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

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.

A Hero in Our Midst

Few students know that on the far end of our cemetery, under a grand red, white, and blue wreath, lies a man of incredible distinction, someone who truly lived the Holy Cross ideal of being a  man for others. A man of such a distinct courage that our President and our nation saw him fit to receive the highest award our country can bestow: the Congressional Medal of Honor. His name is known in a few circles on our campus, echoed by those who preserve the names of those worthy of our alma mater, and is certainly resounded by the legions of angels and saints in heaven. To our great pride and glory, the final resting place of Fr. Joseph O’Callahan is on our very own campus. 

Fr. O’Callahan was born on May 14th, 1905. Just after graduating from Boston College High School, he began formation with hopes of being ordained into the Jesuit order. He received a bachelor’s degree in 1925 and a master’s in 1929 from St. Andrew’s College, specializing in mathematics, physics, and philosophy. Fr. O’Callahan was ordained into the Roman Catholic priesthood in 1934.  He went on to teach at Boston College, the Jesuit Seminary of Weston College, and eventually directed Holy Cross’ mathematics department in 1938. Coincidentally, one of his students, John V. Power, would also go on to earn the Medal of Honor.

As the U.S. entered into World War II, Fr. O’Callahan felt a strong patriotic duty to serve his nation and put aside his fruitful academic career. He joined the Naval Reserve Chaplain’s Corps and was soon ordered into active naval service in 1940, assigned to the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida.

O’Callahan possessed a special courage few men ever witness. From his very induction into the Navy, he “sought sea duty and wanted to be aboard a carrier” because “[aircraft carriers] are the queens of the fleet, Fighting Ladies, always in the thick of the fray” (IWCF pg. 3). In April of 1942, he was given orders to report to the USS Ranger, set to soon deploy into the European campaign. While aboard the Ranger, O’Callahan was given the opportunity to cut his teeth by learning naval procedure and participating in Operation Torch and Operation Leader as a valued sailor. Aboard the USS Ranger, O’Callahan witnessed the amphibious conquest of French Morocco and the raids of German Shipping in Norwegian waters, becoming an esteemed sailor and finding a passion for his vessel and the Navy he served.

Shortly after his tour on the USS Ranger, O’Callahan was ordered to report to the USS Franklin to aid in a critical operation for the defeat of the Japanese. In March of 1945, Fr. O’Callahan reported to the USS Franklin in Pearl Harbor, which began the perilous duties of Task Force 58. As part of Task Force 58, the USS Franklin would come closer than any other carrier to the Japanese mainland during the war in an attempt to destroy the remnants of the Japanese fleet.

Before dawn on March 19th, 1945, the USS Franklin launched a fighter sweep against Honshu and the Kure Harbor. All men remained alert to a possible Japanese retaliation, forgoing sleep and opportunities to eat. Despite their close attention to possible threats,  a Japanese dive bomber slipped through the cloud cover and slung two semi-armor piercing bombs onto the deck. Fires, explosions, and calamity ensued. A rising inferno consumed all aircrafts and men on deck. The hangar, likewise, was consumed, leaving only two survivors and eviscerating all remaining aircrafts. However, another danger remained. The initial impact of the bombs set off the armed munitions of the striker aircrafts and further threatened the fuel lines of the carrier. There were still tons of munitions within the ship, and an imminent powder keg threatened the remaining lives. The Franklin was left incapacitated and without communications, broiling in the heat of the roaring flames and suffocating the brave survivors. From the bridge, Captain Gehres quickly moved to save the vessel but found vital contingencies failing. A key concern was the Franklin’s magazines, which were posed to explode and lacked critical water lines to extinguish the flames. Rear Admiral Davison urged Capt. Gehres to abandon the ship, but neither the Captain nor his men were willing as there were still many survivors below deck.

Answering his call in this dire situation, Father O’Callahan quickly moved onto the slanting deck to do whatever was necessary to save the men God had entrusted him with. He quickly organized parties of survivors to disarm gun turrets and armed munitions primed to go off. Moving everywhere, all at once, in the midst of fire, debris, and the cries of the wounded and dying, Fr. O’Callahan managed to direct men to crucial duties while administering rites to the dying and comforting the wounded. Capt. Gehres recalls with evident awe the bravery of Fr. O’Callahan as a five-hundred pound bomb broke loose on the deck and began to roll toward an open hold filled with ammunition. A group of sailors instinctively stopped the bomb’s roll but froze at the prospect of having to defuse it. Captain Gehres saw Fr. O’Callahan appear out of nowhere and calmly stand over the bomb, inspiring and encouraging the men as they successfully defused it. Capt. Gehres later referred to Fr. O’Callahan as “the bravest man I have ever seen” [1]. Another striking anecdote is the effort of Fr. O’Callahan in leading firefighting teams into the bowels of the ship to put out raging fires on the magazines and to lead men out of imperiled cells. This man, armed with nothing but a helmet and a bottle of holy water, fulfilled his duty honorably,risking his life for the sake of others. He possessed  courage  akin to that of the greatest of warriors, leaders, and saints.

Fr. O’Callahan maintained the humility of one who knows his duty to God and man, recognizing that he was only one of many to rebel against his ever-dismal fate; he recognized that hundreds of men answered with courage and strength to the needs of their brethren. In answering the praise of Capt. Gehres and the publicity around his actions, Fr. O’Callahan modestly noted that his part in saving the aircraft carrier was “exaggerated”; “Any priest in like circumstances should do and would do what I did” [2]. On that fateful day, seven-hundred and twenty-four sailors perished, and two-hundred and sixty five were injured.

Eventually, the carrier was saved and towed back to the United States for repairs. Due to public outcry, President Truman awarded, Fr. O’Callahan the Medal of Honor and he continued to serve until November 1946. Fr. O’Callahan returned to Holy Cross as a professor in the Philosophy department until he passed away in 1964. In his honor, the U.S. commissioned the USS O’Callahan in 1968. He is now laid to rest in our cemetery and his Medal of Honor, which can be found in the Dinand Archives, testifies to his virtue.

Fr. O’Callahan’s Medal of Honor Citation reads:

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while serving as chaplain on board the U.S.S. Franklin when that vessel was fiercely attacked by enemy Japanese aircraft during offensive operations near Kobe, Japan, on 19 March 1945. A valiant and forceful leader, calmly braving the perilous barriers of flame and twisted metal to aid his men and his ship, Lt. Comdr. O'Callahan groped his way through smoke-filled corridors to the open flight deck and into the midst of violently exploding bombs, shells, rockets, and other armament. With the ship rocked by incessant explosions, with debris and fragments raining down and fires raging in ever-increasing fury, he ministered to the wounded and dying, comforting and encouraging men of all faiths; he organized and led firefighting crews into the blazing inferno on the flight deck; he directed the jettisoning of live ammunition and the flooding of the magazine; he manned a hose to cool hot, armed bombs rolling dangerously on the listing deck, continuing his efforts, despite searing, suffocating smoke which forced men to fall back gasping and imperiled others who replaced them. Serving with courage, fortitude, and deep spiritual strength, Lt. Comdr. O'Callahan inspired the gallant officers and men of the Franklin to fight heroically and with profound faith in the face of almost certain death and to return their stricken ship to port. [3] 

As members of the Holy Cross community, we live, succeed, and strive in memory of those who have come before us, never forgetting that we are all living members in the Kingdom of God, established on the throne of our hearts. Let us rejoice that many great men, like Father O’Callahan, have been and are with us as we pursue our vocations in life. And let us draw courage and inspiration from them, ad maiorem Dei gloriam.

In honor of the memory of Fr. O’Callahan, Holy Cross maintains the O’Callahan Society which “encourages and cultivates the traditions associated with the Jesuit, liberal arts education of military and naval officers” [4]. For further information, there is a page on the Holy Cross website (https://www.holycross.edu/alumni/crusaders-connect/affinity-groups/ocallahan-society).

Endnotes: 

[1] David Davidson and Leslie Gehres, “BEFORE THE COLORS FADE: Leslie Gehres: Captain of the "Ship that Wouldn't Die””, American Heritage, April, 1969, https://www.americanheritage.com/leslie-gehres-captain-ship-wouldnt-die\. 

[2] Joseph O’Callahan, I Was Chaplain on the Franklin, 

[3] “JOSEPH TIMOTHY O’CALLAHAN”, Medal of Honor Society, https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/joseph-t-ocallahan. 

[4] “O’Callahan Society,” College of the Holy Cross, https://www.holycross.edu/alumni/crusaders-connect/affinity-groups/ocallahan-society. 

Further Sources Consulted: 

Naval History and Heritage Command. “Modern Biographies: Joseph Timothy O’Callahan.” https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/research-guides/modern-biographical-files-ndl/modern-bios-o/ocallahan-joseph-timothy.html. 

Satterfield, John R. Saving Big Ben: The USS Franklin and Father Joseph T. O’Callahan. Naval Institute Press, 2011. 
The Ancient Order of Hibernians, “A Shepherd in the Flames: The Medal of Honor Story of Fr. Joseph O’Callahan”, March 11, 2024,https://aoh.com/2024/03/11/a-shepherd-in-the-flames-the-medal-of-honor-story-of-fr-joseph-ocallahan/.

Charity, Queen of Dialogue

Last year, Holy Cross began a long-awaited dialogue about dialogue. Through social media spats, abrupt confrontations, and general tension on campus, the student body demonstrated that it was struggling to come together and engage in constructive discussion about its opposing worldviews. This is the sort of problem that does not befit a liberal arts college, a place whose purpose is the exchange of ideas. In order to remind students of this purpose, the administration had to ask itself, how can Holy Cross foster dialogue? And, are there some subjects that do not merit dialogue?

True to its liberal arts tradition, the College proposed a structured medium for students to voice their views on controversial issues. The administration, in conjunction with the newly founded group SPEECH (Students Promoting Empathy, Expression, and Civic Harmony), began a series called “Dialogue Dinners,” two-hour events during which students could come together and discuss current issues over a meal. These dinners offered students a casual, friendly setting to alleviate the tension of disagreement, but also enforced structure and civility through rules and the presence of administrators and student peer educators. 

One of the rules of the Dialogue Dinners comes directly from the Presupposition of St. Ignatius’ Spiritual Exercises: “Be more eager to put a good interpretation on a neighbor’s statement than to condemn it. If one cannot interpret it favorably, one should ask how the other means it.” Ignatius’ advice calls for patience and cordiality, two necessary qualities of any decent conversation. They certainly have their place at a Dialogue Dinner.

Though the rest of the advice of the Presupposition was not included in the rules of the Dialogue Dinners, it is equally valuable. Still referring to the statements of one’s neighbor, St. Ignatius continues, “If he cannot save it, let him inquire how he means it; and if he means it badly, let him correct him with charity. If that is not enough, let him seek all the suitable means to bring him to mean it well, and save himself.” Notice the key principle here: charity.

St. Ignatius established these guidelines at the beginning of his Spiritual Exercises as a framework for the relationship between the spiritual director and the retreatant, the former of whom is essential to the growing prayer life and discernment of the retreatant. This quote from the Presupposition shows that spiritual direction is impossible without charity, the queen of virtues which Christians also call “love.” For, as Ignatius points out, love seeks understanding. Charity enables the spiritual director and the retreatant to truly listen to and understand one another. Charity disposes of presumptions and self-righteousness. Only with charity can the two engage in constructive dialogue. St. Paul said, “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal” (1 Corinthians 13, ESV). No matter how learned the spiritual director may be, his advice bears no fruit without love for God and the retreatant. The same can be said for the retreatant’s reception of his advice.

Although the Presupposition was originally intended for this pairing, its content can easily be extended beyond the Spiritual Exercises to the rest of us undergoing daily life. Should we not also desire to nourish each other’s souls, knowing one another as fellow beloveds of God? Is this not what we owe one another as neighbors, or in Holy Cross language, as “men and women for and with others”?

St. Ignatius understood the essential role of charity for fruitful dialogue. This idea from our familiar Ignatian tradition takes its roots all the way back to the moment of creation, and is fulfilled by Christ in the New Covenant.

The Gospel of John paints creation as a dialogue between God and His creatures. The first chapter of John explains how Christ was present at the beginning of time, not yet enfleshed but as the “Word,” through Whom “all things were made” (1:3). Creation was made through the “Word,” which in the Greek also translates to “reason” or “logic.” John shows that God’s creation of the world was an act of reason, and that creation was brought about by the speech of God.

The original Greek makes clear that the act of creation was a dialogue. John 1:3, which begins “All things were made through Him,” tells us that the world was made “dia autou,” with the pronoun autou referring to the Logos, the Word. The preposition dia and the noun Logos form the Greek word “dialogos,” where we get our word for “dialogue.” Through his clever wielding of language, John reveals that creation is a dialogue between itself and its Creator.

Christ further exemplifies His life-giving nature as the Word in the miracles He performs during His ministry. In the three cases where he brings people back to life, He uses the power of speech. He famously brings Lazarus back to life when He commands him, “Lazarus, come out!” (John 11:43). He commands the twelve-year-old daughter of the synagogue leader back to life with the words, “‘Talitha cumi,’ which means, ‘Little girl, I say to you, arise.’” (Mark 5:41). Finally, He revives the son of the Naim widow with the command “Young man, I say to you, arise” (Luke 7:14). In each of these instances, Christ revives His creatures through speech. Through the miracles He performs during His ministry, Christ continues His creative act as Logos, culminating in His death and resurrection, by which human beings are constantly being redeemed and brought into new life.

Christ’s crucifixion fulfills creation, since it is by this act that man is able to do what he was made for; namely, enter into an eternal relationship with God. Man was made and given his purpose at the moment of His creation, when God breathed His own life into him – not only biological life, but life in the Spirit, as indicated in the Greek by the word “zoe” (Genesis 2:7) as opposed to “bios.” Man was uniquely made to be like God and to be one with Him. The Fall ruptured this relationship, but Christ’s willing sacrifice revives it and welcomes us back to life in the Spirit. St. Athanasius, a fourth century Church Father, understood creation and salvation as consistent events: “There is thus no inconsistency between creation and salvation; for the One Father has employed the same Agent for both works, effecting the salvation of the world through the same Word Who made it at the first” [1]. The Logos gave man life in the beginning, and He renews this life through His death and resurrection.

Why did Christ give up His life for humanity? St. John says that it was out of love. “Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 8-10). Love is at the essence of God and therefore the essence of the Logos. It was because of love that God formed man from clay and later sent His Son to die for him.

John continues, relaying a social message about how we ought to love one another: “Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us” (1 John 11-12). As John says, Christians are called to love others in a way that parallels God’s love for man.

This poses a heavy demand. God’s love permits no exceptions. Christ’s sacrifice was for every member of the human race. This is a radical truth which dissolves divisions and calls us to love through difference and in difference. According to St. Paul, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). All people have a shared identity in Christ, in their purpose as human beings. 

Creation was a dialogue, with love at its center. Considering the nature of this first dialogue, what can we say of the dialogue at Holy Cross?

Holy Cross’ mission statement is rooted in dialogue. The following is a short excerpt: “Because the search for meaning and value is at the heart of the intellectual life, critical examination of fundamental religious and philosophical questions is integral to liberal arts education. Dialogue about these questions among people from diverse academic disciplines and religious traditions requires everyone to acknowledge and respect differences.” Though in secular language, this quote somewhat mirrors Paul’s advice to the Galatians. Our calling to be one in Christ demands respect in spite of differences. Since we are called to love one another as God loves His creation, dialogue is incomplete without love.

As the Gospels show, Christ’s speech gives life. In being made like God, destined for relationship with Him, we are given the ability to co-create, materially, spiritually, and intellectually. We participate in the perpetual dia Logos between God and man. Knowing the crucial role God has for us in His creation, we ought to do our best to ensure that our speech is also life-giving.

Endnotes 

[1] Athanasius, On the Incarnation, (St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, 1982), 26. 

Thoughts on Our Jesuit Inheritance, Part II: An Interview with Fr. Keith Maczkiewicz S.J.

In my endeavor to discover what makes us Jesuit, I had a helpful conversation with Father Keith Maczkiewicz, S.J., who serves as Associate Vice President for Mission and Ministry, and is a Jesuit priest on campus. I will include here the comments I found especially helpful.

First, I asked Father Mac what distinguishes Jesuit education from other forms of education, Catholic or secular, and what ways Holy Cross lives out that charism. His first point was the mission-driven nature of Holy Cross.

“Holy Cross has a distinct mission. It’s even different than Boston College down the road, even though that’s a Jesuit university, because of the unique mode of what we’re doing here in terms of undergrad-only, liberal arts… In a place like Holy Cross, the focus on the humanities is a huge aspect of what we’re trying to do here.” He compared our college to other Jesuit universities like Fairfield, where a large portion of undergraduates study things like finance, marketing, and nursing. Holy Cross, on the other hand, maintains the historical tradition of Jesuit colleges to pursue the liberal arts and humanities.

He continued that Holy Cross provides the opportunity for spiritual formation,

“I think that the phrase in the mission statement that carries a lot of weight is the phrase, ‘for those who wish.’ Because we have a lot of non-Catholics here. We have non-Catholic students or formerly Catholic students, that’s a huge number... And I think that in general the College is pretty good about providing opportunities for those who wish. Numbers at Mass the last several weeks have been pretty great. There’s the devotional life here. The fact that you can go to confession five days a week says something. There’s still Mass here twice a day… The fact that you can make the Spiritual Exercises four times a year, that the chaplains make themselves available for spiritual direction, that you can become Catholic while you’re here. There are all these opportunities for formation for students.”

In light of the diminishing number of Jesuits, I asked Father Mac if, hypothetically, Holy Cross could retain its Jesuit charism and identity with no Jesuits present. He reminded me that it is not just a hypothetical,

“The Jesuits on the East Coast are currently involved in a conversation about what they’re calling an “Apostolic Plan…” We [The Society of Jesus] are currently in 11 colleges and universities, 47 high schools and pre-secondary schools, 19 parishes and four retreat houses. We can’t stay in all those places… Every institution is going to have to do a deep dive into what it wants. First of all they’ll have to affirm that they actually want to remain a Jesuit school. There might be some places, I don’t think Holy Cross is one of them, who are like ‘yeah, I think we’re done with the Jesuit thing.’”

He said of Holy Cross, regarding our first lay president, “There is more conversation about mission and Catholicism with a lay president than there was with a Jesuit president, because there’s a recognition that, in some people’s minds it doesn’t sit in the person in the president’s office who is wearing a collar, even though president Rougeau is an active, practicing Catholic… Because of that, there are a lot of conversations about mission here. I think there are going to be gradations of things… could a place be ‘Ignatian,’ inspired by Ignatius and his spirituality, but no longer a Jesuit school?... We [Jesuits] haven’t really wrestled with this totally.”

Finally, I asked Father Mac what I consider to be the most important question. That is, whether Holy Cross could retain its Jesuit charism or identity if the majority of the community no longer believed in or practiced the Catholic faith. He pointed out Pope John Paul II’s imperative that the majority of faculty at Catholic institutions should be Catholic. But, he says, “the horse has left the barn, at almost every Catholic school.” He continued with a clarification of what the mission of a Catholic institution is, primarily,

“The thing about Catholic higher education is that it’s not a parish… When I speak to new faculty, I say to them, ‘we do not relate to you as if you are a parishioner here, you’re not a parishioner at Holy Cross.’ Their job is to teach, to teach well, and contribute to the Catholic intellectual tradition, which says: ‘ask really good questions about your discipline. Let’s bring them to a dialogue with what we believe in the Catholic faith’… That’s how we maintain ourselves as an authentically Catholic place.”

At the same time, he cautioned adamantly against a separation between “Jesuit” and “Catholic,”

“I think we have to be really diligent because we can be very quick to say ‘Jesuit, yay, Catholic, boo.’ And I think we see that in multiple areas… People love the Jesuits, people don’t love the Church all the time, and I would say that Saint Ignatius is rolling over in his grave when he hears that. Because you could not conceive of the Jesuits outside the Church. Even just a few years ago, we said in a document coming out of our General Congregation, that the Jesuits are “for, with, and of the Church.” We can’t conceive of ourselves any other way. I think we run into problems when we try to divorce the two, to try to make people happy.

He brought up the example of the Jesuit response to the Dobbs decision,

“The overturning of Roe v. Wade is a good example. I think people were shocked when the Jesuit Conference of the U.S. and Canada put out a statement in support of the Dobbs decision… I think people felt shocked and betrayed by that. But that would say to me that we, Jesuits, have done a poor job reminding people that we’re also Catholic. These two things can never and should never have been divorced. And if we stress ‘Jesuit’ over ‘Catholic,’ we’re doing a disservice to the Church.”

As a final thought, Father Mac reminded me of our privileged position at Holy Cross,

“I think sometimes in these conversations around identity and mission, what I sometimes want to say to people is that we are in a privileged place to be able to have them. Because if you’re aware of the higher ed. landscape in general, there’s basically one institution closing a month… Three colleges in Pennsylvania closed in one month over the summer. The atmosphere for Catholic higher ed. right now… is punishing. So the fact that we can have these conversations means that Holy Cross is doing really well… It’s a privilege to be able to debate these things. Because many places are worried about keeping the lights on and not having paper in the photocopier.”

We are truly privileged to be in the position that we are in. It is a privilege that Holy Cross can focus on its Jesuit mission at all. Idealist Catholics like myself must recognize and appreciate that. At the same time, with the privilege of our resources comes the responsibility to use them well. This responsibility demands Holy Cross to use its resources in service of its Jesuit mission; service which is not just an exterior decoration or mere good works, but truly flowing from and aiming for the living Catholic Faith. Holy Cross has the ability, and thus the responsibility, not only to produce great scholars and successful alumni, but to produce saints. It can, and therefore must, not only work for academic excellence and social change, but labor ad majorem Dei gloriam, for the greater glory of God.