St Andrews Seminary - Mapav Yearbook (Rochester, NY)

Page 44 text:

S A T O R Fifth Year Class History Much water, many exams and many events have seen the under side of the bridge since that morning in the year of grace 1934 when eight and twenty lads, green as the proverbial grass, entered the hallowed portals of Saint Andrews Up the stairs fold ones, we were led, into the classroom dedicated to freshman education. There we sat, too overfawed to speak or even look around. Then one by one the professors entered, and gradually the stiffness wore off. The day came when the majestic fourth year condescended to ask us for a ball game. The result was that we circled the bases a few more times than they did, much to their chagrin. Then the exams were hurdled, and finally june, the beginning of a schoolboy's Utopia, arrived. September of 1935 found twentyfthree young men surviving, and still eyeing the horizon with hope and expectation. They had at least one sat' isfaction-they were no longer the infants of the school. Next door were fellows even more untutored and naive than themselves, and what a satisfaction that was! Presently we were intro' duced to Caesar and found that Gaul, like a shamrock, has three parts. We learned also that if we kicked a beaverfboard wall, the wall would not be all there. Exams gradually became the expected interruption of an otherwise happy life. At the beginning of our third year, we found that twenty-three had become seventeen. Over' tures were made to join the A. F. of L. to elim' inate any further casualties, but nothing came of FRANCIS DoNovAN, '40 now assumed a very blase and sophisticated attif tude. Scholastically, it blazed the usual path fahemll and athletically it had begun to show the superiority which was to carry it to the height of the sport realm. Came September, 1937. The class of '40 dis' covered to its amazement that the roll included only thirteen souls. Consternation gave way to cold calculation, but to no avail. Try as they might, they could not buy or even trade a class' mate. Efforts to murder off other members of the school proved hopeless, and the matter was dropped. Turning to other fields, the highfschool seniors conquered all opposition in the fields of baseball, basketball, and football. When June rolled around, they conquered even the exams By this time the faculty had taken pity on the boys of 1940 and by running Wantfads and attending all the auctions, managed to pick up nine new men for the class. Thus twentyfone men answered to the rollfcall in September of 1938. All twentyfone of the boys immediately set to work to master a new field - College. At the present writing, three quarters have gone by and summer approaches fast. Next year we will be the peerless seniors and set the scholastic trails ablaze as none of our predecessors has ever done. fWe can dream, can't we?J. It is our fond hope that the class may continue in the future as it has in the past, and that all those who are now included in its number may reach their ultimate goal. it With its advance in seniority, the juniorfclass 'fs ,Cv Q eqS'Q'ga.. -' -2 e. sv' 9 .s...f jKGT'?J TO A RoB1N Glib little bird with crimson breast, Shy little creature, never at restg Singing your song the liveflorig day- Flying to God, with your song you pray. DONALD MILLER, '41 tliirtyfsix

Page 43 text:

1 9 3 9 FIFTH YEAR First Row-Left to fright: JOHN FEENEY 1 in 'ff' fill! 'H I jf I ' f Sacred Heart, Rochester EDWARD BUCKLEY A ffff ' f Q f Sacred Heart, Rochester THOMAS BORRELLI f-ff - St. Anthony's, Rochester FRANCIS DONOVAN ffff Immaculate Conception, Rochester JOHN MORPHY f f f St. Patrick's, Rochester CHARLES WOLFE ffff St. Boniface, Rochester Second Row-Left to right: x CHARLES LANGWORTHY 'Ziff' I, xx f Q Our Lady of Good Council, Rochester RAYMOND MOORE W J' ' -Immaculate Conception, Rochester GEORGE JONES f I' f f St. Augustine's, Rochester JOHN DUFFY 1 ' K lk f A S3 - St. Monica's Rochester IGNATIUS ST. GEOIQE V' V f Q f f St. Francis Xavier, Rochester PAUL MURLEY X264-044'Cf9f4 954' 4 f f Sacred Heart, Rochester EDWARD REDDER . - f- -We I f f f St. Johns, Clyde Third Row-Left to Tight: . -ig GERARD TSCHIDERER W f f f Holy Apostles, Rochester ROBERT EDELMAN ' , ww f Sacred Heart, Rochester HERBERT HARTMAN f f St. Ambrose, Rochester JOHN LYNCH 'Z ' if 'f-J '1ff - ' f if Corpus Christi, Rochester FRANK MUELLNER fd f f f Holy Family, Rochester JOHN KENNEDY f :P-71 M -- 7 1- 1 ' 'I ' 'f ujzimmaculate Conception, Rochester GEORGE HYNES E-0023, ffff Sr. Amis, Rush thirtyffiue

Page 45 text:

1 9 3 9 The Failure of Success The answer to the question Who is success' ful? is marvelously uniform among our moderns - misled as they are by the miasma of materialf ism. The definition proffered by a young salesman sums up many opinions heard at random on various radio quiz programs such as The People Speak and Man in the Street. In answer to the query, Who to your mind would be a sucf cessful man? , the salesman began with the prof longed expression connoting the birth of an idea on such programs, and drawled out an uncomf fortable Well! After this painful introduction he said, A successful man would have lots of money, a car with a radio in it-and he wouldn't have to work. He'd wear classy clothes and wouldn't have anything to worry about. And thank you, Mr. Lem E. Guess, cut in the announcer, Take home a box of our waterf proof crackers. The people have spoken! Ah, there's an intelligent young lady . . At this point the program was interruped for a special bulletin announcing the successful ter' mination of one of the more recent wars. I cannot recall who won, but I can safely say that it made the world a better place to live ing rather, it would have if another war hadn't broken out with a Week. Mentally I picked up Mr. Guess' definition to examine it. It could readily have been labeled lucid except for the fact that this adjective conf noted depth and had therefore to be discarded. The thought of the few men who might be placed in this vague catagory of successful men startled me, and that is where this essay began. The consensus of modern opinion on success, while not as elementary as this salesman's, is nevertheless just as superficial. Some of the more enlightened of our contemporaries have decided that success is psychological. But, paradoxically enough, their psychology never considers the psyche fsoulj, and is therefore a psychology of sense alone. Most of their theories of success narrow down to the absence of pain, which they admit is only possible in death, or nonfexistence, as they like to style it. Cinemaddicts worship continually at the thrones of movie heroes and heroines, most of whom have their semi-annual ventures on the sea of matrimony well played up by the press. Hero' worship, in fact, seems to be a favorite American sport, although our heroes are as ephemeral as Mayfflies and of as little consequence. Still a more outstanding example of success is the latest crop of European dictators, who live surrounded by bodyguards, lest they who have risen by the sword should perish by it. But we know that the head P. VINCENT PORTER, '39 which wears the crown always rests uneasy. Too often the man we admire would gladly change places with us. The fact that so many apparently Hwellffixedu individuals take the easy way out each year causes those of us who are considered failures to wonder whether being a success is so very desirable after all. Cn the other hand, we do not contend that this inherent desire to success is wrong. It is good for man to have this urge to achieve things and make progress. The impetus to succeed is one means of distinguishing man from the brutes. But today there are many false ideas of success currentfideas begotten of materialism and liberalism. By choosing the wrong idea of sue' cess, man may degenerate into an animal, and attempt to succeed only by preying on his felf lowmen. The obvious fact is that there exists but one road to success for individuals and states alike -- the road pointed out by Christ and His Church. A return to that road is the only assurf ance we can have of becoming successful, for all other roads are but deadfends. Individuals and nations must get back to that road from which they have been sideftracked by disastrous mirages. Responsibility for the failure of success weighs heavily on men themselves, for they have made the universal idea of success something subjective-standardized or crystallized, if you will, in the minds of men into some vague half' truth. In reality success must be objective and independent of what men think, it is essentially the same for all men, not because of any consent of the people, but rather, because it is established in the very nature of men. In this light, success consists in a conquest over the difficulties en' countered in daily life-difficulties that might otherwise keep us from a knowledge of the Truth and from the possession of Happiness. This conf quest includes as a prime requisite the subjection of our difficulties and trials, in the sense that they are to be used as a means to the attaining of happiness. Another error in the world's idea of success fbesides the fact that it has no right to an opinionl is that it is a negative idea. Avoid hard' ship was the keynote of the salesman's theory as well as the psychofanalyst's. These subjective views lack a positive aim because they do not meet issues, but only avoid them. They are basic' ally untenable because of their very superficiality. Many will disagree with this view, yet they will find that the evidence they employ to demonf strate a man's success becomes the very proof by which they will brand him unsuccessful, if they but consider the evidence from reason and ex' perience so amply demonstrated in our daily lives. thirtyfseven