosters her dedicated chastity: "Everyone should remember--superiors especially--that chastity has stronger safeguards in a community when true fraternal love thrives among its members." ~g If a sister is a woman of deep contemplative prayer, we need have little fear that her warm love for others will pose any proximate danger to her purity or to theirs. If she is not a prayerful woman, the opposite may well be the case. May a sister [oster a close [riendship with a priest or layman? At the outset of this article we already im-plied our affirmative reaction to this question. The ex-ample of Christ's love for Martha and Mary and that of the saints for persons of the opposite sex (for example, Teresa and Gratian, Francis de Sales and Jane de Chantal) demand this affirmative response. And so does com-mon sense. Sexual love neither is co-terminous with geni-tal- sexual love nor requires it. The sexes are comple-mentary not only on the physical level but also on the emotional, intellectual, volitional, and supernatural lev-els. an The fact that the consecrated woman benefits from masculine influences (such as teaching, spiritual direc-tion) in her formation (and do not men profit £rom feminine influences in theirs?) suggests that she may grow as a religious woman through friendship with a man. Now all of this is being said with increasing frequency both in print and in private conference. But something else has also to be said. And it is rarely said. That this kind of close friendship be advisable demands conditions and qualifications. Not any apparently good male-female relationship may be said to correspond to that of Teresa and Gratian or Francis and Jane. We have already in-dicated what some of these qualifications are. Most of us would agree that a sister should show a sincere warmth toward all men and women, but we are not agreed as to what overdemonstrativeness may be. For our part we cannot share the view that embracing is a suitable sign of affection between religious persons of the opposite sexes. The current multiplication of tragedy that scan-dalizes the faithful and ruins consecrated lives plainly ~ Vatican II, Decree on Religious LiIe, n. 12. ~ See Chapter 3 of von Hildebrand's Man and Woman for a help-ful explanation of this complementarity. shows how naive this view really is. Some people learn only by personal disaster that they are like the rest of men. A propensity toward physical demonstrativeness suggests strongly that the friendship is not on the high-est supernatural level, that it is not thoroughly immersed in God, in a mutually deep prayer life. Unreasonably frequent or protracted conversations and deliberate ro-mantic daydreaming likewise cause one to wonder whether there is question of the love of the Holy Spirit. The virgin is concerned with the things of the Lord that she may be holy in body and in spirit and that she may .pray without distraction. In our view that priest or sister ~s naive who feels that long and frequent visits, kissing and embracing are conductive to the love of the Chris-tian virgin. If this is what "the third way" means, there is no third way. Even aside from the obvious.question of chastity, one may wonder regarding this type of relation-ship how intently the religious can be concerned with the things of the Lord, how deeply she can be committed to her life of contemplation and apostolic action. From the positive point of view a sister may rest as-sured that her love is fully virginal if the thought of the other suggests to her mind the thought of God; if the relationship really helps her to a deeper prayer life, a perfect observance of her rule, an evangelical spirit of detachment, a more profound loyalty to her own vir-ginal vocation and to the members of her own commu-nity, a ~niversal warmth toward others; if their con-versation or correspondence is concerned mainly with God and His affairs. If these norms for virginal love are correct, one may speculate that this sort of friendship is not at all as common as may be supposed. Is affectionate love compatible with the detachment demanded by the New Testament? Twenty years ago many of us would have returned an unhesitatingly nega; tive answer to this question or we would have at least felt inclined to such an answer. Today we more easily understand that warm love and evangelical detachment are reconcilable, although not too many are able to bar. monize new psychology with old spirituality. The prob-lem here, of course, is not a clash between oldness and newness but between sound psychology and twisted spir-ituality. Both affectionate love and gospel austerity are as valid today as they ever were, for the New Testament plainly teaches both of them over and over again. The simplistic mind is uncomfortable with complex dualities and it seeks to resolve a paradox by denying one pole of it. Two decades ago it was common to deny that warmly shown love was proper in a religious, while today it is popular to say that detachment is passd. Yet the New Testament teaches both the .one and the ÷ ÷ ÷ Virginal VOLUME 28~ 1969' " ÷ ÷ Thomas l~bay REVIEW FOP. RELIGIOUS 208 other. It is the same Christ who demands that we re-nounce all things (Lk 14:33) and who embraces children warmly (Mk 10:16). The same John teaches that we must die like grain buried in the ground (Jn 12:24-5) and yet deals with the recipient~ of his first letter with remark-able terms of endearment (1 Jn 2, passim). The first letter of Peter warns against "selfish passions" (1 Pt 2:11), encourages a joy in sufferings (4:12-3) and at the same time urges intense brotherly love shown with a "kiss of love" (1:22; 5:14). The same Paul who cautions against superfluities and himself has nothing (1 Tim 6:7-8; 2 Cor 6:10) also loves his Christians with the warmth and tenderness of a deeply affectionate father (passim). Nowhere in the new revelation do we read the least hint of a clash. Why? Simply because affectionate love is by no means the same as selfish love. On the contrary, it is often a crucifying love. Showing affection to an attractive person is a delight, to a dull or cold individual it is a thorn. Moreover--and this is important and not always under-stood-- we should not see a dichotomy between loving God wholly and our neighbor warmly. Even less should we suppose an opposition. Precisely because Christian love is both one and incarnated but with several objects (God, ourselves, angels, neighbor), it must be warmly shown. This is why St. Paul looked upon the Romans as "God's beloved" (1:7). Because they were God's dear ones, they necessarily became Paul's dear ones in a virile yet intimate sense. Unshown love is a partial self-contradiction. We find this same warm affection in the most austere and detached of God's saints, for they knew what affectionate love and genuine detachment really mean. They did not live by caricature. One need only read the correspondence of an Augustine, a John Chrys-ostom, a Teresa of Avila, a Francis de Sales to see what we mean, Even John of the Cross (andwho could be remotely tempted to conceive him as lacking in detach-ment?), a man short on words but long on deeds, is said to have walked 30 or 40 miles barefooted to visit his warmly loved nuns at Beas. What we are saying, of course, is by no means opposed to the traditional detach-ment doctrine of these same saints. There is a certain in-tellectual snobbery implied in the suggestion one hears today that the goodness and value of love between the sexes, even between religious, is quite a new discovery unknown to our elders in the faith. And there is no little theological inadequacy implied in thinking that this kind of love somehow rules out an integral evangel-ical asceticism. How does One become affectionate? This apparently naive question is really a worthwhile question, one that is susceptible of several interpretations: How does a sister acquire a warm manner toward unattractive personali-ties? How does one love affectionately who feels no warmth toward anyone? How does a person deepen a warm manner she already possesses to some extent, yet not sufficiently? We shall take up each problem in turn. First, how can a sister who does love some people warmly acquire a warmth toward others whom she finds unappealing? If a woman (or man) can love some per-sons warmly and deeply, her problem is motivational, not psychological, when she is cold toward others. Ba-sically she is capable of full human love, since as a matter of fact she does love humanly the few people that appeal to her. But she does not see that the others are also lova-ble and so she is not at all inclined to go out toward them. She needs to develop a largeness of heart, an op-timism of viewpoint that searches out beauty and good-ness, the largeness and optimism of St, Paul who saw enough beauty and goodness in his new (but far from perfect) Christians that he could view them as "God's beloved." If God loves a man, that man must somehow be lovable. It is our task to find out how. The warmth is then easier to come by. Yet it is not come. by without a concomitant spirit of sacrifice. If affection is to be shown toall men and not only to a select few,~the cross of self-denial must indeed be taken up daily. Otherwise we can-not be disciples, if the mark of a disciple is a love men can see and experience. A more perplexing problem (for the person who ex-periences it) is a total lack of affectionate feeling toward others. The problem is not only perplexing; it is likely to be both deep and of long standing. Its roots go back in most cases to an early home life in which little warm love was shown. Though the adult devoid of affection-ate feelings may say she needs neither manifestations of love from others nor her own showing of it to them, she is nevertheless a psychologically starved person. She may not understand what has happened to her, but she has built walls about her person. She is encapsuled. She is dying a death. She is in a state of psychological famine, dying of lovelessness. What can be done for this person who does not know how to love humanly and in a feminine manner? She may need professional therapy. She surely" needs a friend, a close friend. She needs understanding and ac-ceptance. She needs to learn that she is worthwhile, lovable. When she is accepted, understood, loved suffi-ciently, she will slowly become capable of returning love, of warming up to others. But the process is slow. All concerned with her problem need patience, herself included. + + + VOLUME 28, 1969 209 ÷ ÷ Thomas Duba~ REVIEW FOR RELIGIOUS 210 We may pause here to insist that the deeply felt need (even in a sister) to love and to be loved is no imperfec-tion. On the contrary, the deeper the need, the nobler the woman. It is the person who feels no need that is ill, for she is affectionately numb. On the physical level loss of appetite indicates illness, while hunger points to health and the consumption of vital energy. So also a hunger for love, real love, points toward psychological well-being, for deeply hidden in the recesses of the hu-man person is .the ontological clamor that goodness and beauty be recognized by another's love. Our final question: how does a religious who can and does love warmly develop and deepen her capacity for virginal affection? She must be herself, of course. She must grow normally as a woman with all the inner richness this implies. Genuine love is rooted. It cannot grow from the surface, from an inner vacuum. From the point of view of how this love is to be manifested the sister learns how a Christian virgin loves warmly by ob-serving those among her companions who do know how. Yet affection is not as easily taught as table manners. There is a universality about its signs, but there is also the uniquencess of the individual, and what is more unique than personal love? Still, a sister should be able to learn from the more finely developed among her companions how the consecrated woman shows her love for men. She learns, too, from her inborn reactions toward the opposite sex. Probably one reason why God made the sexes mutually attractive is that men and women learn from mutual relations how to show concern, warmth, cordiality toward members of their own sex. A normal, woman finds that affability toward men comes more naturally and easily than toward women. (And this is surely true also in the case of the man toward women.) Even though she does not show marks of love toward other women in exactly the same ways as toward men, she should learn much from the latter expe.riences, stemming as they do from her inborn feminine inclina-tion. Heterosexual love (which is not, of course, co-ter-ruinous with genital-sexual love), we may then say, is a partial model of human love in general. It is therefore a model for the virgin also, for she remains a sexual being with all the qualities and beauties this implies. The sister further develops her affectionate manner by a careful and prayerful contemplation of the gospel. After she has diligently studied her Christ embracing children for no other reason but to show warmth in His love, "looking with love" (a mysterious phrase) on a rich youth, correcting Martha in so gentle and tender a man-ner, weeping at Lazarus' tomb, she turns for further guidance to John, Peter, and especially to Paul. The letters of these virile (and before their conversion, crude) men are replete with examples of how to show affection in an adult manner. As an evangelical woman the sister should be filled with their spirit and practice. The final source from which the religious learns to love warmly: contemplation, deep contemplation, es-pecially infused contemplation. It is no accident that St. Paul reminds his Thessalonians that they "have learned from God to love one another" (1 Th 4:9). There is no better teacher of warmth and tenderness than He who could utter the divine verse recorded by Luke: "While he [a sinner] was still a long way off, his hther saw him and was moved with pity. He ran to the boy, clasped him in his arms and kissed him tenderly" (Jerusalem Bible). One cannot get more affectionate than this. In the profound center of her own being where Love is more present to her womanly heart than she herself is the sister can find out how to be a loving woman. Though her indwelling Beloved teaches without words, He pours out from her deepest center the very love by Which she loves Him and others. Through the tenderness of His inner infusions she tastes and sees how good He is. She learns from experience that those who seek the Lord want for no good thing. Her good is to take refuge in the Lord she bears in her bosom and from Him she discovers what tenderness is like. So true is it that the contemplative learns from her inabiding Beloved how to be a lover herself, that we would suspect as inauthentic any alleged contemplation that is not accompanied by a warm love for others, or, at the very least, by a sincere, persevering effort in that direction. Contemplation cannot be walled in, aseptic, sterile. By its own inner dynamism, a vertical and horizontal en. ergy, it must burst out into love for men. Together with the instruction of Sacred Scripture and the love flowing out of the sacraments contemplation is the source of deep human love. All of which is to say that the sister must be a Scriptural woman, an ecclesia1 woman, a contemplative woman, if she is going to be a profoundly loving woman. 4. 4. VOLUME 28, 1969 PLACID STROIK, O.F.M. Sanctification and Conquest in the World With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land that we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own (JFK's Inaugural Address, January 1961). Once active faith in God's presence in the world takes hold of a man it begins to give direction to his actions. Not only does God's work really become his own, but also his work becomes the work of God. It is also a fact of experience that as things are it is impossible [or God to Work in this world without us. Very often we speak of God's great gifts to us "and all His marvelous works for us. At the same time we fail to realize the vast interplay and amount of work God has put into our hands to bring these gifts and works to their full development. Just as it is theologically incor-rect and misleading to expect salvation and sanctifica-tion through purely human effort, so also it is misleading to expect salvation even as a gift to come to us without. our effort of respgnse and acceptanc.e of this gift. It is much worse and also very unchristian to think that our faith with its heavy stress on another world and on be-coming holy has somehow absolved us from effort in building this world. ÷ Reconciling Upward and Forward ElYorts Pladd Stroik, O.F.M., is a mem-ber o[ the Francis. can Friars; Pulaski, Wisconsin 54162., ' REVIEW FOR RELIGIOUS 212 Historically it has always been a problem for followers of Christ to somehow bring together the vertical upward effort of sanctification and the horizontal forward effort of human progress and the conquest of the world. Over and over again the questions have been asked: Are they in opposition to each other? Is one just an acciden-tal backdrop to the other? Is there any inner connection between the two? In our present day these questions are extremely fundamental and are at the basis for much of the rethinking and turmoil going on in our religious doctrines and practices. Theologians as well as scientists are fast becoming aware of man's ability in the conquest of nature, the wor!d, and human life itself. This is beginning to put traditional religious ideas out of business. At one time, God, faith, the supernatural, and grace explained a lot of what happens around us. But now, man seems to get more answers and assurance out of things like space exploration, industrial and technical development, and human relations skills. As men put more and more ef-fort into understanding and controlling the universe we touch, see, and hear everyday, there is the conclusion developing that religious ideals and ideas no longer have a place in human life. The simple reasser.tion that God is alive and that He is important is not as convincing nor attractive as a heart transplant or a flight to the moon. That simply will not do. What is needed is a fresh outlook toward the way in which the process of becoming holy is somehow harmoniously interwoven with the human effort exerted in the direction of un-derstanding, building up, and controlling this universe. Such a fresh outlook will demand that we first of all get rid of all our false notions: about God and the world being in opposition to each other; about the supernatural being the best and the natural something that is second best or a mere accidental prelude to the supernatural; about the "afterlife" .being the sole im-portant thing and "nowlife" being a burdensome punish-ment. For many of us this also means trying to under-stand the correct way in which this present earthly life is a preparation for an open direct life with God. It means realizing that the universe is not some accidental stage play wherein what we do or what we build is meaningless unless we did it with a good intention and for the glory of God. What is required is the under-standing that the final coming of. Christ, just as His first coming, is conditioned by the development of man-kind. Because the full glory of Christ is intimately hound up with mankind it is also dependent upon the development of mankind. While the establishment of the new heavens and new earth spoken of in the Apoca-lypse is something Christ alone can bring about, it does not mean that they will appear out of the clear blue sky. Rather the unification that is evidently taking place among mankind seems to warrant the idea that until this unification is complete the entrance of the new heaven and new earth will not take place. The unification of mankind is not some kind of arbi-trary arrangement of individuals. It is in a very deep sense'th+ union brought about by the power and force of ÷ ÷ Conquest in World VOLUME 28, 1969 PlacidSOtt.Foi.lM~., REVIEW FOR RELIGIOUS love which is everywhere at work in the world. It is the same power which was at work on the first day of creation and is at work in the technological develop-ment of the world. It operates also in the specifically sanctifying deeds of the Incarnation, redemption, and their extensions, the sacraments. It is here that we can see the close connection between sanctification and de-velopment of the world. They are two efforts working in the same direction--the unification ~of mankind. Sanctification without the development of the world is unthinkable, just as development of the world without the painful redemptive efforts displayed and symbolized on the cross is an impossibility. The development of the world could not take place unless the effort to get rid of evil and disorganization were made as.well as the effort to see that truth, goodness, and beauty triumph. Sanctification must involve human endeavor and the op-eration of those powers which make a person to be a person, namely, his will, intelligence, and consciousness. As men use these powers in building up the world they are likewise working at their own unification. In this way the upward movement of becoming holy like God takes place while the forward movement of develop-ment of the universe is also taking place. The work of God and the work of man are constantly interchanging. We are not only becoming like God thru our work, but our work is more and more revealing God to us. Far from being in opposition, God's work of sanctification and man's work of building the universe are seen as two sides of the same coin or two paths to the same goal and destination. The sacred and the secular are closer to each other than we realize. Sanctification and Unification of the World It seems to be an unavoidable conclusion based pri-marily on man's experience .that the universe has been in a dynamic process of development and that the develop-ment is still going on. Looked at in its broadest sense, this development is best described as fulfilling the incompleteness of the creature and bringing organiza-tion and harmony to the disorder, failure, and disunity found at every level of created .being. Another way of looking at this is to think in terms of.°getting rid.of the evil, both moral and physical, that accounts for mechanical failures as well as the failures of the human will to choose the good. On this level we can see sanctification and unification working on the same broad principle. Sanctification is directed to furthering the God-centered harmonious functioning of man's powers of intellect, will, and consciousness, while unifi-cation is directed to an increasing organization of .the physical elements of the universe. In both the moral and physical sphere, mankind has had to wait for the proper time and the proper understanding of how these parts can better function together. Between the two processes of sanctification and,unifi-cation there is an exchange and an interdependence. For one thing, the harmonious functioning of man on the moral and spiritual level is obviously tied to a proper development of the physical well-being of the body. It does not guarantee good order on the moral level, but it is a condition. Health and wealth at a certain level are indispensable. We all know and experience that forced poverty has a way of crippling man's judgement of right and wrong, his sense of justice, and his esteem for his neighbor's welfare. Further, we should consider how the spread of the gospel, the development of moral value systems, and the knowledge of the sacramental means of sanctification are all dependent upon the proper use of mass communi-cations and upon a proper understanding of human re-lations and the difl~erent cultural values of a given group. On the other hand, sanctification and specifically Christian holiness and man's moral value systems as they develop and improve do assert a controlling effect on the direction and expression of physical evolution and technological advancement. For a very common ex-ample we can take the peaceful uses of nuclear energy which the moral values of nations are bringing about. Endeavor and Endurance for the Christian Today Because of the close interplay between the develop-ment of the .world and man's union with God, any religious ethic that separates the two is doomed not only to be unattractive but eventually will be proved to be erroneous. A legal morality of do's and don't's must give way to a dynamic morality of conquest. The pro-gram for a Christian today must be one that envisions union with God in and thru the world. In attaining this union, it is fundamental for Chris-tians to accept and understand that the universe by God's plan has been locked dead center on Christ. The world as we know it is headed toward Christ as its center and fullness. Every development both of material growth and spiritual growth is aimed at building up a new heaven and new earth, centered in Christ. In this conquest, the Christian consciously and all men by their very existence are called to collaborate enthusiastically, knowing that by their fidelity and obedience and also thru the work they have accomplished, they are com-pleting this universe. Each person must sincerely work at development. His + + ÷ Conquest in the World VOLUME 28, 1969 O~.M. REVIEW FOR RELIGIOUS own personal development and the conquest of the world are to be done not simply to keep oneself busy and out of trouble but because this effort is vital to the building up of the universe. All effort that promotes and directly increases the general consciousness of mankind is the best effort. The highest moral principles guiding hu-man action are not those which protect and safeguard man's rights and duties, but those Which promote the best development of the person, society, and the world. In other words, those things which are in the direction of growth of the spirit of man are good, and what is best is that what assures the highest development of the spiritual powers of the earth. If our action furthers the unification and development of the world and the peo-ple in it, it is a good action. The question comes up as to how we can determine if our action furthers growth. Basically our general goal is to increase personal responsibility, freedom, and hu-man consciousness. This is not an easy order, and that is "why emphasis must be placed on the three charac-teristics of human endeavor that will allow for the de-velopment of human consciousness and personal re-sponsibility: Purity, charity, and self-denial are three basic strengths which provide for the necessary growth. When speaking of purity it is important to under-stand it in a dynamic sense, not in any passive restrictive sense. Purity is that power which seeks to organize all our personal energies along the lines of personal whole-ness and integrity--getting rid of those elements in us which tend to pull our forces in a thousand disorganized directions. In unifying the powers of man, purity brings about a conquest and achievement which frees the person for an ever greater expression of the power of love. Purity seeks the unification of the person, while charity is directed to the unification of persons among themselves. For many of us love or charity is simply a command to avoid hurting our neighbor or overstep-ping his rights. This is a rather narrow, negative view of charity. It fails to take in the dynamic element of active furthering of the growth of our neighbor and of the whole universe. Love as energy in its widest sense is the power which draws all things together. It has a synthesizing effect. Love when it takes on the form of Christian charity is all the more powerful because it is the effort of unification, but now in Christ and thru Christ. Charity inspired by Christ is charity which moves and advances mankind and the whole universe toward Him. In the final analysis, love is not only positive and dynamic, but universal and totally directed to building up the world into a unity in Christ. For the Christian who is sincerely interested in the true progress and development of the world, the mes-sage of the cross in terms of self-denial, detachment, and renunciation is as important as seeing a computer operate an assembly line and a turbine generator light a city. He knows and experiences the detachment that must go into an enthusiastic collaboration with the whole human effort in furthering the growth of the world toward the fullness of Christ. In accomplishing any ideal, the difficult labor involved is necessarily a victory over selfishness and egotistical laziness. This detachment thru .action on the material of life is a continuation of and is patterned on the method ex-pressed in the Incarnation--immersion and insertion into the world so as to transform and lead the world to God. But experience shows us that the most radical trans-formation of people and things takes place not thru a simple laborious effort to create and produce but thru the endurance of evils and failures, stresses and painful strains including that of death. A world that is still in the process of development must of necessity have fail-ures and faults for the simple reason that it is not com-plete. Thru the plan of God and man's cooperation, the failures can be brought to serve a higher purpose. Even the impurity in a stone can be made to add beauty and tone to the final product. A moral defect thru the trans-formation of repentance can be the occasion of a greater good. All of the suffering involved in the endurance of evil and that of death has for its final aim the union of man with God in and thru Christ. Such union cannot take place without a going out of oneself. Union revolves around love and love means giving oneself to the one loved. Death in our world is the process by which the final and complete union with God is accomplished. It is the decentering of our self and centering on God. This involves a change of state, but in all development at a certain point a complete rearrangement of elements is necessary for the further functioning on a higher level. The significance of Christ's necessary death and His new form of life after it is a fact of history which is able to give validity and assurance to all men that death is not the end of all but the door to a change of life. Contemporary Man and the Future It is easy enough for modem man to exert the effort to build a new world if the dangers and ris~ are not too great. The vast development of the world which we are now experiencing is not an absolute guarantee that man's progress will always be forward and upward. The 4- ÷ .Conquest in the VOLUME 28, 1969 " 217 temptation to revolt in the face of great odds and diffi-culties is as possible as it ever was. As man becomes more complex and his consciousness more highly developed, the possibilities for further progress are just as good as the possibilities for destruction. It all depends how man chooses to use his powers--in the direction of greater growth in true Christian life or in selfish temporary satisfaction. The urgency to get out of oneself and build a better world for all men is not a call to be answered later. The forces involved in a developing universe are forces that are centered in Christ and ultimately in God the Father. Christ's invitation to be with Him and gather or else to be against Him and scatter is both a promise and a threat that either we build with Him or be cast aside into unending disorganization and disunity. Heaven and hell are as real as they are totally opposite each other. Heaven is full of life in perfect harmony. Hell is empty life in total discord. Man at every point in history must simply choose to build the earth and its spiritual forces in and with Christ or to build a "nothing" out-side Him. + 4. + P/~id O.F.M. REVIEW FOR RELIGIOUS CARLO A. WEBER, S.J. The Field oJ Combat: Neurotic or Existential Guilt There is no domain in which the acute problem of communication between theology and psychology is more evident than in the experience of guilt. Stormy en-counters on the nature and origins of the experience, its place in human development, its effects on human lives wage on without much hope of resolution, largely because the language, the symbols, and the context of the discussion are not the same for all the contestants. The field of combat is common to all; but the rules of the game are not ~he same. A split-level mode of com-munication has prevailed. Jung remarked of this en-counter that " . both appear to use the same language, but the language calls up in their minds two totally different fields of association. Both [theologians and psychologists] can apparently use the same concept, and then are bound to acknowledge to their amazement that they are speaking of two different things." And to make the issue even more complex, one can add the profes-sional legalist to the lists. For from yet another stance, the lawyer is also concerned with problems of guilt. The experience of guilt, then, is the common playing field for theologians, psychologists, lawyers. But for each, it means whatever the methodological conditioning of his own discipline obliges it to mean. For the moral theologian, it has generally suggested reprehensibility, culpability, blame-worthiness, sin. For the lawyer, it means, specifically, responsibility before the law, civil or ecclesiastical, or criminality as determined by legal can-ons. And for the psychologist, in sharp contrast, it im-plies rather a first-level symptom, the crippling expres-sion of a depreciating self-concept, perhaps the residue of a super-ego-oriented childhood training. + 4- ,I, Carlo A. Weber, S,J., is Director o[ Psychological Serv-ices; Loyola Univer-sity of Los Angeles; Los Angeles, Cali-fornia 90045. VOLUME 28, 1969 219 Carlo Weber, $.l. REVIEW FOR RELIGIOUS 220 When the discussants in the dialogue use the same word to denote such utterly different things, communica-tion soon dissolves into futile bickering over semantics. Guilt is sin; guilt is crime; guilt is symptom. The vocal sounds one hears in the dialogue alert the same signals; but the phenomena signalized are in no way the same. In such a conversation of nonmeanings, a fruitless and frus-trating collision course is inevitable. It is like approach-ing a railroad crossing without the slightest assurance that the waving semaphore symbolizes an approaching train or an unimpeded right-of-way. One would be better off without the semaphore in such a case; and so we might be better off without the word "guilt." The "guilt-language," as the "God-language" in many instances, or the "soul-language," oi other similar efforts at non-communication might best be scrapped, that we might attempt an uncluttered look at the phenomenological realities and then allow a new language to emerge to fit the reality. Orwell's "New-speak," or Cattell's crypto-scientific system of operational definitions in psycho-metrics may, however wild they first seem, be something of the answer. We might well avoid the confusion that always arises from previous connotations to a word by introducing entirely different sound associations. The present state of affairs, then, is largely one in which the language of guilt tends to divide authorities rather than to aid communication between them. When the psychologist hears his legal associate describe a man's guilt in court and watches him step nimbly through what appears to be a maze of legal fictions, he finds the process frightfully objective, abstract, impersonal, inhuman. But the lawyer is not really describing the psychologist's "guilt." The theologian is properly horri-fied, on the other hand, when he hears the psychologist's attempts to gloss over the reality of guilt and speak of it as some neurotic myth. This, to him, is a form of "psy-chologizing"-- foggy, anarchic, and sentimental. But the psychologist is not, in fact, describing the theologian's "guilt" either; indeed, if he is loyal to his methodology, he has nothing to say of it. One could, of course, con-tinue with this litany of misunderstanding; the cross-cultural impasses are possibly as evident as the semantic circus of an international diplomatic conference. Though it may be next to impossible to draw meaning from this semantic labyrinth, we are, nonetheless, stuck with it. It is of value to note that within the verbal en-tente, orientations which have traditionally set the con-testants apart do emerge. It may be helpful to try to clarify them. For the psychologist, guilt is strictly a sub-jective phenomenon, a feeling, if you will, that can be-come almost the pervasive element of one's inner experi- ence. The psychologist, as such, is little concerned about the external, objective counterpart of the experience. His world, as a clinician, is the perceptual world, not pre-cisely the accuracy of the percepts. Whether one's feeling of guilt, therefore, is rooted in anti-social actions, or in an interiorized, guilt-ridden self-concept is not pre-cisely the point. It is now the individual's feeling; and the psychologist deals with it as such. He also realizes that the intensity of the experience is not necessarily in proportion to the quality of an external action or event. One individual may experience crushing guilt subsequent to running a red light at a deserted intersection; another may remain blandly guilt-free after bludgeoning a harm-less old lady's skull. Such a feeling of guilt is clearly not the function of some specific external action; but it is rather the correlate and the expression of his own inner awareness of his value, or rather the lack of it. The inner awareness is the point of differentiation for the psycholo-gist. For both the moral theologian and the lawyer, however, there is an objective emphasis in the philosophy of guilt. An objective norm which has been violated is the criterion according to which one assesses guilt. That norm, of course, is not the same for both. For the lawyer, it is the civil or common law. For the moralist, it is the "will of God," expressed either through canon law, or the magisterium of a teaching Church, or the Sacred Books, or the natural law. But in each case, the norm is an external one; and guilt is the function of a violation of that norm. Once that has been established, the legalist can turn his atten-tion to the degree of individual-culpability, for example, knowledge of the existence of the norm, consciousness at the moment of violation, presence or absence of over-whelming emotional or physical duress, and so forth. So long as we can reasonably assume some subject-ob-ject dichotomy, these two arrangements appear to be quite different. The moral theologian and the lawyer, both with their own specific articulation of the norm of behavior, regard guilt as the individual's posture be-fore the law; the psychologist sees it more as the individ-ual's posture before himself. That there is room for an overlapping of these dimensions is as true as the fact that the subject-object dichotomy is not crystal clear; but, with that qualification, the criteria are different, and so also are the semantic worlds built around the two points of view. Unfortunately, the tradition of morality in the West has been heavily legal since the days when the Latin rite was imposed on the Western Church. And with the Latin rite came the Roman tradition which was one of law and legal prescriptions. The language and the emphasis of Guilt VOLUME 28, 1969 Carlo Weber, $.J. REVIEW FOR RELIGIOUS 222 the Western Church, when addressing itself to questions of mor~ility and guilt, has been on the side of law. Moral textbooks became classic examples of legal casu-istry. Room was always left, to be sure, for the "subjec-tive," as preserved in the distinction between formal and material sin; but the bulk of any discussion inevi-tably turned about a consideration of the objective or material guilt. Scarcely more than a condescending nod was given to the presence of the subjective element as the final determinant of sinfulness, with something of a begrudging acknowledgement that that aspect, after all, was the most important. But no effort at all was ex-pended, until very recent times, in attempting to provide some phenomenological map of the subjective. Perhaps the futility of that prospect obliged the moralists to turn their attention to the legal puzzle that was, after all, more intellectually satisfying and a good deal more comfort-able. One would suggest, mindful of the discussions swirling about Pope Paul's encyclical, Humanae vitae, that it is clear that the legal emphasis is still the pre[ vailing attitude of the official Church. The rupture within the Church is precisely a function of the person versus Law approaches to morality and guilt. When the law becomes the criterion for human be-havior, the stage is set for casuistic thinking :about morality. This implies a mental "set" in which one is concerned chiefly with the degree of deviation from the norm. How far, for example, can I deviate from the statement of the law and still be safe? Or, at what point of deviation do I stray from the area of safety to the do-main in which I must be classified as a sinner, if it be a moral law, or a criminal, if it be a civil law? Legal guilt is the consequence of straying outside the latitude which the law allows. In that area the legalo-moralist conducts his conceptual jousting. Only recently have attempts been made to bring about a wedding of the law and the personal in the various modes of situational ethics. And this, of course, is both the effect of the communion of psychologists and theologians and a stimulating rein-forcement for it. The norm becomes more an ideal which one strives to approach continuously throughout his life rather than a law from which one deviates. Neurotic Guilt The genesis of neurotic guilt, as described by the psychopathologist, follows a commonly described nuclear process that was most brilliantly outlined originally by Karen Horney. There are four discernible stages. The process begins with a faulty personality development in childhood. The child, whose first self-concept, as such, is the result of the interiorization of the value placed upon him by his parents, sees himself as those significant people in his life see him. If the child is rejected, un-wanted, ignored, neglected, he begins at an .early stage in psychological development to see himself as unworthy, unlovable. This is a fairly obvious situation and need not be explored at any length. The rejected child anticipates rejection' from others because that is the extent of his experience; and he can, in gross instances, unconsciously provoke rejection by hostile, abrasive conduct, precisely because of this expected response pattern. Such a child is almost bound to "always hurt the one he loves." At the other extreme of parental reaction, the child can be overprotected in his early years. The result is the absence of any process of growth into independence. The custo-dial love of the parent prevents the possibility of growth, and the child remains weak, helpless, dependent. In terms of the growth of a self-concept, the child will tend to see himself in the same manner and behave as such. No one is unfamiliar with the suffocating, devouring, .de-structive mother-child relationship, described first by Strecker, who coined the phrases "Morn" and "Mom-ism" in his classic, Their Mothers" Sons. The notion has become virtually a household word since, made even more popular with the expression of theories of a bur-geoning matriarchal society. Interestingly enough, the effect on the self-concept of the child of both rejection and overprotection is ap-proximately the same. These are simply two sides of the same coin. In either case, the child is not being valued for himself. The rejected child is not loved at all; the overprotected child is not loved, except as the mirror reflection of the mother, whose narcissistic needs are pro-jected on him. In both instances, the child disappears. This is also true, but not to the same extent, in the situa-tion where the parents' love for the child is conditional. The child is loved providing he follows certain ground rules established by the parents. Ground rules are essen-tial, of course, but they ought not to be the condition for acceptance. If they are, the child sees himself as valuable and lovable only as long as he continues to ful-fill the regulations for being loved. He ,must continue to perform the tasks prescribed; and, in time, the task-oriented process becomes a way of life. Whether the child is rejected, overprotected or conditionally-loved, the effect, in varying degrees, is the same. The child perceives him-self as inadequate, unlovable, helpless, or constantly in need of proving his value. The moral analogue to the psychological feeling of ineptness or inadequacy is the feeling of guilt. The latter is merely a translation 'of the same feeling from psycho-logical language to moral language. To say, in a psycho-÷ ÷ 4- Guilt VOLUME 28, 1969 REVIEW FOR RELIGIOUS logical context;.that I am weak, flaccid,, incompetent, un-lovable is the same as saying, in a moral context, I am bad, sinful, guilty. The difference here between the neu-rotic guilt and genuine forms of responsible guilt lies in the difference between the phrase "I am bad" and the statement "I do bad things." The former is a description of the basic personality of the self-depreciating neurotic; the latter a description of occasional activity. The most apt expression of the neurotic guilt feeling was given me, quite incidentally, by a woman patient, who was in-credibly scrupulous. For her, every action was a sin. In a therapy session, she remarked, rather in passing: "You know, sin is in my veins." And with this cryptic obser-vation, she sums it all up. "Sin, badness, is as much a part of me as my very blood. It describes my life, my being, my essence, as it were. And since I am, in es-sence, sinful, every action, which, in fact, is an expres-sion of my nature, must be sinful. I shall either discover it there, as the scrupulou

Matthew Godfrey ; The Weber and Davis County Communities Oral History Collection include interviews of citizens from several different walks of life. These interviews were conducted by Stewart Library personnel, WeberState University faculty and students, and other members of the community. The histories cover various topics and chronicle the personal everyday life experiences and other recollections regarding the history of the Weber and Davis County areas. ; 36p.; 29cm.; 2 bound transcripts; 4 file folders. 1 video disc: digital; 4 3/4 in. ; Oral History Program Matthew Godfrey Interviewed By Rebecca Ory Hernandez 21 October 2011 1 November 2011 i ii Oral History Program Weber State University Stewart Library Ogden, Utah Matthew Godfrey Interviewed by Rebecca Ory Hernandez 21 October 2011 1 November 2011 Copyright © 2013 by Weber State University, Stewart Library iii Mission Statement The Oral History Program of the Stewart Library was created to preserve the institutional history of Weber State University and the Davis, Ogden and Weber County communities. By conducting carefully researched, recorded, and transcribed interviews, the Oral History Program creates archival oral histories intended for the widest possible use. Interviews are conducted with the goal of eliciting from each participant a full and accurate account of events. The interviews are transcribed, edited for accuracy and clarity, and reviewed by the interviewees (as available), who are encouraged to augment or correct their spoken words. The reviewed and corrected transcripts are indexed, printed, and bound with photographs and illustrative materials as available. Archival copies are placed in the University Archives, which also houses the original recording so researchers can gain a sense of the interviewee's voice and intonations. Project Description The Weber and Davis County Communities Oral History Collection include interviews of citizens from several different walks of life. These interviews were conducted by Stewart Library personnel, Weber State University faculty and students, and other members of the community. The histories cover various topics and chronicle the personal everyday life experiences and other recollections regarding the history of the Weber and Davis County areas. ____________________________________ Oral history is a method of collecting historical information through recorded interviews between a narrator with firsthand knowledge of historically significant events and a well-informed interviewer, with the goal of preserving substantive additions to the historical record. Because it is primary material, oral history is not intended to present the final, verified, or complete narrative of events. It is a spoken account. It reflects personal opinion offered by the interviewee in response to questioning, and as such it is partisan, deeply involved, and irreplaceable. ____________________________________ Rights Management All literary rights in the manuscript, including the right to publish, are reserved to the Stewart Library of Weber State University. No part of the manuscript may be published without the written permission of the University Librarian. Requests for permission to publish should be addressed to the Administration Office, Stewart Library, Weber State University, Ogden, Utah, 84408. The request should include identification of the specific item and identification of the user. It is recommended that this oral history be cited as follows: Godfrey, Matthew, an oral history by Rebecca Ory Hernandez, 21 October and 1 November 2011, WSU Stewart Library Oral History Program, University Archives, Stewart Library, Weber State University, Ogden, UT. Matthew Godfrey ca. 1999 1 Abstract: Matthew Godfrey (June 30, 1970) was born in Ogden, UT. He spent his childhood years in North Ogden and attended Weber High School. Matthew attended Weber State University, where he got a master's degree in accounting and was an All-American on the track team. Matthew sat down with Rebecca Ory Hernandez in the Mayor's Office before the end of his third term. He shares stories of his life growing up and living in North Ogden, as well as his education and serving as Ogden's Mayor. He reflects on his time running for Mayor and discusses some of the major economic and development projects he worked on in his several terms after elected to beautify Ogden City. His father was William V. Godfrey, mayor of Harrisville. Matthew is currently working as a consultant and continues to serve on various community boards. He is married to Monica. ROH: Today is November 21, 2011. Seated in Mayor Matthew Godfrey's office are Rebecca Ory-Hernandez and Mayor Godfrey. We're here to talk about your history. Let's start with where and when you were born. MG: I was born here in Ogden at the old McKay Dee hospital that was across from Weber State. That was June 30, 1970. ROH: Did you have any brothers or sisters? MG: Growing up, there were five of us. I have an older sister, Malinda, then Jason and then me. After me were Deborah and Laura. I had another sister who died when she was eleven days old; her name was Rebecca. ROH: How much older are Jason and Malinda? 2 MG: The first four are all two years apart. Malinda was born in 1966, Jason in 1968, I was in 1970, and Deborah in 1972. Rebecca was born in 1974, and then she passed away. I think Laura was born in 1976. ROH: Did you grow up in Ogden? MG: I grew up in Harrisville. We lived right behind where the Wal-Mart is now. We grew up in the same house my mom grew up in. I never distinguished it much from Ogden. ROH: What are the names of your parents? MG: William Verl Godfrey and Carol Jeanne Godfrey. My mom went by Jeanne and my dad went by Bill. ROH: Tell me a little about your childhood growing up in Harrisville. MG: It was a wonderful place to grow up and I had a great childhood. We had land around our homes so we would go and play and ride bikes with friends. We did a lot of fun things together as boys—myself, my brother, and my cousin, after he moved in behind our house. It was a great time growing up. We got along really well. I enjoyed spending time with my family. It was kind of a family compound. Next door to us were my mom's parents; behind us were our cousins, the Fields, which was my mom's sister; behind them, later on, the Montgomery's built, and they were the family of another of my mom's sisters. ROH: Where did you go to school? MG: I went to Pioneer Elementary School, Walhquist Jr. High School and Weber High. Education was never stressed by my parents. Both of them went to a semester or two of college but didn't graduate. They never pushed it or said it was 3 important that we be good at math or reading or other topics. We got good grades and we all liked school, but I don't recall my mom saying I needed to go to college. I enjoyed school both academically and socially. I ran for some offices and had good experiences. ROH: What offices did you run for? MG: Eighth-grade president and then student body president at Walhquist Jr. High School. ROH: What other extra-curricular activities were you involved in? MG: I ran track. I really wanted to play basketball because basketball was a cool sport and track was not. I tried out for the basketball team. I was the last kid cut. I still remember that Lynn Wood and I had a one-on-one game at the end of practice to decide who was going to get on the team. He beat me by one basket. In hindsight, it was a good thing because if I'd made the team I would have pursued basketball and that's certainly not where my skills were. I played football my eighth and ninth grade years, which is tough when you're only a hundred pounds. I got my bell rung plenty, but I had a good time. My science teacher got a ferret and there were two of us that would go and take care of it. Those are the only extra-curricular things I did. ROH: What about high school? MG: I ran track and cross country. I was on seminary council my junior year and I was seminary president my senior year. It was against the rules to be a student body officer and be on the seminary council, so when I was asked to be on the 4 seminary council, I couldn't run for office. I think it was a good thing. I did debate as well. High school was a fun time. ROH: What was a typical day like for you in high school? MG: We woke up around 6:30 and we always had breakfast as a family. We'd pray and read scriptures as a family, then rush off to catch the bus to school. In high school, my parents had a car for all the kids. They didn't want us to have our own car. It was an ugly green GMC pickup truck that we were embarrassed to drive. We thought it was such an ugly truck. My junior year, much to my surprise, my dad bought a Fiat X-19. My dad bought it from my uncle who was glad to get rid of it. My junior and senior year I was able to drive this cool little sports car to school—when it worked, which it didn't much of the time. School would start around 7:15 and end around 3:00. Then, I would go run track or cross country until 5 or 5:30. I was always famished when I got home, and we always had dinner as a family around 6 or 6:30. ROH: What did your parents do for a living? MG: My mom stayed at home with us. My dad was an insurance agent. He had a tiny little yellow shack of an office until I was in my senior year in high school, when he went to work for Heiner's Insurance. My dad was the mayor of Harrisville and a councilman before that. I think he ran for mayor the first time while I was in high school and he lost by one vote. He ran again and won the second time around, which was just after I was married. He had a heart attack and was in the hospital the night he won the election. He came out of open heart surgery and found out that he'd won the election. 5 ROH: Was he influential in your decision to run for mayor? MG: He told me not to run. Almost twelve and a half years ago I went to talk to him out in the garage and said, "Dad, I'm thinking about running for mayor." He said, "Why would you do that?" I gave him my reasons. He said, "I would advise you not to do it. Maybe I'm being over-protective." He shared with me some experiences he had had of people being mean-spirited. He said, "Your friends and the people you go to church with are going to yell at you and say terrible things about you and I would rather you not have those kinds of experiences." He said that if I did decide to run, he would be supportive. I didn't have a political bug in me—we had to deliver fliers when he ran for office and I did not enjoy that at all. I didn't have much interest in politics, even though I'd run for two offices in school—that was more for fun. After I decided to run for mayor, my dad was a great support. ROH: Back up a little bit and let's talk about what happened after high school. MG: I got a track scholarship to Weber State. ROH: What was your major? MG: My undergraduate was finance and then I went on to get a master's degree in accounting at Weber, which was never the plan. The plan was to go away for a Master's degree in International Business. The NCAA kind of messed that up for me. At that time, you couldn't transfer schools without losing a year of eligibility. When I finished my undergraduate, I wanted to get a Master's but I couldn't transfer. Weber had two graduate degrees, the Masters of Business and the Masters of Accounting. I figured it out with the counselor and I could get four 6 bachelor's degrees or I could get a Master's degree, otherwise I would lose a year of track eligibility. So, I ended up getting a Master's in accounting even though I had no interest in accounting. I got them together and graduated with both degrees in 1995. I started in '88 and had a two-year mission within that time. ROH: Where did you go on your mission? MG: I went to Caracas, Venezuela. It provided a lot of great experiences and learning opportunities. A mission is an amazing amalgamation of experiences. It is extraordinarily difficult physically even though I ran track all through school. In Venezuela, we would walk several miles and then knock on doors all day in the sun. It was hot and humid and you're wet all day long. Continual rejection is something you have to learn to live with. Then you have to learn to live with another person. You don't choose your companion; they're assigned by the mission president. I think I had seventeen companions in twenty-four months. That's unusual. That was good but also hard. I had quite a few companions who were having problems and the president sent them to me—sometimes he told me in advance, but usually he didn't. After the difficult companion transferred the president would say, "Thanks, that's the longest he's ever stayed with anybody." It was a valuable experience to learn to live with somebody you don't know and who is often from another country. Usually you're living with someone with whom you have nothing in common except religion. I really like to get out, work hard and do things. I had companions who wanted to do what was easy, fun and enjoyable. Learning how to resolve those kinds of issues was a good experience and I think great preparation as well. It 7 was neat to see people change their lives as they listened to the Gospel and decided they were going to get baptized. I just got a call last month from a lady I baptized who was here in Utah. It was neat to talk with her and hear what was going on in her life and what she was doing. Those relationships were meaningful and they continue to be very rewarding experiences. I wish I would have kept better track of the people I knew there. It seemed unmanageable at the time, but today with Facebook and email it would be a piece of cake. The postal service is terrible in Venezuela, so I knew most of my letters wouldn't make it through anyway. ROH: What did you think about the contrast in geography? MG: It was very tropical and there was a desert in one area where I served. It's so beautiful and so ugly at the same time. It was fascinating to see how poorly the country was run; they had so much by way of natural resources and amenities of the earth, but they did a poor job of managing it. It was sad to see the poverty. I had heard about poverty, but when you see the depth of the poverty and the pervasiveness of it, you feel overwhelmed by it. It's not like you can help them out of it alone. That was hard. All I could do was share a message that could help their lives get better and hope that over time they could improve their situation. It was a beautiful landscape and I enjoyed the climate knowing I wouldn't choose to live in that kind of humidity. It was fun knowing I was going to be there for two years and then come back to this area. ROH: Did you run on your days off? 8 MG: A handful of times, but my philosophy was that if I put all my effort into serving well on my mission then things would work out with track. ROH: Did you get back into track and school when you got back? Or was it very different when you came back? MG: I got right back to both school and track. I hadn't run for two years, so it took time to get back in shape. I had more injuries after my mission, which could have been from the time off, but I was very poor and didn't change my shoes as often as I should have, so a lot of it I caused myself, I'm sure. I'm fairly bullet-proof with injuries, but I had a few years where I was injured quite a bit. Weber didn't put much money into their track program, even though it was probably the best athletic program they had. We won more championships and had more national recognition, I'm certain, than any other team on campus. It's not exciting when the cross country team places fourth or seventh in the nation. The coach was great and became a very good friend. I learned a lot from him about track and about life. The same with my high school coach—Dick Connelly. He passed away a few years ago. High school is such an impressionable time in your life and I thought I was a really good kid—seminary president, didn't go to parties and always did what I was supposed to be doing— but he pulled me aside several times and told me I needed to be doing better. It was shocking to me because I thought I was too far on the good side and needed to let my hair down a little. I was really grateful to him. He coached me well in running, but also in life. He was a wonderful man. ROH: Once you graduated from Weber, what did you do? 9 MG: I was married in the summer of my junior year of college, which was in 1993. Monica and I were introduced by someone on the track team. I had a freshman who had a locker next to me and from the time he came in he wanted to set me up with somebody that he knew. To be honest, I didn't trust his judgment. He was really fun-loving and kind of goofy, and I didn't know who Monica was but I was certain that she would not be someone I would be interested in. He kept asking and asking, and finally said, "Just meet her." We set something up where we would just pass each other and meet. We did that and she was much better looking than I had expected. We went out on a date—an almost-blind date. It wasn't wonderful. It was a wedding reception for a friend of mine. It was one of the most spectacular storms I've ever seen during my life here—in that six hour period of our date, it snowed probably two feet. We had a heck of a time getting from Ogden up to the valley and we ended up helping cars on the side of the road. It took us two hours to get to my friend's house and it was eleven at night by the time we did. It was still snowing, so we talked about just spending the night at my friend's house. Monica called her parents to ask and they said, "No way, if we have to come get you, we will, but you're not spending the night with a blind date in who-knows-where." After I thought about it, I thought it was probably what I would have said too, as a parent. So we made the trek back. We were married six months later. ROH: That must have been a busy time for you—a Master's program and track and getting married. You had a lot of change going on all at once. What was that like? 10 MG: It was fun and hard, for the reasons that you've stated. I was taking a lot of credit hours. One semester I had either twenty-eight or thirty-one credit hours. It was really hard and I was really busy. I was also adjunct faculty and I taught between one and three classes a semester. I was the evening assistant manager at Godfather's Pizza too. I was doing all of that and newly married and trying to figure out how a marriage works. My parent's relationship and her parent's relationship could not have been more different. I knew that and she recognized that our parents interacted in very different ways. That was hard because I had only seen things one way and she had only seen things one way. We had to figure out those dynamics and the personality of our relationship in a time where there was already a lot going on. ROH: Was she a student? MG: Yes. She ended up getting a degree in communications, which we both regret. She wanted a degree in nursing but her dad talked her out of it. He didn't want her to be a nurse, but said that she should go to school to be a doctor. She wanted to stay at home and raise our children, but that knowledge base would have been very valuable for our family. In one way, it was good because communications was a faster degree and she was able to get her degree quickly. She got pregnant our senior year and we had our first child about six or eight weeks before she graduated. My father would come over to our little house and watch the baby while we were both in school. ROH: Where was your first house? 11 MG: It was 780 32nd Street. It was a tiny little house but we loved it. We were able to buy it because my wife had saved up some money. We drove past it because it was near where we were renting and we talked the owner into selling it to us on contract. We gave him the $2,000 that Monica had saved as a down payment. ROH: What was your first child's name? MG: Natasha was our first. She was born in '95. ROH: My wife stayed home with Natasha and I got a job at Lomega as a financial analyst. I made $28, 500, which was really upsetting. I felt like with the master's degree and good grades—I was second in my class—I had hoped for more. But it was a job and I took it. It was a good experience, but I didn't stay long. I was there for about six months when I got a call from Dutch Belnap who used to be the athletic director at Weber State. He said, "Hey, Matt, I have these guys that are looking for a chief financial officer, are you interested?" I said, "Heck yeah." I talked to them and worked with them for three months. It was a disaster. I won't be disparaging about what went on. It was not what I wanted to do or where I wanted to work. Luckily, I was able to go back to Lomega and they took me back in a position that was better than the one I had left. I ended up being a program manager and supervising the release of new products. Lomega started out with a ditto drive, a tape back-up drive. Later, I moved to the zip drive. It was very challenging and very fast paced. I was laid-off, which is a great story. I was in meetings until 6:30 or 7:00 p.m. one night and my card wouldn't work to get back into my office. Somebody 12 came by and let me in. I went to my computer and my login wasn't working. I called the IT guy and said, "Hey, what's going on? My computer and my card aren't working." Then, all of the sudden, I realized I had been laid-off. We knew there were going to be massive lay-offs, but there were only two of us doing program management for the zip drive in the entire company and we went to our boss and asked, "Should we be worried?" He said, "No, if you guys weren't here, there's no one to do your job. There's no way you could be let go." So we both thought we were safe and yet we both were laid off. That didn't last very long, but they didn't bring me back to the same position. It was about two weeks later that they brought us back and they had me doing something similar but it was in the division in San Diego. I flew out Monday morning and flew home Friday night. I had been called to be a bishop in my church about a year before. I worked that schedule for about six months when I decided I couldn't do it anymore. I had been applying for other jobs but my stake president worked for the city and suggested I apply for a job in neighborhood development with the city. I had been doing some real estate on the side. I applied and didn't hear anything for three months. Then I was called in for an interview and again didn't hear anything for quite a few more months. I left Lomega and worked at the city. I wasn't very excited about that. ROH: What year was that? MG: I think it was the end of 1998. I told the city I couldn't live on the salary they gave me and that I needed to continue to do real estate on the side. They said that would be okay. I basically helped with neighborhood development. I went to city 13 council meetings and presented new projects. I kept thinking that the way the city was being run didn't make any sense. We had huge problems. Downtown was a mess and was continuing to cave, yet it seemed like we were the only ones doing anything to rebuild the town but we were doing it up in these neighborhoods. I said, "Why aren't we doing some mixed-used development downtown?" They laughed at me and said, "That's what we should be doing but the economic development guys aren't going to go for anything like that." I made other suggestions and kept saying, "Why doesn't the city do this?" or "Why doesn't the city do that?" I was brand new. I only worked for the city for six months total. One day, I got a call from the CAO, which is the guy right under the mayor. He said, "I understand you have a lot of ideas about what should happen in the city." He asked me to meet with him. I went to his office and started sharing the ideas. He was mostly listening and from time to time would write things down. Then, I got to crime and I said, "We need to focus on crime. Factual or not, there's a perceived crime issue. People think Ogden is riddled with crime and I think there needs to be a real emphasis on reducing crime." He put down his pen and said, "There is nothing that can be done about crime. Crime is driven by demographics and the economy and there's nothing you can do to change it." I said, "Well, I think we can change it and I think there are cities across the country that have, though it will take a lot of work." He put his pen down and folded his arms and I thought, "Well, this is over." I didn't say that, but I thanked him for his time and left soon thereafter. This was in the spring—in March. 14 I went home that night and thought, "Nothing's going to change." Until there is a vision and somebody who has a desire to make something happen, we're in a vortex and this town isn't going to escape. The guys running the city— the CAO—didn't believe things could change. I was upset by it and asked myself if I really wanted to stay here. I felt like I was on the Titanic. A week later the mayor announced he wasn't going to run for re-election. ROH: Who was the mayor? MG: Mayor Mecham. He was having heart failure. Nobody knew it at the time, but he was getting a heart transplant. He was a nice man, but he had several people in key positions that weren't making anything happen. I said, "Good, hopefully there will be somebody who jumps in the race who will do something." Then Garth Day announced he was going to run. He was just indicted up in Morgan County and sent to prison for fraud. He was on the city council and I had watched him flip-flop on issues until it drove me crazy. One day, I got up and spoke out about an issue because he was pushing an ordinance that had to do with the city yard-care regulations. They were saying, "We have these ordinances that require people to take care of their yard, but people don't." Garth Day was trying to get something passed where you'd put a big billboard, placard-type thing up in the person's yard that said, "This person is not complying with Ogden City regulations." He said, "If we do that, maybe we can shame them into compliance." While I was attending the meeting as a staff member, I figured that since I was also an Ogden resident I could address them as a constituent. I said, "What I think we should do is not embarrass people into 15 doing it, let's just enforce the law. I am certain that if you started enforcing the ordinances, you will change behavior. We just need to give citations and let their pocketbook change their behavior. If you put the signs up, they're just going to tear them down." I got in trouble the next day from my boss who said, "You should not be speaking out at these council meetings." ROH: Who was your boss? MG: Aaron Wolf-Burtling. He said, "I understand, but let wisdom dictate. We need the council to approve our plans." I said, "I know, but it was a dumb idea." He said, "I know, but you still need to be careful." Anyway, I had seen Garth and I thought, "He cannot be the next mayor. He'll destroy this town!" I like Garth; he and I developed a good relationship, but he was not the one to run the city. I kept waiting to hear who else was going to run. I heard there was another guy that everyone acknowledged was kind of a crazy guy. So, it was kind of depressing. There were some great people at the city and I'd rubbed shoulders with a lot of people who were really capable. There were some fantastic people at the city who wanted to do things but had been here for years and maybe just accepted that this was the way it was. I went home one day and said, "Monica, what would you think if I ran for mayor?" Her father was a state senator at the time and had been chair of the Weber County Democratic Party. He was very well known as a physician in town and very well-liked by everybody. Between my father and my father-in-law, you'd think that politics was kind of ingrained in me, but I had never had a desire to run for political office. My wife 16 and I hardly ever talk about politics. She was shocked. She said, "Why would you do that?" I said, "Who's going to run for Ogden City mayor if I don't? The town's in bad shape and it pays $70,000 a year. You're not going to get the capable executive who wants to come because he thinks this would be fun. No one is going to leave their career to be the Ogden City mayor." ROH: Give me some examples of some of the businesses that were leaving at that time. MG: Weber State. They had a downtown campus that they abandoned during that time period. When there was an Ogden City Mall downtown, Weber State had an office there. Weber abandoned that, for safety reasons. Nordstrom left. ATK Thiokol was here and they took off in the late '90s. There were little shops and little stores all around that shut their doors. ROH: Downtown Ogden was the premier place to shop. MG: That was before there were national chains, to be fair, but those slowly closed. It was sad. Generational businesses were going. ATK was a significant and high-paying employer who uprooted. We had salvage yards in what is now our central business district. That was my point to my wife: "There's no one who's going to take this on." We had our own business, a real estate holding and management company, so we decided that we were in a position where we could run for mayor. We talked about it and I talked to some people around town. I talked to my father-in-law and asked what he thought. He liked it. He said Ogden needed somebody with new ideas and new passion. He gave me a list of people to go talk to about it. After about a week of talking to a couple people every day—I still 17 worked at the city—I got called into the city attorney's office. One of the attorneys sat me down across the desk and said, "I understand you're thinking about running for mayor." I said, "How did you hear that?" He said, "Word has gotten back to the mayor that you're talking to people around town. Have you decided?" I said, "No, I haven't, I'm just kind of going through the process of trying to figure it out." He said, "You can't do that and be an employee here. If you're going to work for the city, you have to work for the city and not campaign to try to beat your boss." I said, "I'm pretty sure my constitutional rights give me the right to run for office if I want." He was the nicest guy and I said, "You don't really want to be having this conversation with me, do you?" He said, "No, I don't." I said, "You were sent to do this." He nodded. I said, "Well, I'll tell you what, you can go and tell them I've made up my mind and I'm going to run for mayor. You don't have to fire me, I'll quit." I went home and told Monica. ROH: I don't understand how that could be legal. MG: It wasn't legal and he knew it wasn't. He was sent to talk to me and later I found out why. It was because the mayor had somebody who was running and he didn't want me running against him. I'm sure that the CAO didn't want me running either because it was clear that his ideas and my ideas weren't aligning. I was twenty-eight at the time. I went around and talked to everyone about it. Inevitably, as I went around to people like, John E. Lindquist, and they'd say, "Why don't you run for city council first?" I'd say, "I don't have any interest in a political career and spending time to work up to become mayor because Ogden has problems now. If you and others think that my ideas are good ones and that I 18 can help turn the tide for the city, then great, I'm willing to do it. If not, I'm not going to try for the council." John A. Lindquist said, "How can I help you?" I said, "I need money." He pulled out his checkbook and wrote me a check. I felt like I was on cloud nine because I had the support of John A. Lindquist, who was the patriarch of the city and he'd just endorsed me. That was a real turning point for me. From there it was a lot of campaigning. ROH: Today is December 1, 2011 and we are in the office of Mayor Matthew Godfrey. Present is Matthew Godfrey and Rebecca Ory-Hernandez from Weber State University. We'll pick up today from where you started campaigning for mayor. MG: People started calling me and I had a few surprise phone calls from businessmen who said, "I want you to meet with somebody. He's run political campaigns across the country and he was a political advisor to Ronald Reagan." I met with the gentleman and he was very helpful. His name was Chuck Bailey; he's passed away since. That began the journey of knocking doors and meeting people and trying to win an election where you're virtually unknown in a community. It was probably the end of May when I made the decision and then in June I had my campaign declared. There were a lot of us who ran. My strategy and belief was that I needed to knock on every door in the city. I wasn't sophisticated enough to know that you don't knock on every door—you only knock the doors of those who actually vote. I was fortunate enough to win in the primary in October and then the office in November. ROH: What was a day in the campaign like for you? 19 MG: I had my own real estate holding and management company which I'd been building for several years and was doing full-time. I had three days a week that I would go and run that business. In the evenings, I would knock doors from five until 8:30 or 9:00. During the day, when I wasn't knocking doors or working, I'd organize volunteers and put together materials. There's a whole logistical side of it, with vendors and signs, and I had to organize volunteers for much of that. I knocked on doors Tuesday night through Friday night and then all day on Saturday. I learned that you can't go out at 9:30 a.m. or even 10:00 a.m. on Saturday, which was strange for me but for other people that was still sleeping time. ROH: How many volunteers did you have? MG: It was mainly family and friends. One of the ones who helped me a lot was Brandon Stevenson, who is now a city council member. We'd gone to high school together and I knew who he was but we weren't friends. I was better friends with his little brother. I got a call from Brandon saying he wanted to help and he was extremely helpful. He helped knock on doors and campaigned in his neighborhood. A lot of my family came out and knocked on doors and handed out fliers and put up signs. In the last campaign I had a large group that came to help, but usually it's a small group willing to put in the time to help you out. ROH: How much money were you expected to raise for your first campaign and what was your platform? MG: The most that had ever been raised previously was $14,000 by Mayor Mecham. I figured that if I raised more money than that, then I'd be in good shape. I ended 20 up raising about $28,000, and I was still outspent two-to-one. I think Bob Hunter spent $64,000 or something like that. I had probably as many signs out as Bob did, but I remember all of his four-by-eight signs had pictures of himself placed on top the week before the election. It was like Bob was everywhere. It was discouraging and we thought, "There's no way. He's spent way more money and put out more fliers and more signs. He's inundated the town with Bob Hunter." The platform that I ran on was three very specific things: lowering taxes, economic revitalization, and reducing crime. There were also components of that like getting into neighborhoods and making a difference, but I thought that those three main ideas were what people wanted. I had plans for each and everything mapped out. I still have the brochures—I kept them so I would remember what I told people I would do. We would have meetings with my directors where we would go through and check some of them off. Some of them came off the list because I came into the office and realized it was a bad idea. I should say; I realized it wasn't the right place to put resources. Things changed as I learned more, but we really focused on accomplishing what we told people we were going to do. You naively think that people will remember what you told them you were going to do and when you'd tell them you did it, they would applaud. To this day, when I tell people, "We lowered your property taxes three times." They say, "No, my taxes go up every year." I say, "No, your city property taxes were lowered three times." Nobody remembers and nobody believes it, but it was important to me and, I hope, to our team that we did what we told people we were going to do. 21 ROH: What was your reaction to winning your first campaign? MG: I was surprised. My wife and I worked really hard up until the last day and did everything we knew we could do. Bob Hunter came over to my house the morning of the election. He gave us flowers and said it had been great to run against us. He was a real gentleman. He said, "If you win, I'll be your biggest supporter." I thanked him. After he left, I said to my wife, "Not only has he outspent and he's everywhere, he's now out-classed us!" We went out to breakfast after that and we've actually made it a tradition that every four years on the Tuesday of elections, we go out to breakfast as a family. As you wait, it's a very anxious day. It was a fun evening that night at my house. Bob had rented the Radisson Hotel and had a fancy shindig there across from the city offices. It wasn't as advanced then as it is now—at that time you had to have somebody there at the recorder's office in order to relay information. I had someone down at the office getting the tallies and we were calling him and getting updates. As the results came in precinct by precinct, I think we won every single precinct. There may have been one or two we didn't win, and we only barely won each precinct, but one after another we won almost all of them. I think it was down to the second or third to the last when I did the math and realized we had won, there was no way he could beat us. It was surreal. I don't think anyone in the room thought it was going to happen. That's the moment when you give your wife a hug and kiss and say, "Now what do we do?" We needed to go and shake Bob's hand and thank the community, so when the results were in, we went down to city hall. They were relaying the data 22 from the old council chambers and it couldn't have been a colder reception by everybody. We all felt so awkward when we went in. There were a few token congratulations, but mostly it was really gloomy and we felt like complete outsiders. Bob was gracious and we thanked him. He reiterated his promise to be our biggest supporter. He is a very close friend and ally. I have appreciated that and really respect him. We left soon after because it was so uncomfortable that night. I think most everyone there supported Bob and had expected Bob to win and they were worried about the change of the new guy coming into office. I had to sell my business because I wanted to start working for the city right away. I was coming in and meeting with people and trying to get to know what was going on. They were nice enough to give me an office. It was in a corner by the library and had a lot of old books in it. They put a desk in it for me. The mayor did not support me. He was going to remain neutral in the race, but after I won the primary he came out and supported Bob. He was not cordial to me. I had made no bones about my intent to replace two of his main people. I'm sure if a mayoral candidate were saying that about my people, I'd feel the same way. I started work in that little corner and I worked pretty much every day. I met with people and started to form a budget and a plan. I started figuring out who my team was going to be. I went up to Weber State and met with Mike Vaughn, Dick Richards, and Chuck Bailey, some guys from Iomega and other members of the community that I trusted as good business minds in order to figure out, "What do I do? How to I transition this kind of an organization? Do I come in and take it slow or do I come in and make changes right away?" We had 23 a lot of dialogue as a group and laid out a plan, which was to take things slow— to come in and learn the landscape, let people prove themselves, and make changes as they became necessary. We transitioned quickly between November and January when I was thrown into office. The mayor had one meeting where he met with me and it was fascinating because he didn't have a computer on his desk. When I came in, there was not a single file in his desk. I'd asked for the meeting to have him pass along nuggets of wisdom and projects and whatever else he felt like he should pass on to me. It was a very brief meeting. He gave me a handful of suggestions; there was an individual that he said, "Whatever you do, don't fire this person." He said, "Of all the conferences and conventions you should go to, this one is the most valuable." He said a couple more little things and that was it. It wasn't, "Here's what we're working on, here's our strategy, here's the lay of the land…" We really started from scratch. Luckily, the administration stayed. I was so new. I had been here about two months when Christie, who had been his admin and was mine, came in and said, "So, are you keeping me?" I said, "Of course, why would you think not?" She said, "We didn't know if you were keeping me or if we were leaving." I said, "I'm so sorry. It never even crossed my mind." I had no idea that they often change out administrative assistants. She was a phenomenal assistant. Those kinds of things were all new to me, but luckily Christie was there and helped out a lot. The CAO and the economic director both resigned the day I took office; I had said I would replace both of them. I felt that they were not doing a good job, but 24 my intent was to work with them and if they could step it up. We hired Stuart Reid to be the economic director, and brought Nate Pierce up from within the organization to be the CAO. You're inundated when you're new. Everyone wants to meet you and you have a million new best friends. You go through a process where your just trying to figure out what's going on and what's important while you're building your team. It takes time to figure out how to work together as a team. Mecham's style was very different than mine. There were a lot of changes. We put more resources into the police department and into economic development while we were cutting taxes. We had to make significant changes in the organization while we were making those things happen. We tried to ease into them gradually, but from the city's perspective, it was lightening speed and dramatic organizational changes almost overnight. ROH: How would you describe your style? MG: I am very team-oriented. I believe in having a clear vision of where we are headed and what we want to happen, then establishing clear goals and giving people responsibility to make those components happen. I think my role is to make sure there is that vision and then to push the organization, to make sure that they know that we're going to make these things happen. My role changed over the years, depending on who was there. For example, Stuart Reid was a very strong leader and liked to own everything that was in his box. He did not want anyone meddling in economic development, which was too bad because I loved economic development. He wanted complete control and so I just held him 25 accountable for the outcomes and he would deliver. He had his own way of going about it and he wanted to be left alone. On the other hand, our current economic director wants me to participate and comes to me for help. That's Richard McKonkie, a wonderful man who has been the deputy director of economic development in the city for many years. I'm fine adjusting my role depending on what is needed. Some departments do everything on their own and as long as they're producing their outcomes, that's all I care about. It's been fun to see the changes in the organization and how my work has changed. ROH: How many terms have you been mayor? MG: Three. I'll be finishing up twelve years as mayor. I've been here longer now than anybody except Lorrin Farr, who was the first mayor of Ogden. He didn't actually have elections. He was appointed and once a year at church he was sustained as mayor. He went to serve a mission and another mayor came in and Lorrin Farr came back after his mission and served a few more years. I think he served twenty-three years as mayor. He had quite a different environment. ROH: Who appointed him? The church? MG: Yes, basically. When they settled the territory, people were given assignments to go and settle different areas and fill different roles. ROH: How would you summarize your first term? MG: It was hard. The council relationship was really difficult. I was, obviously, brand new to politics and leading an organization of this size. City government was very different from the private sector. I knew it would be challenging, but in my first meeting with the chair of the city council, he told me that his relationship with 26 Mayor Mecham was terrible, that the council hated Mayor Mecham and Mayor Mecham hated the council until the last two years. He said, "The mayor learned he had to come to us and listen to us and once he figured that out, it was fine." I went back after this meeting and my staff said, "Don't you dare do what that arrogant bugger is telling you to do." I also knew that Mayor Mecham had serious health problems in those last two years and he wasn't working as much, so maybe that made him easier to get along with. I took my staff's advice and tried to be cordial and work with the council, but the chair would chew me out for not going to him about things. I said, "I have advisors and they are the people advising me on things. That is not your role." It was a difficult relationship for a few years. In hindsight, I wonder what would have happened if I'd gone to him and said, "Sure, I'd love to partner with you." If I'd made them feel included and a part of things, I wonder if it would have calmed the waters. I would love a chance to go back and try to change that dynamic. It was really hard to get projects through. It was an ambitious agenda. We wanted to recruit 2,000 jobs to the downtown, 2,000 people living in the downtown area, and the last one I think was 200,000 square feet of new retail, office, and entertainment in the downtown area. That was hard because there hadn't been new housing in the downtown area in over 120 years and the businesses were leaving. From the time I was elected to the time I took office— Nordstrom had already left, J.C. Penny announced they were leaving and Mier Frank announced they were leaving. I thought we were going to be rehabilitating this mall and it emptied out within days of my taking office. That was challenging 27 because the community loved that mall and preferred it to the Newgate Mall. The community wanted Nordstrom and J.C. Penny and Bon Marche back. I can't tell you how many times I heard that. Well, we tried. Nordstrom was livid with Ogden because they had tried to stay and when they had come out for a trip, apparently they had a meeting scheduled with the former mayor and his economic development director and Nordstrom got blown off. The economic development director was skiing and the mayor wasn't available to meet with them—and it was literally one of the Nordstrom family members there for the meeting. After getting blown off, Nordstrom said, "We're done." They wanted their space rehabilitated, they wanted their entrance re-done, and they wanted to know there was a commitment to seeing the mall flourish. Apparently, the owner of the mall had died or gone bankrupt and so Nordstrom was coming to make sure the city was monetarily committed to the mall, but the city blew them off and they said, "We're out of here." That started the chain of events where all the anchor tenants vacated the mall. We met with Mier and Frank several times. We flew back east to see them. It didn't work out. The feeling was, "This mall is never going to work. You're going to have to tear it down." We told the community that all the developers were saying the mall had to be torn down and the universal response from the community was, "It's a beautiful mall and it's only twenty years old, you can't tear it down." We were saying, "Nobody wants it. If we want a unique retail and entertainment center, we're going to have to tear it down." The community was 28 angry, understandably so. They didn't understand why we had to put money into this and why we couldn't just get Nordstrom to come back. We announced the river project, which was a sixty-acre development project on both sides of the Ogden River that we wanted to start. That meant we were going to have to be buying homes. When creating an RDA at that time, we had the ability to use eminent domain to acquire those properties. People were livid. It barely passed in the council. It was very difficult and was controversial. There were always huge groups of opposition when we did these projects. We did several projects on 25th Street, like the five-acre parcel that had been empty for forty years that we wanted to rebuild. Many members of the council and much of the community wanted to do this stuff for free and nobody wanted any risk. It doesn't work that way. It's our town and we need to invest in our own community. It was very challenging. We didn't have any money, so we had to be really creative in how we moved forward whether it was rebuilding the mall, developing the river project, or redeveloping 25th Street. Wall Avenue was a disaster, there were two different salvage yards in that area—our central business district had two salvage yards. We had to get those out of here and buy up property. ROH: How did you manage that? MG: We were very creative in finding little pockets of money. One of them was the IRS building, when we came into office, the IRS was reported to have been looking around for a place to build a new campus; their buildings were old and non-functional. I was thrilled when I heard about it. As soon as I hired Stuart Reid, I said, "Stuart, here's a contact. Our guy has been working on it. Will you 29 call the IRS and tell them that we'd like them to move downtown." They had already looked at downtown and said nothing suited their needs there. Well, Stuart and his guys found two administrative orders signed by the president; one said if there's downtown space available, then they needed to occupy it; the second said that they had to use a historic building if one was available. We found a historic building in downtown and took it to the IRS and said, "You have to come. Here's a site. It's downtown and a historic building we want you to use." They said, "No, we're not going to do it." I wasn't in the meeting, but it was reported back to me that the IRS was told, "You will do it or we will sue you for not following your own rules." Can you imagine doing that to the IRS? So, kicking and screaming they came. We purchased the property and sold it to a developer and we actually made a little money in the deal. Those early projects were critical to revitalizing the downtown area. It gave us a story to take to other people, "Look at this, here's a new development on 25th street and here are these new buildings downtown and all these new jobs coming to the area." Little by little we would build on the success and get people to come. Virtually every time we had to come up with some creative incentive to make these things come together. People will never appreciate how challenging it was. In fact, the development director came in one day and he said, "Do you see my hands?" They were all red. I said, "What's going on?" He said, "I'm losing the skin off of my fingers. This is so stressful. I can't sleep at night because I'm trying to figure out how to bring these things together and now I'm literally losing the skin off my body because of the stress." 30 We had a city council member who sort of had this constant theme of, "I'm supportive of the project. I just don't think we should be funding it. If it's such a great idea, the private sector should do it." It was like, "Where is a decayed downtown where the city just steps aside and the private sector just comes in and solves all the problems? I want to see the economic model where that has ever worked." It hasn't. Cities have to jump in and take part. We heard that all the time and it was like their justification not to participate. One council member had her daughter going around in the river project handing out fliers that told them what they had to do to stop the project from going forward. It included some kind of lawsuit or legal action that they could take against the city. I understood voting against it, but why in the world would a city council be acting against it? She too supported the project; she just didn't think the city should fund it. We kept asking her how to fund it without the city taking the primary role, and of course she had no suggestions. Apparently, it was just that the way we were doing it was wrong and there was surely a better way to do it but she didn't have any idea what it was. The same thing happened with The Junction. The same city council member opposed it. Mary Hall was the biggest opponent to all the things we were trying to do. It took about a year for us to realize we had to tear down the mall—it was about 2001 when we realized we had to take it down. We were talking about it all through 2000 and I think we finally got it down before the Olympics. We had to create some anchors and draws for the Junction. There were three key pieces to make the Junction work. One was the Tree House, 31 which eventually got put together but was so hard. The Tree House was one, the second was the Salomon Center, and the third was the movie theater. I got several phone calls saying the Tree House wasn't going to come, but they hung in there through great difficulty and eventually they did. That piece came together and the next was working with Larry Miller. There's a huge story behind that, but Larry Miller finally decided to build theaters in the downtown area just to help out the community here. Larry asked me if he would make money if he built the theaters in Ogden. I told him I didn't know if he was going to make money but commented, "We need you to come and do it because you have the Midas touch. If you come to downtown Ogden and build this theater, I'm convinced that the rest of the mall will come together and the downtown area will revitalize." That's turned out to be the case and he's made money. He's been very pleased. He told me that before he passed away. They agreed to come in if we got the Salomon Center. Tree House was already moving forward, expecting that we were going to do the rest of it. The Salomon Center was tough because the private sector wasn't going to do it unless the city was committed. We ended up having to be the owner of the property. We got a lease from two different entities that were going to run it. One was the Gold's Gym who also runs the Flow Rider, iRock and iFly. The second was the Fat Cats, which includes Costa Vida and the Pizza Factory. They agreed to lease the building from the city and we were using tax increment to fund about half of the construction cost. Once again, we had people saying, "This is never going to work. You're crazy. You're going to bankrupt the city. If this is such a 32 good idea, why wouldn't the private sector do it on their own?" We heard it over and over. I was sued personally as well as in my capacity as mayor. I had to hire a personal attorney out of my pocket because they sued me as a candidate and the city couldn't cover my attorney costs. ROH: Citizens of Ogden? MG: Some were citizens of Ogden, a lot were not. Dorothy Littral sued me and ended up losing. The judge ordered her to pay my attorney's fees. Those were dark days. There was a petition drive going on to stop the Salomon Center. If they got a certain number of signatures they could get it on the ballot and we knew this was going to be a tough project to explain to voters. This was a blue-collar community and it was not lost on any of us that going out to these sixty and seventy year old retired Hill Field and railroad workers and say, "We need to build a center that has indoor skydiving and it's going to be good for you. You need this." We knew it was a tough sell, but we also knew we needed to do something unique that would have a regional draw. It was going to be impossible to communicate in a way that our demographic was going to grasp. A referendum was going to be challenging. I went home one day and said, "Monica, if they get the signatures, we're done. We won't get the Center, which means we won't get the theater. Nobody is going to come to our town if we've got twenty-acres of city center sitting fallow." We barely had four votes on the council. I asked Monica if it was okay if I used personal money to make fliers and spread them out. The city couldn't use money to tell people not to sign the petition. After work, I would go home and print fliers 33 and deliver them. My wife was so awesome. She would go to the places that were allowing people to set up booths to sign a petition and she would go to the owner of the place with a flier and explain to them why it was so bad to have people signing the petition. She called me one day just sobbing because she'd explained it to a store owner and he was not very nice about it. People in line to sign the petition had been very rude. I felt so terrible—here I am making my wife go out and do the dirty work for what the city needed. ROH: What year was this? MG: It would have been 2005. Those were really dark times. If the Junction didn't happen, the town was done. It was hard to come up with an optimistic vision of what might happen if the Junction didn't get built. Luckily they lost their lawsuits and didn't get enough signatures on their petitions. We barely got enough votes to get it through. One of the former council members came and spoke at the meeting the night of the last vote to get the Salomon Center moving forward. She said to the council, "You know better." I'll never forget her words and her fervor. She said, "You guys are smarter than this and you know better than to approve this." It was a 4-3 vote, barely passing. A couple of them lost their seat because of that vote. That night, there were several that were claiming that Larry Miller wasn't going to build a theater and that it was all a farce and this was all going to collapse like a house of cards and we were indebting our citizens. We knew it was a huge gamble, but we knew that anything less was sure to fail. We needed to do something big enough to show that this was a new Ogden and a new vision 34 for the community. We didn't know if it was going to work. We had done our research, but none of these things had been built in a community our size before. We knew it was a roll of the dice, but we were obviously thrilled a year later when it was successful. Even now, in this recession, they have done remarkably well. ROH: What about the economic development along 25th Street? It's doing so much better. MG: Luckily, we had some great anchored tenants on 25th Street and unlike the rest of downtown, we weren't working from scratch. We had Roosters and Great Harvest that were doing great. MG: [Addition submitted by Matthew Godfrey] I believe the year was 2005. That was a dark time for all of us that were working so hard to turn the city around. It felt like mission impossible and that everything that could go wrong did. The financing was enormously complex and it was challenging to keep all of the players in the project from the private sector engaged because they were taking a big risk and were being bloodied by the CAVE (Citizens Against Virtually Everything) people in the process. I was working long hours and it was highly stressful. What made it bearable were all of the good people that stepped up to help. We had citizens that I hadn't met previously who showed up to support the idea. Dave Hardman from the Chamber of Commerce and Dan Musgrave from Downtown Ogden Inc. rallied their organizations to show up to the city council meetings and show support. I believe the contrast they provided against the negative people helped us get the four votes we needed to move the project forward. We feel gratified that the project worked as we had hoped. The Salomon Center was built, Larry 35 Miller theaters and Boyer built out their portion. The hotel was even completed east of the Salomon Center as we had planned. The Junction has been a catalyst for further redevelopment in downtown and has been the regional attraction we hoped for. I will always be grateful for those people that stepped up when times were hard. My family was always there. My father passed away during my tenure as mayor, I think about him often. My wife has always been and incredible support. I couldn't have asked for anything more than she provided. My parents as well as Monica's parents were equally supportive. My kids took a lot of grief from other kids in school because of the things I did as Mayor and I feel terrible that all these people that I care deeply about had to suffer for what I did at work. Hopefully, we made a difference in the community. We exceeded all of our goals and ended up recruiting over 8,000 jobs, leading the nation in job growth my last year in office. We were also able to recruit over $1.2 billion of private investment, redevelop over 130 acres of downtown with another 80 acres underway. We facilitated the building of well over half a million square feet of office space and in the process lowered crime by over 30 percent. We left Ogden City in a much better financial position then we found it, having established a "rainy day" fund for the first time in the city's history, to my knowledge. We were able to turn the tide on some of the historic housing in downtown that had turned into terrible rentals and recruit home ownership back to the area. We also added significant amounts of open space, new trails, kayak parks and other recreational amenities. We cleaned up the extremely blighted Ogden River 36 and made it the public asset it should have always been. We lowered property taxes three times and never raised them. Along with all of that there were many projects that we weren't able to finish that we really wanted to complete. Connecting Ogden to Snowbasin is a project that needs to happen. It will create the opportunity for Ogden in terms of new high-paying jobs, new tax revenue and retail that wouldn't come in any other way. I'm sure I've studied this issue in more detail than any person on the planet and I'm convinced of the good it will do for Ogden. There were many projects and initiatives we worked on that I regret not being able to finish. The last year or so in office, it felt like the City Council and other members of the community felt like we had done enough. I don't think they understand that if we don't continue to improve our town it will decay. For all of the enormous difficulties of serving as mayor for 12 years, I am grateful for the experience. I hope we have made the Ogden City better for the coming generation.