St. Joseph’s Memorial Chapel: Holy Cross’ Historic Event Hall?

Throughout the history of the Church, the saints have said plenty of things about St. Joseph, a man who said nothing about himself. St. John Henry Newman, a 19th century English literary and theological giant, says of St. Joseph: “His was the title of father of the Son of God, because he was the Spouse of Mary, ever Virgin. He was our Lord’s father, because Jesus ever yielded to him the obedience of a son. He was our Lord’s father, because to him were entrusted, and by him were faithfully fulfilled, the duties of a father, in protecting Him, giving Him a home, sustaining and rearing Him, and providing Him with a trade” [1]. St. Teresa of Avila, a 16th century Spanish mystic, Doctor of the Church, and reformer of the Carmelites, says of St. Joseph: “As [Jesus] was subject to St. Joseph on earth – for since bearing the title of father, being the Lord’s tutor, Joseph could give the Child command – so in heaven God does whatever he commands” [2]. St. Joseph was declared “patron saint of the universal Church” by Pope Pius IX in 1870 [3], a title which was celebrated by Pope Francis in his 2020 Apostolic Letter Patris corde [4], written for the 150th anniversary of the declaration.

The Church affirms time and time again St. Joseph’s crucial role in the Holy Family and subsequently in salvation history. Next to the Blessed Virgin, he is our greatest intercessor and exemplar of everyday virtue. He is also the role model for masculinity and fatherhood, making him the perfect patron saint for the chapel of a Catholic men’s college, which was what St. Joseph’s Chapel was back in 1924, when it was consecrated.

On April 21st, 2024, Holy Cross celebrated the 100th Anniversary of the St. Joseph Memorial Chapel with a celebration of Holy Mass featuring alumni, faculty, staff, and students of the College. President Rougeau gave opening remarks, Bishop McManus was present among the faithful, and three college choirs joined in song to commemorate the event [5]. What better way to celebrate Holy Cross’ stunning, historical chapel dedicated to the father of the Holy Family? A few more events took place to commemorate the Chapel’s 100th Anniversary – on March 23rd, 2024, the College Choir and orchestra performed pieces that were performed at the chapel’s original dedication, and this past November the College held a special Mass for All Saints’ Day featuring the Gospel Choir of St. Augustine’s Church from Washington, DC.

However, on March 19th, the Feast of St. Joseph, the College barricaded the doors of the Chapel, removed the altar from the sanctuary, replaced it with armchairs, and moved the Blessed Sacrament to the downstairs tabernacle. By 5 PM, security was guarding every entrance, and students were prohibited from entering. This was because of a panel event which would take place in the Chapel’s sanctuary. The panel featured Dr. Anthony Fauci and his wife, Dr. Christine Grady, in conversation with President Rougeau and his wife, Dr. Robin Kornegay-Rougeau. The panelists were invited to speak about how they have “navigated their personal and professional paths; how they have balanced demanding careers with family life; and the lessons they have learned along the way.” In the promotion for the panel, the College called it “the culmination of our celebration of the 100th Anniversary of St. Joseph Memorial Chapel.”

At the beginning of the panel event, Michele Murray, the Senior Vice President for Student Development and Mission, remarked that the College was delighted to host the panel “in honor of St. Joseph.” What could be more unrelated to the celebration of a Catholic chapel or St. Joseph than a panel event whose topic had nothing to do with the Catholic Faith, and whose main guest is not a practicing Catholic [6]? A Fenwick Review writer in attendance remarked that only one of the panelists explicitly mentioned God. In fact, in order for the event to occur, the College needed to strip the chapel of the qualities that sacramentally defined it as a Catholic chapel – the Blessed Sacrament and the altar. St. Joseph Chapel was reduced to an event hall, devoid of the sacred.

Is St. Joseph Chapel primarily a beautiful, old, event hall, whose function is to host the College’s most prestigious guests? Does it deserve to be celebrated merely for being a beautiful building, completely stripped of the features which define it as a place of worship? Can the College celebrate a “culminating event of the 100th Anniversary of the Chapel” while completely dismissing its sacred purpose and its patron saint?

The College held no special devotional events for St. Joseph’s feast day, no additional Masses to mark the “culmination” of the Chapel’s 100th Anniversary, and barricaded its entrances as early as 9 AM. By the time I arrived at 4:45 PM, security was blocking every door and prohibiting students from entering, even for personal prayer. The panel event ended at 8:30 PM, and as a result the regular 9:00 PM Mass had to begin late. Students were not allowed to enter the Chapel until minutes before the Mass began. So, even the regular sacramental activities of the day were pushed aside for the panel event.

It is a great privilege to have a beautiful chapel on campus, and an even greater privilege to have St. Joseph as its patron. What can be said of a College which “celebrates” its chapel and its chapel’s patron saint with an event that has to do with neither? Was St. Joseph’s Solemnity just an excuse to host our prestigious guests in the campus’ most beautiful building? What might the College’s attempt to celebrate the Chapel on St. Joseph’s feast day without an emphasis on the sacraments, or any religious element, reveal about its commitment to its Catholic tradition?

Endnotes

[1] John Henry Newman, A Triduo to St. Joseph, “Day 2: Consider the Glorious Titles of St. Joseph.” Newman Reader. https://www.newmanreader.org/works/meditations/meditations8.html#triduojoseph

[2] St. Teresa of Avila, The Life of Teresa of Jesus, trans. Kieran Kavanaugh, O.C.D. and Otilio Rodriguez O.C.D. (Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1995), 79-80.

[3] Pope Pius IX, Decree: St. Joseph as Patron of the Universal Church, Dec. 8, 1870, https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/quemadmodum-deus-20726 

[4] Pope Francis, Patris Corde, Dec. 8, 2020, https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_letters/documents/papa-francesco-lettera-ap_20201208_patris-corde.html

[5] William McHale, Holy Cross Celebrates the 100th Anniversary of St. Joseph Memorial Chapel, May 3, 2024, https://hcspire.com/2024/05/03/holy-cross-celebrates-the-100th-anniversary-of-st-joseph-memorial-chapel/

[6] “Doctor Anthony Fauci on why he left the US government | BBC,” BBC News, December 1, 2023, YouTube Video, 3:43-4:51, https://youtu.be/3p6N6Lt3fo8?si=UPGSCkVxyzl-Qzyx. 

Holy Cross Holds Sexual Health Trivia Night Hosted by Well-Known Sexologist Goody Howard

Goody Howard, MSW, MPH, a nationally acclaimed sex educator, came to Holy Cross on February 12th for an event titled “The Birds and the Bees...and STDs.” It was sponsored by the Office of Title IX & Equal Opportunity, as well as Health Services, Student Wellness, Relationship Peer Educators (RPE), Student Health Awareness Peer Educators (SHAPE), and the Student Government Association (SGA), and was advertised across campus as a “sexual health education trivia” event with a “live Q&A.” The event was held in the Prior Performing Arts Center and gathered a crowd of nearly fifty students. 

On her website, Howard describes herself as “your favorite sex educator's favorite sex educator”[1], dedicated to “empowering through sexual exploration, education, and awareness”[2]. She also advertises “Goody Gear”[3], her merchandise, including items like graphic hoodies and shirts that read “Masturbation: i’m rubbin’ it”[4], “DILDO DEALER” [5], and “got toys?” [6] Additionally, her website has a wide selection of sex toys listed under a section called the “Adult Toy Store” [7]. She also advertises various workshops such as “Rideology,” a sexual fitness class, “Lick!” and “Lip Service!”, which are “penis-focused” and “vulva-focused oral sex workshops,” and “Play Date!”, a “pleasure event” about sex toys [8]. At Holy Cross, she hosted “Sex Trivia!”, an event aimed at testing participants’ “sexpertise” and whose booking fee starts at one-thousand dollars [9]. 

She began the event with a slideshow describing her biography, featured speaking topics, and a list of organizations which she has been featured on. Among these organizations is Pornhub, the most visited pornographic website in the world, Sister Song, an organization credited with creating the term “reproductive justice” and dedicated to increasing access to abortion, especially for women of color, and XBIZ, a sex industry news source. Presumably having been informed about what she is and is not allowed to promote at a Catholic institution like Holy Cross, she expressed brief concern and promised to be “on her best behavior.” What then followed was a quiz-game about the human reproductive systems, STIs, and contraception with prizes for the top three scorers. 

The trivia questions included,  “Which condom brand is most likely to break?”, “What are the side effects of hormonal birth control?”, “How long can sperm survive outside of a human body?”, “How many kinds of orgasms are there?”, “Should heterosexual couples use condoms for anal sex?”, “Are semen and sperm the same thing?”, “Can you get pregnant while on your period?”, and “Can lesbians get STIs?” After each question, she gave her own answers and answered questions from the audience. She explained to students several aspects of the reproductive systems and sexual intercourse, such as the difference between the vulva and the vagina, how the menstrual cycle affects the immune system, and how sperm function in relation to semen. She also noted that “squirt” is a term which refers to fluid that is expelled from the Skene’s gland rather than urine, and explained how to perform manual-vaginal sex when one has long nails by using gloves and cotton balls. She also touched on several points about contraception, such as the fact that Plan-B becomes less effective as one’s body weight increases, that lamb-skin condoms only prevent pregnancy and do not prevent STI transmission, how to use the website for the “ONE Condoms” brand, which offers condoms in custom sizes, and that heterosexual couples (in “perfect practice”) should use condoms even for oral and anal sex.

After the quiz, the remainder of the time was dedicated to responding to anonymous questions from the students. During this final segment, she responded to a question about how to properly clean a “rose” sex toy, a question that she expressed great excitement about answering at the beginning of the event. She also responded to a question asking whether or not “gay sex was real sex.” She responded with an unequivocal “yes,” since (to paraphrase) “they do the same thing straight couples do: penises are exchanged, there are mouths on genitals, etc.” Another student asked whether or not “scissoring,” a sexual practice involving two vulvas, was actually a real thing and whether or not “it worked.” She again responded with an unequivocal “yes” on both fronts. Before elaborating on her answer, she again expressed slight concern about whether or not she was crossing the line, but after receiving the “OK” from one of the staff members facilitating the event, she proceeded. First, she shouted to the audience, “Alright folks, phones down!” in order to prevent anyone from recording what she was about to do, and then proceeded to enthusiastically and confidently demonstrate how to perform the act: she dropped to the ground and pretended to grind her genitals on those of an imaginary woman to simulate the aforementioned act of scissoring. This was followed by a roar of cheering and laughter from the student audience. 

She also explained how to clean one’s mouth both before and after oral sex to ensure the health of oneself and one’s partner, as well as the locations of both the male and female “G-spots” and how to correctly stimulate them with one’s fingers in order to excite arousal. Finally, before taking a video for her social media page to advertise how educational her workshops are, she ended the event by answering the question, “Can I still experience sexual arousal if I’m practicing abstinence?” Again, her answer was yes, which she explained by stating that just like virginity and sexual orientation, abstinence is a spectrum. Thus, one could engage in “self-pleasure,” i.e. masturbation, in order to enjoy sexual pleasure while abstinent. Or, if someone chooses not to engage in masturbation, she recommended regularly going to the gym “in order to let out all that pent up energy” which must surely be there among people who do not masturbate.

At the end of the night, the room erupted in applause. The staff members and the students present all appeared to agree that the night was a great success, and the mission of the event had been accomplished.

Endnotes

[1] Goody Howard, “Home,” Ask Goody, https://www.askgoody.com.

[2] Goody Howard, “About,” Ask Goody, https://www.askgoody.com/about-5.

[3] Goody Howard, “More/ Goody Gear,” Ask Goody, https://www.askgoody.com/goody-gear. 

[4] Goody Howard, “More/ Goody Gear/ McMasturbate Hoodie,” Ask Goody, https://www.askgoody.com/product-page/mc-masturbate-hoodie. 

[5] Goody Howard, “More/ Goody Gear/ Dildo Dealer TShirt,” Ask Goody, https://www.askgoody.com/product-page/dildo-dealer-tshirt. 

[6] Goody Howard, “More/ Goody Gear/ Got Toys? Hoodie,” Ask Goody, https://www.askgoody.com/product-page/got-toys-hoodie. 

[7] Goody Howard, “Adult Toy Store,” Ask Goody, https://www.askgoody.com/adult-toystore. 

[8] Goody Howard, “Scheduling & Workshops,” Ask Goody, https://www.askgoody.com/workshops. 

[9] Ibid.

In Defense of Classics

A lurking sentiment pervades the Classics Department, one which inspires unease and uncertainty for the future of the study at Holy Cross altogether. Classics, many feel, is on the brink of erosion. Well, do such claims have grounds to be made? And if so, is Classics worth keeping alive in its current form?

Several factors may indicate that Classics will undergo further change. Recently introduced changes have raised questions among Classics students as to the trajectory of the department. Hebrew, a language traditionally taught in theological contexts [1], has joined Ancient Greek and Latin as potential languages to satisfy the two-language Major requirement, with a few other languages being floated around as potential additions. Though new languages may bear relevance and cultivate interest, this alteration in the language requirement follows a general trend in the department. Classics is shifting from being a study of the ancients who inspired Western tradition to a study of the ancillary states to the classical tradition, which, although incredibly important and involved, do not define the basis of the tradition. Although it is important for Classicists to be open to various perspectives from the study of Classics, it is also important to ensure that hypercritical viewpoints are not the only ones relayed; otherwise, the study has effectively failed at delivering a variety of perspectives. Many Classics students worry that these new courses are a sign of an eventual “loss of identity” for the department, wherein the focus will no longer be on Greece and Rome and will instead be on the broader ancient world.

Such a shift would not be unheard of. Last semester, a talk was held in Rehm Library in which Classics scholar and President of the American Council of Learned Societies, Joy Connolly, proposed a new way to teach about premodern history: Ancient Studies. Connolly expounds her proposition further in her upcoming book, All the World’s Past, where she sets forth to foster a “decolonized field” [2], a composite of perspectives inspired by Afrofuturist thought [3] The idea of Ancient Studies appears utterly unproblematic on its face—a means of recognizing underappreciated cultures and getting a broad sense of the ancient world is both appealing and admirable. But this is not the complete story—Connolly makes it clear in her speech that Ancient Studies is in some way a substitute for Classics [4]. She presents Classics as a declining field and enumerates her grievances with it. Where she frames her new field as an “epistemic reparation,” she implies that Classics operates as a “vehicle for white supremacy” [5]. While talking about colonialism, she disparages Classics for its supposed “Eurocentrism,” “proto-nationalist origin story,” and value assessment on subjective matters (such as others saying that Greek or Roman art is the best). Connolly claims that “Greeceandroman Studies” (her monolithic term for Classics) was founded on ethnonationalism and racism, designed for nationalism, and informed and animated by white elites [6]. Evidently, Connolly must have had a reason to intertwine her criticisms of “Greeceandroman Studies” in her speech, and it’s difficult to see this as a call to anything other than replacement or redirection.

This speech would not be so notable if there was no likelihood for it to bear any fruits—but there’s good reason to believe that Connolly’s proposals could have consequences. The same aspirations and theories are echoed by scholars throughout the field of Classics. If Connolly’s mission is to bring Ancient Studies to institutions around the country, it would not be unreasonable to assume that faculty or administration at Holy Cross could soon be in favor of phasing the Classics department into Ancient Studies, especially given the department’s new course offerings (regarding the increasingly Near Eastern focus) and the diminishing of the Greek and Latin language requirements. Holy Cross is not a large enough institution to have the diversity of field selection at schools such as Boston University. Were two similar departments to be run in tandem with one another, the scarcity of students and funding would likely cause the dilution of one of the fields, thereby making it more advantageous for the school to prioritize one of the other. Such could be the case were Ancient Studies to be introduced alongside Classics. It’s possible that were it introduced, it may just be a replacement for Classics altogether.

Given the possibility that Connolly’s criticisms of Classics are shared among members of the Holy Cross administration, faculty, and even the student body, I believe it is worth analyzing the criticisms made of Classics in detail and giving the department a fair trial before it is slowly dispensed with. As a student who does not study Classics and bears little attachment to the major, I would like to offer my perspective. I shall divide these claims as such: first, that Classics is used as a proto-nationalist origin story and wherefore a vehicle for ethnonationalism and white supremacy; second, that Classics is a eurocentric field; and third, that value assessments in favor of Greece and Rome are indefensible.

To address Connolly’s thesis, it is necessary to deracinate the core of these beliefs. A recent view that has notably risen to prominence in the last decade is the denial of “the West”: the idea that “Western Civilization” does not exist and never has. Eight years ago, The Guardian’s Kwame Anthony Appiah published an article called “There is no such thing as western civilisation” claiming as much—that Western Civilization is a modern invention that lacks proper reason for any continued usage [7]. Appiah argues that “Western” values are not beholden to any group and are appropriated by modern Europeans for a false identity, yet it is unanimously agreed that values are an aspect of culture. Much of Appiah’s argument is reliant on the blurred lines entailed by the label of “Western,” yet for much of the article, Appiah’s well-read historical recounting makes a rather competent case in favor of Western Civilization, outlining the development of the identity and shift in ideological spread from the time of the ancients through the conflicts between Christendom and Islam. It is certainly the case that the idea of “Western Civilization” is blurred on its borders, has morphed over time, and has been misappropriated—but does that make it a false phrase worth discarding? Or is it still applicable in certain instances? Even if centuries ago the West was not an established enough idea for its distinction to be made, its continuous reassertion has, at this point, manifested itself into existence. Additionally, even if it had not gone by the same name, the sentiments of Western Civilization predate its coining. In Saint Thomas More’s 1516 novel Utopia, the character Raphael represents the West to the Utopians by bringing them the Bible and Ancient Greek philosophy. What More viewed as the undergirding tenets of a broadly Western culture may also be reflected in Jesuit tradition.

When Connolly refers to Greeceandroman Studies as a “proto-nationalist origin story” [8], it seems that she’s expressing support for Appiah’s point of view, believing that Classics have been used to justify nationalism through a sense of having a historic “right” [9]. And, Connolly isn’t wrong—this certainly has occurred (Byzantine Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, Russian Empire, etc.)—but is it the fault of Classics? Or is it the byproduct of nation-states being the dominant form of government in Europe and needing to reach for national credibility? The latter seems far more culpable, and to push such guilt on the study of Classics itself seems rather misdirected. The abuse of knowledge is not the fault of knowledge itself.

In his article, Appiah also asserts that the term “Western” can often be seen as a euphemism for “white,” but I find this to be a case of falsely conflating causation with correlation. Much of Western Civilization happens to be “white,” but only because the idea of the West was most popular in European geographical bounds before colonialism, upon which colonial settlers brought ideas such as the West with them through their relocations. This may be similar to the reason that Connolly calls Classics a “vehicle for white supremacy.” If she believes both that “Western culture” means “white” and that the field makes value assessments on a cultural basis [10], it’s no wonder that she sees Classics as having racist undertones. But Classics today is no longer limited along the lines of race; anyone within and outside of our cultural bounds can live, observe, and learn from the teachings we’ve valued for centuries.

Is the study of Classics Eurocentric? I find this proposition to be rather comical, not because it is incorrect, but because its attention is misdirected. Classics inherently carry with them some degree of Eurocentrism because the study primarily focuses on two largely European powers (albeit ones that are far more focused on the Mediterranean than Europe). Asking whether or not Classics is Eurocentric is the wrong question to ask. Instead, we should be asking: Would it be wrong for Classics to be Eurocentric? Are we to believe, too, that the study of the Ancient Sinosphere is too Asiacentric? Every field is in some way exclusive; every study, by its nature, must focus on one area and exclude many others, as it is impossible for people to learn everything. It’s okay to have a broader study of history where the courses aren’t all concentric on one region of the world and its culture, but that’s no longer Classics and loses the reasons why Classics is taught. The core of Classics is not whiteness, nor is it the European continent—it’s the framework that’s inspired generations of cultural change and intellectual consideration. Its influences and references may be found everywhere, including the country we reside in. James Madison explains in Federalist No. 10 that the American constitution intended to make valuable improvements on the “popular models, both ancient and modern,” implying reference to Athens and Enlightenment thought, which was inspired by Athenian thinkers. Much in the same way studies of Confucious are warranted in East Asia due to their unabashed influence, the same applies to the United States and the Classics.

The final point of Connolly’s I should address is that Classics makes a value assessment on subjective matters [11]. I would counter by saying that value assessments in any field depend on who is informing, and choosing to focus on one topic does not necessarily express its superiority over others as much as its cultural relevance. And, were the department to hold Classical art in higher esteem than art of other civilizations, would it be a problem? Although art is ultimately subjective, there tend to be objective reasons that lead people to enjoy art. The conversation of objectivity in art is complicated enough to render one’s value assessment that Classical art is better than others decently defendable, so why not let such a conversation occur? Drawing out the argument of value assessment in art to imply racial superiority falsely indicates that genetics are the primary determining factor in cultural development. For these two reasons, value assessment is, at its root, not an issue.

In a time of sweeping changes, Classics is not a vestigial relic of the past that warrants overhaul. It is not problematic, showing no sway to ethnonationalism and white supremacy, being more about its tradition than its place of origin, and assessing value no differently than any other study. We should not rebrand Classics, nor should we alter its purpose; we must double down on the tradition of Classics in a time when others brush it aside. Christendom and Classics are the two defining aspects of Jesuit tradition, as mentioned in the Jesuit Ratio Studiorum [12], and to impede on them is to destroy the culture of our esteemed and historical institution.

Endnotes 

[1] See: Ratio Studiorum, rules of the Provincial paragraph 7. https://ia802307.us.archive.org/12/items/ratio-studiorum-1599/ratio-studiorum-1599.pdf. 

[2] Joy Connolly, “All the World’s Past: The Case for a New Field,” (lecture, College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, MA, October 8, 2024), 45:08. https://youtu.be/CZ6MRpg3_a0?si=PuFASPCd5GFcAhmZ. 

[3] Ibid. 47:27 

[4] Ibid. 32:49-33:16, 35:23-35:54

[5] Ibid. 7:28. 

[6] Ibid. 40:25, 42:05

[7] Kwame Anthony Appiah, “There is no Such Thing as Western Civilization,” The Guardian, November 9, 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/09/western-civilisation-appiah-reith-lecture. 

[8] Joy Connolly, “All the World’s Past: The Case for a New Field”, 36:53. 

[9] Ibid. 41:51 

[10] Ibid. 39:59, 37:51-38:21

[11] Ibid. 35:40-35:54, 37:51

[12] See: Ratio Studiorum

Cover photo: Statue of River Tiber in the Vatican Museums – Photo by Daniel J. Capobianco

The Office of the Presidency: The Dignified & the Efficient

“In such constitutions there are two parts (not indeed separable with microscopic accuracy, for the genius of great affairs abhors nicety of division): first, those which excite and preserve the reverence of the population–the dignified parts, if I may so call them; and next, the efficient parts—those by which it, in fact, works and rules.” ~ Walter Bagehot, The English Constitution, 1867

The English political analyst Walter Bagehot was correct in his pronouncement that a functioning government is made up of two components: the dignified and the efficient. From this, I shall make a personal assertion: we, as Americans, do not know nor attempt to know what this means. Yes, we always desire an efficient government; we always attempt to elect one and become furious whenever Congress or the President cannot fulfill their promises. But, this desire does not extend to them striving to behave as exemplar models of dignity. The effects this has had on our collective institutional confidence are extraordinary.

Before I continue, I must make a quick note to the reader. I am not advocating for the adoption of a British style of government: we declared independence to attempt a democratic republican experiment. Instead, I am using this particular aspect of the unwritten British constitution to analyze a perceived defect in the American one and to recommend a remedy. It should not, therefore, be dismissed as that of an idealist but reviewed as a part of a wider introspection on the American identity.  

Since the unprecedented turmoils of the 1960s and 1970s—from Vietnam to the Iranian Hostage Crisis—the confidence that Americans have in their nation and her governmental institutions has steeply declined [1]. How did this nation, this “Great Arsenal of Democracy” (as Franklin Roosevelt described it), lose her people’s respect in less than six decades? For us to get a sense of an answer to this question, I believe we must take a look at the evolution of the most visible and controversial position in our nation: that of the Office of the Presidency. 

To understand this Office, we must look at the powers invested in it from the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution empowers the Office of the Presidency in a single clause: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States” (Article II, section 2, clause 1). No specifications are given as to what these executive powers are, making it a direct contrast to the confining perimeters set for the legislature by Article I. Herein lies our contemporary problem. 

To understand the meaning behind this vagueness, we must turn back to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when our founders attempted to rectify the errors of the Articles of Confederation. These Articles—our first constitutional attempt—granted a wide berth of authority to the states and purposefully rejected power separation to avoid any semblance to a European monarchy. These states jealously guarded their autonomy to the extent of ignoring the interests of their citizens. Their local legislatures—that is, the senates of each state—were autonomous to the point of eminence over the federal. This ineptitude culminated in Shays’s Rebellion, which ignited a national desire for a powerful federal legislature and judiciary presided over by a unifying federal executive. Formulating a powerful legislature and judiciary was easy for the Convention; deciding on what an executive would look like was quite another matter altogether. What powers would be entrusted to the individual, how exactly this individual would be chosen, and whether there would only be one individual; these were but a few of the many questions the framers debated over. Their deliberations—influenced heavily by The Federalist Papers [2], co-authored by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay—produced Article II of the Constitution. The point was to ensure that the Office was flexible in times of change but rigid enough to maintain the tenets of the Constitution  [3] [4].

For nearly three centuries, our country has faced an array of unprecedented challenges, both foreign and domestic. Each has required an extraordinary vision, a commanding force, and a persuasive voice from an altruistic figure who is above the fray. The first five presidents—more or less—successfully did this and built our national foundations, from Washington’s two-term precedent and noble bearings to Monroe’s Doctrine that initiated America’s standing in the global theater. Certain presidents after, such as Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and Gerard Ford, imitated them, fortifying the mortar that at times required departures from individual rights and institutional expectations—the termination of habeas corpus, the unparalleled four-term presidency, and the pardon of a disgraced former president—in order to “preserve the principles of democracy for the long-run” [5]. 

All presidents have had these intentions at heart whenever they act; yet, the development of social media, an expansive press, and entrenched partisan views have oriented the importance on the occupant rather than the Office and have distorted and sidelined this focus. 

Permit me to use President Kennedy as an example of this modern, systematic emphasis on the individual. A popular, charismatic leader during the thick of the Cold War, his far-reaching, unrealistic rhetoric, coupled with his Hollywood glamor, aided an undue reverence to the officeholder—the individual—rather than the Office [6]. It inflated the legacy of this tragic young man, who lacked morality and discipline, into a Camelotian figure.

We, the People, expect the President not only to be an administrative fixer but to have the charms of a hero. We would like him to be better than a King, better than a Dei Gratia Rex. We want him to be a demigod. 

We have empowered the presidents to be concerned about their popularity and to proclaim unity in public while behaving depravedly at the same time. We adore their extravagant affirmations and demagogic speeches. We would prefer them to move with the national currents, making promises of restoration and reversing moral decay with very little substance on how they are going to accomplish this. We are quite content—even though we say we aren't—with them simply being puppets on stage, creating policies that react to changes rather than enact any [7]. 

We have played a significant part in expanding this malaise through our ignorance and passive behavior. It is, therefore, not solely the responsibility of the President to make his office respectable again but that of us—the people. Perhaps we would do well to learn from the wisdom of two philosophical politicians—Cicero and Riezler—of two failed republics—the Roman and the Weimar—on what should be expected from a chief executive. The moment he is elected, he is, in essence, transfigured from the politician—who maneuvers from one short-lived smartness to next—into the statesman—who is a skillful and clever politician who actively carries out his laundry list of long and short-term goals [8]. Though the stability of institutions will fluctuate because of the everchanging times, it is the duty of the leader to embody and employ civil and political prudence, to serve as moderator and rector in order to be the source for the polity—the political institution—as a whole [9]. To be rector et gubernator civitatis: the model statesman.

Endnotes: 

[1]“Public Trust in Government: 1958-2024,” Pew Research Center, June 24, 2024, https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/06/24/public-trust-in-government-1958-2024/. 

[2] Melvyn Bragg and Guests, “The Federalist Papers,” October 12, 2023, on BBC Radio 4, https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001r7sv. 

[3] Joseph A. Pika, John A. Maltese, and Andrew Rudalevige, The Politics of the Presidency, (SAGE Publications Incorporated, 2020). 

[4] Stephen F Knott, The Lost Soul of the American Presidency: The Decline Into Demagoguery and the Prospects for Renewal, (University Press of Kansas, 2019).

[5] American Political Thought: The Philosophical Dimension of American Statesmanship, eds. Morton J. Frisch, and Richard G. Stevens, (Transaction Publishers, 2011).

[6] Stephen F Knott, The Lost Soul of the American Presidency: The Decline Into Demagoguery and the Prospects for Renewal, passim. 

[7] Kurt Riezler, “The Philosopher of History and the Modern Statesman.” Social Research 13, no. 3 (September): 368-380. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40982156. 

[8] Ibid. 

[9] Walter Nicgorski, “Cicero's Focus: From the Best Regime to the Model Statesman.” Political Theory 19, no. 2 (May 1991): 230-251. https://www.jstor.org/stable/191663.

An Interview with Dr. Anthony Fauci ‘62: Perspectives, Policy… and the Pardon

During his recent residency at Holy Cross, representatives from the Fenwick Review and the Spire had the opportunity to sit with Dr. Anthony Fauci ‘62 for an on-the-record conversation. We asked Dr. Fauci about the value of the humanities, the impact of COVID-19 policy on education, the role of “experts” and federalism in policy making, and his preemptive pardon from former President Biden.

Liam Murphy: A lot of students today who plan to go into medicine would find having a classics or humanities background inconceivable or unnecessary, because of academic specialization. Do you think something is lost there with that sort of disregard for a holistic, humanities education?

Dr. Anthony Fauci: I think it is… When I went to medical school (I went to Cornell Medical School in New York City), and we had a lot of kids in our class, who took pre-med courses that were purely scientific, I mean, there was nothing in the humanities about that at all. [Those students] were great. They were good guys and ladies. You know, they did well, so I don't think it's a sine qua non, that if you don't do that, you're not going to succeed. But I think for individuals depending upon, you know, your own personality, that there's a lot of value added to that, and I think for some people there would be a loss in that. I know it was extremely helpful to me to go into medicine and have a broader look at things… My interest was always curiosity about people, not formulas in physics, or in chemistry, or in biology… The person who was second or third [in my class at Cornell] was a very good friend of mine, who was here with me at the Cross, who did the same AB Classics, Greek pre-med. So out of the top four people there, two of them were from Holy Cross.

LM: On the topic of education, particularly as it concerns COVID policy: Given the effects of COVID-19 lockdowns and policies on education, such as the backward slide in literacy and mathematics skills, do you think that the extent of those measures was entirely justified? With this in mind, would you recommend the same approach if a similar pandemic were to break out in the future?

AF: Okay. I brought this up last night but I’ll repeat it for you for the record. I think anyone who is thinking fairly and not in that blame-game situation would agree universally, that it was absolutely essential to flatten the curve and, quote, “shut down.” I say “shut down,” not “lock down,” because we did not do what other countries did, where essentially, you couldn't even leave your house, you couldn't go to work. I mean, we did GPS monitoring of where people were going. We were not locked down. Schools were closed, so to do that in March, April, and May, when thousands of people per day were dying, when freezer trucks were lining up in front of hospitals because there were too many dead people, you couldn't fit in the ward. Something had to be done. So I think that's incontrovertibly correct. 

What we need to reexamine as we look forward to lessons learned, is how long you kept things shut down, how long you kept the schools closed, how long you stopped work at different places. People don't remember, and there's a lot of slings and arrows thrown at me, but if you go back, and I ask people to do that and they say, “You closed the schools! And you did that!” Go back and go to YouTube and look at what I was saying in the fall of 2020, what I was saying a thousand times: “Open the schools as quickly and as safely as possible. Open the schools, close the bars…” So, when we go back, and I would hope people do that instead of pointing fingers at the teachers union, or pointing fingers at certain local people who kept schools, and factories, and other things closed, examine what the risk-benefit ratio of that is. And what people do [is] lump it all into one. They say we shouldn't have closed anything. The Great Barrington Declaration, which, conceptually and practically, everybody agrees is incorrect. There would have been thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of more deaths. So you shouldn't lump them together, like shut down and how long you shut down. You should say, we should have paused in the spring, when thousands of people were dying, but we need to examine that risk-benefit of how long you kept things shut down.

LM: What do you think about the policy making role of specialized experts, such as scientists, who are not themselves policy makers nor necessarily experts on policy making? And do you think that this role may have been inordinately expanded during COVID, since there might have been factors relevant to policy making which were not part of their areas of expertise?

AF: What a great question. I’m glad you asked that, because that is the subject of a great deal of misunderstanding. The public health officials and the scientists, myself included, we did not make policy. There was the perception that we made policy. We gave the facts and the information, if you [look at] the Trump administration and then the same thing for the Biden administration (I'm not, you know, saying one versus the other)... there was a coronavirus task force that was headed by Debbie Birx, my colleague (I was on the task force), that had on it the Surgeon General and the director of the CDC. We examined the scientific and public health data and said, “This would happen if you flatten the curve, this would happen if you wore a mask.” That was communicated to the Vice President, Pence, who communicated it to the president, who made the decision about what the policy was. 

Now, since I was a communicator, that goes back 38 years to HIV, I was a trusted communicator in public health. I did it with HIV, I did it with Ebola, I did it with anthrax, I did it with Zika. So I would get up in front of the television and say, here are the kinds of things you should do, you should wear a mask, you should do this. People misinterpreted that I made the policy, and they would ask the same question, Liam, that you're asking: “Should a scientist and a public health person make the policy?” No. The scientific person, the public health person, gathers the data, presents it to the policy maker, and the policy maker makes the policy. It is a major misunderstanding that you have a couple of docs and public health people in a room, deciding, “Okay, we're gonna close your factory.” There isn't a factory in the United States that I closed. There isn't a school in the United States that I closed, and yet there's this prevalent perception that the public health people closed the schools, closed the factories, ruined the economy. That decision was made at a much higher level.

Juan Cortes: Do you believe that federalism, which allows for differences in policy between the states, aided or inhibited the response to the COVID-19 pandemic? For example, states such as New York were more shut down, while Florida was more open. As the pandemic continued, it gave us an observation of how policy variations influence outcome.

AF: Yeah, a very sad observation. Federalism, which, as you know, dates back to the birth of our country, reflects the diversity throughout, regionally, culturally, ethnically. We have an enormous country that you're all aware of. You know, there are a lot of differences depending upon where you live, what the resources are in a particular region of the country. New York City versus Mississippi and San Francisco versus Florida. So federalism or the “states’ rights,” as it were, has an important contribution to being sensitive to diversity. However, when you're dealing with a pandemic that equally kills somebody in Maine as it does in Texas, then, unfortunately, the idea of individual decisions about how you're gonna do things as opposed to taking something that would [be standard, like:] people should get vaccinated. We know vaccinations have saved (this isn't me making it up), clearly saved three to five million people in the United States and 15 to 20 million people worldwide. That's not TikTok. That's not social media. That's a fact, okay? Yet, because of the differences… between a red state and a blue state, it is tragic that… the political association is that if you are Republican, it's much less likely you will wear a mask or get vaccinated than if you are a Democrat. That's not conjecture, that's a fact. Another fact is that if you live in a red state versus a blue state, you will have a greater chance of getting hospitalized or dying from COVID. So here's where you have a situation where what should be a sensitivity to diversity leads to people dying. So when people die because of that difference, then you've got a question that maybe this is a point where the strict adherence to, “Okay, if you're in Wyoming and you don't want to wear a mask, but you're in New York City and you want to wear a mask” [is worse than] saying, “We're going through a pandemic together as a nation, let's do the most scientifically correct and scientifically sound thing.” That did not happen. And that, I think, is one of the contributions to what I mentioned last night, that it is tragic and astounding that the richest country in the world had 1.2 million deaths, and on a per capita basis, we were one of the worst two or three countries in the world in deaths. What is wrong with that picture, you know? But it is the truth.

JC: What precedent do you think your preemptive pardon from President Biden sets? Do you think measures like this are necessary to protect experts from political backlash?

AF: The pardon is a very sensitive issue… Preemptive pardons, there's a potential negative aspect to that. President Biden did a preemptive pardon because there was something that was happening that was unprecedented. And what was unprecedented was a presidential candidate who said publicly, “I am your vengeance, I am your retribution. I am going to punish people who disagreed with me.” He didn't hint that, he said it. So that triggered the idea of a preemptive pardon. 

However, there is an issue, that that could backfire, because then… in subsequent situations people might assume that I can do anything I want in a public position, as long as somebody's gonna preemptively pardon me. So, on the one hand, it's a positive thing because it protects people from unjust attacks on them when they clearly have done nothing wrong. On the other hand, it has the potential to shield people who intend to do things wrong. So it's a double-edged sword. I'm not at all one-hundred-percent comfortable with the idea of pardon. I mean, I didn't ask for a pardon. That's very clear because I said, that could hint to some people that I did something wrong. But the attorneys in the White House said, “In the weight of all things balancing, do it,” and they were very, very adamant about that. It wasn't like two guys said “yes,” and one lady said “no,” it was one-hundred-percent, “do it.” But I didn't ask for it.

Cover image by Christopher Michel, Wikimedia, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anthony_Fauci_in_2023_02_(cropped).jpg.

My Interview with Fr. Nguyen

n.b. This interview was held in the Fall 2024 semester.

Last semester, I had the honor of interviewing Fr. Nguyen, S.J., the newest edition to the Jesuit community. Fr. Nguyen was born in Saigon, Vietnam, and grew up in Chicago. He holds a Ph.D. in Theology from the University of St. Michael’s College and an S.T.D from Regis College, both at the University of Toronto, and entered the Jesuits in 1997. Academically, his focus is on the intersection of twentieth-century Christian martyrdom and totalitarianism. He is an expert on the German Jesuit Alfred Delp and the German-Jewish philosopher and Carmelite nun Edith Stein, two martyrs of the Second World War. Fr. Nguyen was on the Holy Cross Board of Trustees from 2017 to 2022, and was a professor at Creighton University before teaching at the College. Spiritually, Fr. Nguyen enjoys giving Ignatian retreats and ministering to students. A fun fact about Fr. Nguyen is that he has a black belt in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, and in the past he has dabbled in judo, wrestling, and boxing. He feels that his training in martial arts has greatly strengthened his discipline and resilience.

For the first part of the interview, I asked Fr. Nguyen about the classes he is teaching. We decided to focus on one class in particular, an intro-level course called “Theology of Christian Martyrdom. In the first half of the semester, he told me that his purpose was to lay out “the spiritual and logical foundations for Christian martyrdom, which is grounded in Scripture and the early Church martyrs such as Sts. Perpetua, Felicity, and Ignatius of Antioch.” To provide his class with a Scriptural foundation for martyrdom, he used the example of the Beatitudes and showed that the early Church martyrs “embody the Scriptural injunctions to take up one’s cross.”

For the second half of the semester, Fr. Nguyen led students in discussions about the role of martyrdom in contemporary society, with a particular focus on totalitarian regimes. He showed his class that martyrdom becomes “more important and more difficult” in totalitarian regimes because they “take away your capacity to do [what is] good and right, by taking away the capacity to think on your own.” Fr. Nguyen also discussed the essential role of prayer in the lives of martyrs. He hoped to show his class that through frequent prayer,“you have an interior life from which you can draw resources from when times are challenging.” He remarked that if one has an “inner sanctuary,” no one, not even a totalitarian regime, can violate it, thus its importance for those who desire to take up the cross of martyrdom.

Fr. Nguyen’s class also touched on the martyrs of Nazism. The first figure he presented to his class was Dietrich Bonhoeffer, whom he described as “the most salient example of someone who resisted the fascist regime.” Bonhoeffer, a German Lutheran pastor who openly opposed Nazism, started an underground seminary for Lutheran men who hoped to become authentic ministers of God’s Word, unaffected by Nazi censorship. He also taught his class about Edith Stein, a Catholic who was executed by the Nazis due to her Jewish ancestry. Furthermore, he familiarized his class with the White Rose movement, a non-violent, student-led intellectual resistance group in Nazi Germany which originated at the University of Munich. Often, the movement would meet within the basements of professors’ home to read and discuss banned books, an act which Fr. Nguyen compared to contemplative prayer: “You withdraw from the world, not because you want to escape from the world but because you want to keep yourself pure for the sake of the world.” Just as contemplatives pray for the world and bring hope during hard times by holding fast to their faiths, the figures in the White Rose movement helped the world by protecting themselves from Nazi corruption and maintaining their integrity as intellectuals and thinkers unperverted by Nazi censorship.

When Fr. Nguyen and I had finished chatting about his class, we turned to discussing his experiences with students so far. Fr. Nguyen said that during his time on the Board of Trustees, he had some sense of the student body, but that his “understanding of the types of student [at Holy Cross] has grown since this time.” He remarked that he feels “very privileged to be here because [he is] surrounded by students who appear to be motivated by discussing and debating ideas.” He said that he views the class atmosphere at Holy Cross as “formative and not simply transactional.”

However, Fr. Nguyen remarked that he has witnessed some attitudes from students that express quite the reverse: to some, class is only necessary as a means to obtaining a degree.  In his view, this attitude misses the point of a liberal arts education, which ought to be formative rather than solely practical. College ought to be a formative time in one’s life, yet in some cases the formation of the classroom has become secondary to the practical benefits of the college degree. However, overall, his sense of the students at Holy Cross is that they enjoy “soaking up, reflecting, and criticizing ideas,” a refreshing reality.

Fr. Nguyen mentioned that he sees himself as “a scholar, teacher, and priest.” He commented that these three dimensions have created a “fun tension” in his life, but that his identity as a priest is the most important of them all and helps to anchor the others. Fr. Nguyen described his work as labor in the vineyard of academia, ultimately in service to the Church. He said that his different roles intersect in the “formation of students and [in] helping them unfold into the person they are meant to be.” 

I then asked Fr. Nguyen about his process of adjustment to his new Jesuit community at Holy Cross. He revealed that his community of Jesuits is  “very easy-going,” and fondly referred to his brothers as “lovely men.” To him, Fr. Bill Reiser is a figure who emulates wisdom, and Fr. John Gavin has helped him to “enculturate into all things Holy Cross.” As far as Jesuit dynamics go, Fr. Nguyen also offered a glance into his nighttime routine. Being a night owl himself, Fr. Nguyen shared that he enjoys partaking in “second desserts” with Fr. Reiser and Fr. Bill Clark, late night snacks consisting of milk and cookies (and sometimes cake). Another important relationship is the one he shares with Fr. Brent Otto because he is also new to living in the community and teaching at Holy Cross, although Fr. Otto also has past experience with the College, having graduated in 2001. Fr. Nguyen joked that teaching and living in a new Jesuit community here on the Hill is his and Fr. Otto's “first time in the trenches.”  

Furthermore, Fr. Nguyen described the Jesuit community at Holy Cross as being very monastic, since study and research are major parts of the Ignatian contemplative tradition. Concerning the relationship between study and prayer, he remarked, “there's an asceticism where there’s a love for scholarship.” By this, he meant that the life of a scholar-priest is not without sacrifice, and the Jesuits must sometimes forgo enjoyment in order to prioritize their duties. His brother Jesuits focus on transforming their work into prayer, which he believes is essential to the spiritual and intellectual lives of the College. According to Fr. Nguyen, the Jesuits are “scholars, teachers, and priests,” priesthood providing the foundation for the other roles to thrive. 

Finally, I asked Fr. Nguyen about his favorite theologians and saints. We began by discussing his favorite theologians: Hans Urs von Balthasar, Judith Wolfe, and Edith Stein. Hans Urs von Balthasar (1905-1988) was a Swiss theologian and priest whose systematic theology influenced the Church in the post-Vatican II era. Fr. Nguyen appreciates von Balthasar’s emphasis on “beauty as a transcendental,” and the idea that beauty is a revelation of God’s divine essence. He admires Judith Wolfe (b. 1979-), a professor in the School of Divinity at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, for her work on the importance of imagination in theological discourse. Professor Wolfe’s research focuses are eschatology, the imagination, and how theology, philosophy, art, literature, and psychology interact. Her most recent publication is The Theological Imagination, a book which posits that Christian theology offers a powerful way of imagining the world around us.

Fr. Nguyen’s favorite theologian and favorite saint is Edith Stein because of her challenge to twentieth-century German academia as a woman and a Jew , as well as her emphasis on “the need for an empathetic encounter in the classroom.” Edith Stein, also known as St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross (1891-1942), was a German philosopher, nun, and martyr. Stein was raised Jewish, became an atheist as a young adult, and converted to Catholicism in 1922 after reading the writings of St. Teresa of Avila, a sixteenth-century Doctor of the Church and mystic. Stein was one of the first women in Germany to get a PhD in Philosophy, yet she was refused a faculty position in the philosophy department at the University of Münster because she was a woman, and in 1933 was forced to resign from the faculty of pedagogy at the University by the Nazis because she was Jewish.  

In the same year, Stein entered the Carmelites and became a Discalced Carmelite nun. Although her decision to join the Carmelites was not inspired by her German-Jewish identity, the Carmelites’ coat of arms features the Star of David, and the Carmelite Order is heavily inspired by the prophet Eliah, a major figure from the Hebrew Bible. Fr. Nguyen emphasized that Stein “never stopped pursuing truth.” He compared her to Socrates, who was not afraid to die for the sake of truth. Although Stein had many chances to escape her suffering and death at the hands of the Nazi regime, she bravely faced her death because “she was wedded to the Cross.” Fr. Nguyen said that although von Balthasar, Wolfe, and Stein are different, they "all intertwine; beauty, imagination, and empathetic encounter” are meant to help young people perceive the world with values.

Peter Kreeft on "The Great Divorce"

At the end of the 2024 Fall semester, our book club welcomed Professor Peter Kreeft to speak on C.S. Lewis. Professor Kreeft teaches philosophy at Boston College and has authored over eighty books covering topics ranging from Zen Buddhism to Martin Heidegger, as well as philosophical dialogues featuring Marx, Socrates, and John F. Kennedy. When he arrived at Holy Cross donning a suit and purple tie, I asked him if he had done so intentionally as a nod to our school colors. He quickly insisted the tie choice was mere coincidence. Although Peter Kreeft is a giant in the Catholic philosophical world, he knew perfectly how to relate to an audience of college students. 

The lecture was attended by twenty philosophically and theologically inclined students, the majority of whom had been attending weekly meetings covering C.S. Lewis’s 1945 classic, The Great Divorce. In the three weeks leading up to Kreeft’s talk, the group met for one hour on Fridays to share food, fellowship, and thoughts provoking discussion on the chapters we had read. The novella follows an unnamed narrator as he makes the journey (via cosmic bus) from a dull and grey Purgatory to the ethereal outskirts of Heaven. The narrator witnesses souls balk at the idea of entering Heaven, preferring to distance themselves from God and return back to Purgatory (or Hell, depending on how you look at it). Up at the podium, Kreeft expounded effortlessly about the book, crystalizing and deepening the insights we had made together during club meetings. He included jokes and anecdotes that kept the audience engaged, and drew connections between the Bible, Dante, and other works by Lewis. Kreeft covered the main themes of the book: free will and God’s judgment of sin. God in his infinite patience and wisdom, Kreeft said, allows his stupid children to make the same mistakes over and over again so that we may come to him and ask for forgiveness. This gets to the heart of C.S. Lewis’s book: the shades in Heaven are given ample opportunity to accept God’s love, only to turn it down in favor of prideful pursuits. 

After the talk, Professor Kreeft stayed for a while to talk to the students, a courtesy we were all grateful for. 
Book club meetings will continue later this month, copies of Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment will be provided for any Holy Cross student interested. Feel free to contact me at tgange26@g.holycross.edu.

Encountering “the Lonely and Afflicted” – A Catholic Approach to Mental Health

In June and July, I had the opportunity to take a summer session course with Prof. Peter Fay titled “Christian Ethics and Mental Illness.” It was a revelatory experience – one that enriched my limited understanding of how Catholicism presents itself to stand for and with the afflicted.  

In Genesis 1:27, God created human beings in His image and likeness to be happy, whole, and life-giving. In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus gently invites all who labor and are burdened to find rest in Him (Matthew 11:28-30). Similarly, in John’s Gospel, Jesus emphasizes the relationship He seeks with His followers (John 15:4-5). Grounded in God’s Word, Catholics must look to His example to welcome with love and openness all men and women who suffer from mental illness. 

Mental illness is a common and pervasive aspect of human life. Over the last decade – especially since the COVID-19 pandemic – we have seen an alarming increase in depression and suicidal tendencies. In 2023, the CDC estimates that forty-six thousand people died from mental illness. Most were young, most died unnecessarily, and many were among the most gifted that we as a society have. However, despite the ubiquity of mental illness, those who suffer often remain associated with shame and embarrassment, which can prevent people from seeking medical help. 

Indeed, the subject of mental illness tends to bring out a complex humanity. It is an unfortunate fact that public awareness lags behind extensive clinical and scientific progress. Although many respond with kindness and generosity, it too often hits a deep vein of fear and prejudice. The vitriol and irrationality of such people can be disturbing. It also advances the conceptualization of mental illness as a spiritual flaw or shortcoming in character. It is appalling to encounter such attitudes more associated with the Middle Ages than with the progressive twenty-first century. 

As followers of Christ, mental health stigma contradicts the theological foundation of the One True Church. Saint Augustine of Hippo – arguably the greatest genius among the Church Fathers – considers the gift of the human intellect in his book City of God. He writes: “What a wondrous thing it is that we have been given the ability to know our world, ourselves, and even, with the help of grace, our God.” He continues: “[Those with mental illness] say and do many incongruous things, things for the most part alien to their intentions and their characters, certainly contrary to their good intentions and characters; and when we think about their words and actions or see them with our eyes, we can scarcely – or possibly we cannot at all – restrain our tears if we consider their situation as it deserves to be considered” (Volume II, Book XXII). 

St. Augustine’s stance on mental illness – and that of Catholic tradition – is clear. He earnestly urges Christians to empathize with those who struggle with mental illness and recognize that their actions often arise from pain and confusion rather than malice or moral deficiency. All too often, lost years and relationships cannot be recovered. The damage done to oneself and others cannot be put right. A person’s desire and will to live gradually erodes into a loss of meaning. Mental illness is a heavy burden, and adding other burdens of shame and dismay onto it only makes it heavier. Rejecting a person because of prejudice is like rejecting the broken and bloody Jesus hanging on the Cross. Therefore, we are each called to love and advocate for the least among us, in all their pain and fragility – just as Christ took all human suffering on Himself. 

Fifteen hundred years later, Saint John Paul II makes a similar point. At an international conference for healthcare workers in 1996, the Pope expressed: “Whoever suffers from mental illness ‘always’ bears God’s image and likeness in himself, as does every human being.” Nothing – not a criticism, experience, or a person – can diminish a person’s God-given dignity. Mental illness readily conforms that person to Christ and gives him a share in His redeeming passion. 

Catholic and Orthodox Christians can look primarily to the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist – the source and summit of God’s radical love. The Sacrament, just like the Resurrection, can transform mental illness from an end to a beginning. The disarming simplicity of the Host is His promise to be with us “always, until the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20). 

As the Messiah, Jesus Christ restored meaning to people’s lives. He not only served as a profound teacher but also as a healer to those He encountered. His ministry was marked by healing deeds that transcended mere physical ailments – He addressed the deep emotional and spiritual wounds that too often accompany His beloved children. The Gospel of John challenges all disciples – past and present alike – to do the works Jesus did and “greater [works] than these” (John 14:12). As Catholics, we must ask ourselves what deeds we find ourselves engaged in. Do we restore those around us, or do we rob them of the love given to us by the Divine Physician? 

All this is to say that Prof. Fay’s course was a reminder of what the Church can and does do for those with mental illness and that the Church is called to do more. We are all – as Lord Byron put it – differently organized. We each move within the restraints of our mind and live up only partially to its possibilities. However, it must be noted that some face more hardships than others.

That being so, we are each called to extend our arms wider in openness. We must embrace that same sense of love and inclusion found in the Eucharist for those who suffer from mental illness. If we learn to wholeheartedly walk alongside those who suffer, we can then be models of Christ. No longer confining our ministry to the sick toward those with physical ailments uplifts those with invisible – albeit no less important – illnesses. It is not just His work to love. It is ours. 

Bibliography 

Augustine of Hippo. City of God. Translated by Henry Bettenson, Penguin Classics, 2004.

John Paul II. “International Conference for Healthcare Workers: Illnesses of the Mind.” 1996. 

https://www.ncpd.org/resources_and_toolkits/mental-illness-theological-framework 

Pope Francis. “Homily on the Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ.” 2020.

“Mental Health.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, 2024, www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/mental-health.htm.

“Mental Illness Statistics.” National Institute of Mental Health, 

www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/mental-illness.