Meatfree Monday in Kimball: Proof of Actual Demonic Activity on Campus

People don’t like to talk about demons. They think it’ll make them sound crazy, or worse, religious. And yet Holy Cross has some rather odd ties to the demonic. For one, there’s the rampant rumor that an exorcism happened on campus. This claim would seem absurd if it weren’t for the locked room in O’Kane that everyone calls “The Exorcism Room”, and the Jesuits’ historic ties to exorcisms. To thicken the plot, Dinand Archives set up a special Halloween display with a crucifix and a book in Latin—sure signs that something suspicious is afoot—while implying that there may or may not be a section of the archives devoted entirely to exorcisms. Spooky. Nonetheless, since no one seems willing to confirm or deny whether or not an exorcism actually took place, it all seems like a dead end. But now, for better or worse, students can divert their attention away from the Exorcism Room because there is new evidence of demonic activity on campus: Meatfree Monday in Kimball.

In response to a rather unsurprising U.N. statement warning the world about imminent environmental catastrophes, the Student Government Association (SGA) teamed up with Dining Services to try to help the environment by reducing meat consumption. The result was the decision to create Meatfree Monday; on Monday, October 29th, they removed all the meat from Kimball and served only vegetarian options. To give more weight to the whole thing, SGA also referenced Laudato Si, Pope Francis’ encyclical that warns about the dangers of climate change. (As a side note, I’m still waiting for SGA to send an email about the dangers of Pelagianism, which Pope Francis warns about extensively in his newest encyclical, Gaudete et Exultate.)

At the same time, it isn’t initially clear how not eating meat will prevent the world from lighting on fire. After all, signs in Kimball pointed out that animal waste was creating a serious environmental impact. But logically, it seems like the best way to get a cow to stop defecating is to eat the cow. Vegetarianism, on the other hand, would just mean that the cows would live longer, poop more, and make more cow babies, and as a result, the world would burn faster. Meatfree Monday, then, makes no sense. But is it going too far to call it demonic? Perhaps not.  

Recognizing that real demonology was above my paygrade, I reached out to James Dooley, a junior at the College, who once took a class on demons. (In all honesty, James wasn’t my first choice, but since no exorcist would return my emails, he’ll have to do.) When asked whether demonic influence was involved in the Meatfree Monday incident, James nodded. “I’m really of the opinion that most carbs are a gateway to pure evil,” said Dooley. “Meatfree Monday just means more carbs.” James also pointed out rather astutely that salt is often used to scare demons away, and meat is often salty. “It really could just be a ploy to limit the amount of salt so more demons can get in,” James said, noting that with less salt and more demons, the school could be exposed to even more horror, like entire weeks of vegetarianism. Extra spooky. To James’s first point, Kimball’s vegetarian substitutes were a little odd, albeit sometimes delicious. One student, who commented anonymously, said, “Meatfree Monday? More like Cheese Monday?” The student noted that almost all the meat was replaced by dairy products, like grilled cheese, cheese quesadillas, and cheese lasagna. Given the high percentage of adults who cannot process dairy, this seems problematic, both for students and for the maintenance people who clean bathrooms on campus.

Seth Sullivan, a sophomore, also thought that demons were somehow involved. “I’m not entirely sure how,” he said, pointing out that he was actually an atheist. “But hey, you don’t have to believe in God to know when something really messed up is going on. I think demons may be a logical explanation.”  

That makes me uneasy. Now, once again, it may not be air-tight proof that actual demons are lurking in Kimball, but if even an atheist can recognize that the devil is involved… that isn’t good. Looking for more evidence, I turned to God. It makes sense: if God is somehow supportive of Meatfree Monday, then it can’t be demonic. Now, it was hard to find a definite statement for God. At least Biblically, God was pro-meat. St. Paul told the Romans that, “One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables” (Romans 14:2). That’s not looking so hot for Meatfree Monday. But if that wasn’t enough, I started to think logically. God gave us opposable thumbs (which are somehow part of hunting). He also gave us teeth, and He made bacon delicious. Now I’m not a math major, but this seems simple: thumbs + teeth + delicious bacon = God wants us to eat meat. In fact, one could go so far as to say that not eating meat is a form of ingratitude, since we are not using the meat-eating skills God gave us. And since St. Ignatius, the founder of the Jesuits, considered ingratitude the root of all sin, vegetarianism could properly be viewed as a gateway sin. “First you’re not eating meat,” said a Jesuit who asked to remain anonymous. “Next thing you know, you’re blowing up orphanages.”

Definitely demonic.

All of this points to something super spooky. Hopefully, administration will take the right steps, contact the proper authorities, and end this nonsense once and for all.

An Open Letter on the Church and Abuse

By Jack Rosenwinkel '21, Representing the Review's Staff

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

In the beginning of St. John’s Gospel, it is written: “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it” (1:5). In these months of darkness following widespread revelations of abuse within the Catholic Church and on our campus, John’s words gain a deep relevance. Darkness, pain and confusion are everywhere. It seems, at times, as if John was wrong, as if the darkness has finally overwhelmed the light.

At the Fenwick Review, we felt that we had to say something. At the same time, we grew sick of hearing scripted apologies, cagey legal defenses, and words that seemed shallow, insincere, and ill-equipped to affect actual change. We wondered how we could possibly respond to the crisis in an adequate, thoughtful and loving way. How could we condemn systemic abuse and its coverup without sounding redundant or obvious? How could we verbalize our love, admiration and support for victims without sounding hollow? And how could mere words do anything to bring healing, justice or hope?

Confronted with these questions, we at the Fenwick Review have come to the conclusion that, even though this letter will likely fall short, silence is no longer an option. It was the silence of bystanders, bishops and other Church authorities that perpetuated abuse and made victims feel isolated. As a publication, we feel responsible to help break the silence surrounding abuse. Speaking out is the first step toward real reform, change and justice. We at the Fenwick Review are committed to using our voice to call bishops to accountability, to cry for justice, and to speak up for the silenced. More than anything, we are committed to voicing our support for all victims of abuse. We also want to acknowledge that courageous victims were the first to break the silence and expose the evil that has slowly been infecting the Church.

We want all victims of abuse to know that they possess an inherent, inalienable human dignity. We affirm this dignity, and wish to remind all victims, and those they love, of the numerous resources on campus that can aid in the healing process. Anyone who wishes to discuss sexual abuse can reach out to the chaplain’s office, the counseling center, or in the case of an emergency, to Public Safety. SGA, Fr. Boroughs and the College Chaplains sent out school-wide emails with resources for victims, as well as opportunities for dialogue and healing. More information can be found in these emails and on the Holy Cross website.

We also want to express our frustration with every Catholic Bishop who participated in abuse or its cover-up, through action or inaction. The Fenwick Review is a Catholic publication that often defends the Church and her teachings. Our founder, Fr. Paul Scalia, is now a Catholic priest. It is because of, not despite, our Catholic identity that we call our Bishops to reform. In any other institution, child abuse and coverup would never be tolerated. So why is such evil permitted in Christ’s Church? Why are some of our bishops– the very shepherds tasked with risking their lives to protect their flock– complacent in the face of horror? We demand justice, reform, and authentic sanctification. We demand more than apologies; we demand sympathy and understanding. And now, more than ever, we need leaders: real leaders willing to imitate Christ and die in order to protect their people.

Finally, we have a message for our peers on the Hill. First, we want to express a message of hope. Healing is possible. Justice will come. Reforms are on the way. Abuse is like a cancer or an infection within the Church. The first step to effectively rooting out the cancer or infection is a diagnosis. Without a diagnosis, treatment is impossible. The Grand Jury diagnosed a cancer within the Church, which is a tremendous step in the right direction, even though it has been tremendously painful and confusing. In Luke 8:17 we are told, “Whatever is hidden away will be brought out into the open, and whatever is covered up will be found and brought to light.” The Grand Jury report effectively brought what was hidden out into the open, giving victims a voice, naming abusers, and forcing the Church to take action. Through the courage of the members of the Grand Jury and victims of abuse, evil has finally been exposed.

Second, we wish to remind our fellow students that they are not powerless. Here are three practical steps that lay Catholics can take to shift the Church in the right direction:

Support victims. It is likely that we all know victims of abuse, whether we are aware of their abuse or not. It is imperative that we love and support one another, especially because we do not know if someone or someone they love has been abused. We also caution you to not let your anger– though justified– distract you from loving the people God puts in your life.

Contact your Bishop. Bishops are not mythical creatures or far-off men hidden away in magical towers. They are priests whose entire job is to guide the people living in their diocese. They want to hear from you. Write letters, call their office, encourage them, and remind them that even after the media storm blows over, you will not ignore or forget the crime of clerical abuse.

Finally, pray. Too many people write off prayer as an excuse for inaction. Prayer and action are not mutually exclusive. So work, advocate, and love, but also pray: for victims, for their loved ones, for the Church, and for all abusers. After all, we all need Jesus.

Allegedly, Napoleon once captured the pope and promised to destroy the Catholic Church. The pope responded, “We’ve been trying to destroy the Church for 1,800 years and we haven’t succeeded, what makes you think you can do it now?” Amusing as it is, this anecdote is a powerful reminder of the way that Christ is at work: after 2,000 years of scandal, abuse, corruption and sin, the Catholic Church is still standing. St. John was right: “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it” (1:5). There is still hope, even in this time of darkness.

Brothers and sisters, hold tightly to Christ. It’s the only way to get through this storm.

Sincerely,

The Staff of The Fenwick Review

A Cause for Celebration

In the beginning of chapter 3 of the Book of Ecclesiastes, the prophet states: “For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven”. As we move through a multitude of crises – on our campus, in our Church, in our government – it is only fitting that we discern what “time” envelops us and our actions. Most, I suppose, would reply with “a time to speak” from Ecclesiastes 3:7. “We have to vote. We have to be heard. We have to muster up the courage to say what hasn’t been said before, and we need to stand our ground.”

That, of course, is unequivocally true. Whether regarding sexual abuse, scandals within the Church, or dissatisfaction with the government, we ought to voice our concerns. Silence lets open wounds fester. And thus, many discontented voices flutter about in the air like bats on the wing: those of mourning, those of loss, those of hatred, those of warrishness and weeping and gnashing of teeth. On either side of the aisle – Democrat or Republican, atheistic or theistic, women or men, destitute or swimming in money, you name the divisions – finding someone who doesn’t admire speech is rather difficult.

Yet I must raise a question. Since when must speaking only entertain the wrongness in the world? Why must there be so much denigration and bitterness? To those of you speaking and fighting for your convictions: by all means, continue to do so! I have no desire to dissuade you, and I encourage you to continue debating. But in Ecclesiastes the verse’s juxtaposition is “a time to be silent, and a time to speak” (3:7). The prophet does not specify the qualifications for speech and silence, only that each has its time. I think that, in this time of speech, what we are desperately, wretchedly missing is a voice of joy and celebration.

Celebration, in our current climes, might seem out of place. Take James Christie’s resignation from the College, for example. You must wonder: how can we celebrate after the revelation that a man, who was much-admired by many of our students, sexually abused others? Can we celebrate knowing that some of our loved ones have been harmed by someone we trusted? Consider also that, in the wake of Christie’s departure, Holy Cross has met with its 175thanniversary. At a celebratory Mass with His Eminence Sean Cardinal O’Malley, belting out hymns in St. Joseph Chapel, I am sure that many of us could not help but let the darkness of scandal simmer in the back of our minds. At the picnic outside of Kimball afterwards, many of us must have wondered who will teach the choir in Christie’s absence.

The same goes for the recent resignation of Cardinal Donald Wuerl from his position in the clerical hierarchy. Can we celebrate the Church, knowing that a vast web of abuse and sly coverups have been hidden inside the chapel woodwork for years on end? When we enter our own parishes, can we look up at the kindly faces of our priests with the same reverence and respect? During October’s Synod on the Youth, Faith, and Vocational Discernment, we youth – and the families and friends who support us – cannot help but let our perceptions be colored by the pain of the Church.

Even in the wake of such scandals (and the wake of Kavanaugh’s confirmation, but for more on that subject, please refer to Mr. Smith’s article), I believe that there is space for joy and celebration. We can, first, be joyful that justice is finally being served in places where there was once a drought. We can also celebrate our College’s 175th anniversary. Even with its stains, Holy Cross has given us grand opportunities and grander futures. Charging our voices with bitterness in lieu of appreciation will keep us from seeing the picture in full. Having magnificent professors is worth our joy. Having a beautiful chapel and the capacity for daily Mass is worth our joy. Having a student body with many intelligent young men and women who strive for the good of society is worth our joy. We ought to do our best to recognize what has been uncharacteristically unjust or foolish, but we should not let those problems make us cynical pessimists.

Christ did not put us into the world to be harbingers of doom and prophets of horrible things to come. He granted us our lives so that we might love like He did, sacrifice like He did, and bring other people to the Lord. That may, sometimes, require us to use our speech for fraternal correction. But it might be more fitting for us, before correcting each other, to recognize that we are first brothers and sisters. Our sheer existence within the will of God is cause for celebration, as are our relationships to one another. All our present scandals, in fact, can be traced to misconstrued relationships among God’s people, a lack of respect for each other, and capitalization on weakness and strife. I do not wish that our voices be used to propagate that strife.

Instead, I call you to look at the world, your community, your family, with unclouded eyes. There is much that we can give thanks for. To you fathers and mothers: the children you have raised with devotion, the dinners together and the laughs shared over their first steps – these are cause for celebration. To you students here: the multitude of classes you can choose from, the status of Holy Cross as a top-tier liberal arts college, even your ability to receive higher education – these are cause for celebration. To you alumni: Holy Cross, in its days of glory and darkling hours, has granted you wonderful futures, and it soon shall do the same for us – so this is a cause for celebration.

Our world, unfortunately, has quite enough toil and trouble in it. While those voices of discontent can fill the sky with a cacophony as tremendous as a roosting flock of sparrows in autumn, remember that fresh air does good for one’s constitution. Taking a moment to appreciate our blessings and celebrate them would benefit each and every one of us.

10 Years Later: Re-Examining Montserrat

Montserrat holds a unique place at Holy Cross.  The first-year program is extolled by school officials as a key facet of a Holy Cross education and is advertised to prospective students as a foundational academic experience for studies in the liberal arts.  Yet many current students and alumni seem to loathe the program and frequently cite it as one of the low points of their time at Holy Cross. Clearly there remains a disconnect between administrators and students regarding the purpose and practicality of the Montserrat program: what the College describes as “an enduring quest for intellectual, personal and spiritual growth” represents a frequent source of disappointment within an otherwise collectively esteemed academic experience.  As the College commemorates the program’s tenth anniversary this year, the Montserrat program remains noble in intent and appealing in principle, but it has three primary problems: inaptness of structure, ambiguity of purpose, and incongruity of curriculum.

While criticisms of the Montserrat program are varied, the most common relate to the program’s length and structure.  During the summer before their freshman year, incoming students are asked to select their top five seminar choices, in one of which they are guaranteed a spot.  However, the course descriptions available to incoming freshmen are vague and make no mention of the course’s professor, class readings, or assignments. If a student is placed in a course he or she does not enjoy or find worthwhile, that student is more or less “locked in” to an undesirable class for two full semesters, or 25 percent of their freshman year.

“I don't think reducing the academic component to a semester would be a bad idea,” said a member of the class of 2020.  “After a half of a year passes and we get back from winter recess, I do not see the need to extend the program into the second semester.  It occupies one fourth of the overall courses one can take freshman year, which seems a bit excessive. I think the proposed goal of community and discussion will have been accomplished after one semester if it will be accomplished at all.”

A member of the class of 2019 added, “I think most students right now see [Montserrat] as something that is in the way of them taking more classes that could benefit them, so being very clear about the skills that a student should gain through their Montserrat program and why it is beneficial to move forward in college and life is important.”

To be sure, the “living and learning” component of Montserrat is a desirable one: the notion of spending the entirety of one’s freshman year in an intellectual  residential community is attractive and commendable, and it is difficult to imagine that any academically serious students would be opposed to such an arrangement.  The Holy Cross website describes Montserrat as an environment in which “big ideas addressed in the classroom or at cluster events serve as springboards for conversations that continue over dinner or during a late-night study break—which in turn give rise to enduring friendships.”  As captivating as this description may be, is a structured academic environment that lasts for a full academic year really necessary to foster the sense of community and intellectual engagement the College deems so important? Most colleges that require a freshman seminar require only one semester, and many of those are not taken for academic credit and are focused solely on the communal aspect.  A “lively intellectual and social community that encourages engagement with a broad range of themes and issues” can be every bit as lively and engaging if the academic component of Montserrat were removed or even limited to one semester.

Because Montserrat is a required first-year seminar lasting two semesters, a large assortment of course offerings are available.  During the 2017-2018 academic year, thirty-seven courses or a grand total of seventy-four semester-long seminars within six broadly themed clusters were offered to incoming freshmen.  With enormity of size comes an extremely wide range of themes and syllabi, and having seventy-four distinct courses intended “to accommodate a range of interests,” as stated in the Holy Cross magazine, seems excessive and can potentially lead to extremely narrow curricula.  For instance, one may wonder how previously offered Montserrat seminars like “Images of the Latino in American Cinema” fulfill the program’s self-proclaimed mission of serving as a “dynamic introduction to the liberal arts.” As a Holy Cross professor suggested, “One might wonder, if we are going to have required freshman seminars at all, shouldn't they be of a sort that are grounded in serious, even classic books that introduce students to liberal education, rather than focusing on narrow topics that happen to be of interest to a particular instructor?”

The problematic potential for thematic thinness within the Montserrat program likely stems from various professors’ different approaches to their respective seminars and syllabi.  Holy Cross students have long complained about the inconsistency of academic rigor between various seminars. “I think Montserrat could be improved by having the curricula of the different seminars looked at more closely.  Having a common format and grading system could help the fact that many students feel like they landed themselves a ‘harder’ or ‘easier’ seminar than someone else,” said a member of the class of 2019.

The wild discrepancies in academic expectations between each Montserrat course have more than likely left a negative impression on some professors.  “Years ago a stalwart member of the faculty taught in the program and reported it was the worst mistake of her academic career here, as she was teaching a regular academic course and students kept complaining to her that she was making them do serious academic work while their classmates in other courses had very little work to do yet all earned high grades,” said a Holy Cross professor.  “The fact is, in my observation many faculty simply have little interest in teaching in the program, so the Montserrat director, even with the best of intentions, is compelled to accommodate the wishes, course-wise, of those who agree to take part.”

For a self-described foundational program at a highly ranked liberal arts school, this model of narrowly focused, specialized seminars with a captive audience of first-year students who signed up based only on a short description creates a dangerous possibility for extreme bias and subjectivity within each seminar.  “My Montserrat is shockingly biased. While I do not mind having an atheist professor, it is certainly hard to be in a class where [an] egotistical professor proclaims his atheism at every available irrelevant moment. All the readings we are given slant toward his personal beliefs and when we are given supposedly alternate viewpoints, he does not pick available respectable ones but goes out of his way to make the opposing side look bad,” said a current first-year student.

Despite the program’s potential to exist as a unique and immersive first-year experience for all students, Montserrat rests on a framework that mistakes narrow and potentially ideologically slanted professor-specific interests for a rudimentary introduction to the liberal arts and life at Holy Cross.  In doing so, whether it intends to or not, the program tolerates partiality, compromises its mission, and ultimately collapses upon itself. One must ask, for a program that is supposedly so foundational, so life-changing, and so intellectually riveting: why are many Montserrat seminars focused on relatively narrow topics as opposed to studying truly foundational texts and raising major questions that should be a foundation of liberal education?  Why are rising freshmen given close to zero information—beyond course titles and vague descriptions—about what the course will involve and what the syllabus will entail? Why are rising freshmen unable to know who is teaching a given course before they sign up so they might research the instructor's publications and interests prior to enrolling? Why must Montserrat last for two full semesters with no opportunity to switch courses or professors, especially considering that Holy Cross students only have room for thirty-two classes?

Like so much else at Holy Cross, the answers to these questions are unknown, but the potential for greatness still lingers.  Due to these shortcomings, the Montserrat program has failed to deliver the values it promotes and thereby ceases to maintain any sense of value at all.  As the Holy Cross website states, the program is named after the mountain at which St. Ignatius of Loyola decided to begin “a new life devoted to study, teaching, service, faith and purpose.”  Unfortunately, until Holy Cross can clarify its own purpose for the program and its supposed values, most students won’t be able to either.

Sincere Tips for Study Abroad

Next September, the class of 2020 will head to their various overseas destinations, while the class of 2021 will begin the process of applying for Study Abroad.  As a veteran of the College’s study abroad program, I thought I’d offer a few tips about how to make the best of the experience. They are, I hasten to add, absolutely sincere.  I’ll be as truthful as a Huffpo “news” article.

First, go for a year. The College does not have enough space for you here because we have to build more athletic facilities, so you really have a duty to get off campus. If you miss the Hill, be sure to keep in touch by sending in your tuition payments promptly.  For interior decorating, you could keep the form from the Bursar Office and hang it up with some pictures of your Holy Cross family, to show your friends all the wonderful things that are waiting for you in the U.S. For the rising sophomores, try to pick a program that costs substantially less than Holy Cross—that way, the College gets to pocket the difference, and spend your money on things that don’t matter to you.  The College will appreciate your generous gift, even if nobody ever acknowledges it.

When the time comes to leave,  make sure to see your friends one last time; there’s no guarantee that you’ll be the same person after your study abroad experience. One fun activity you can do with your friends is to book your trips ahead of time. Say you’re studying in Ireland—well, Dublin Airport is just a convenient bus ride away! It’s so easy that every weekend you can just book a new trip to somewhere around Europe. Why spend time in your host country when the Lennon Wall in Prague is all the rage right now?

Once you’ve reached your destination, the next thing to do is post about it on social media.   People need to know everything about your experience, from the food you eat to the funny way that people talk. Now the difficult part of this guide is the “studying” part. I mean, who studies abroad for the coursework!? Every class is optional. Professors don’t care about some dime-a-dozen American student anyway, so why connect with an abroad professor in the first place?   Skip that boring Roman art course. You’ll learn more by grabbing an espresso at that cute little hole in the wall downtown.

The best part about studying abroad is exploring your host country, so you should save it until the last week you’re there.  Your home country will always be there for you. If you’re only studying abroad for a semester, this suggestion still applies because you’re never going to have the same freedom to explore again. You’re there to learn something new! You’ll learn about your host culture at some point, what’s more important is to make sure your Airbnb for Oktoberfest is still valid. Explore a different part of Europe every single weekend you can. Why rest or stay in the local area?  You can do that in America, or during the week. Have some fun and take advantage of cheap airlines. That non-touristy photo of Amsterdam isn’t going to snap itself.

The Americans you meet in Europe will become some of the closest friends you’ll ever make. Who cares that you’ll never see them again? They’re here skipping class with you too. Everyone needs a partner in crime and only other American students get that. Now, you can always bring your new bestie to clubs and organizations at your school, but what is the point in that? You’ve got so much time to go to meetings, you’ve got to go out with them on the town and make them a staple in your Insta posts. The locals will understand.

If you follow these tips, your time abroad will truly change you as a person. You’ll find yourself more cultured, more intellectual, and you have a better grasp on the socioeconomics of the world today. You might have some regrets in the end, for example, never making it to all the cafes in your host city or even spending time with your international friends. It’s not possible to do everything in a year and that includes exploring your own country. It’s just not possible and anyone telling you that you need to spend more time ‘learning about the culture of the country you’re studying in’ just doesn’t get it. At the end of the day though, this was a monumental step forward in your life. At some point you may get the chance to do it again, and this time, maybe you’ll be able to get a better angle on that Tower of Pisa picture.

Core Principles

Since its foundation in 1843, the College of the Holy Cross has dedicated itself to educating young men and women in the Jesuit tradition. The core of the Jesuits’ humanistic mission has been to educate people in a variety of subjects, theories, and points of view. Through this community of open expression and free intellectual debate, students and people learn not only about opposing views, but also how to question and strengthen their own deeply held beliefs. 

Without this free exchange of ideas, the liberal arts mission becomes corrupted, as students self-censor their speech or become reluctant to express their opinions. While this particular trend has not manifested itself strongly on this campus, across the country a growing movement makes it permissible for people to condemn opinions that fail to align with their own.

With the current political environment encouraging activism against the Trump administration, opposite views get drowned out by the overwhelming presence of protesters. Acts of resistance immediately arise after the latest uproar at a Trump administration policy, tweet, or cultural issue.  This trend has bolstered anti-Trump activists. Seeing these acts of defiance and protests constantly in the news enables liberals who believe that they are a part of a movement that has overwhelming national popularity. Moreover, the protest and activism culture only serves to censor or quiet the voices of those supportive of the administration’s policies, because they feel as if they are vastly outnumbered. More importantly, the presence of progressive-led protests and the absence of conservative marches provide some conservatives with the belief that their views are extreme and not socially acceptable. The liberal activists and protesters who rightfully champion free debate and discussion have led to the subconscious censorship of conservative speech. However, more vocal ways of condemning opposing views have resulted from the production of subliminal messages during protests and marches.

Recently, the American left ridiculed Kanye West for being insufficiently anti-Trump. Facing backlash from the militant thought police of the left, Kanye tweeted that he respects the President because he has energy and can identify with that. Kanye also summed up the view of the liberal censorship with his tweet that said “you don't have to agree with Trump, but the mob can’t make me not love him…I don't agree with everything anyone does. That’s what makes us individuals. And we have the right to independent thought.” He also articulated differences of opinion with President Obama over what his policies did for the city of Chicago and tweeted his support for the African-American critic of Black Lives Matter Candace Owens. Within minutes of offering his opinions, Kanye faced tweets and adverse reactions that questioned his mental health with the goal of undermining and delegitimizing his words.

If the leftist mob dislikes something, they will use any tactic, whether it is false accusations of racism, assertions of sexism, or allegations of unstable mental health, until it is gone. Like Clarence Thomas, Ben Carson, or any non-white supporter of the Trump administration, Kanye is not considered a proper representative of the minorities’ opinions. Additionally, the critics who condemned Kanye’s Twitter dialogue with Present Trump for saying that presidents should not engage in policies debates with celebrities fail to mention President Obama’s relationships with the highest class.  Defenses of free thought, like Kanye’s, are crucial to the survival of the American republic. Without them, Americans will begin making political decisions without thinking critically about the issues.

The vilification of people for deigning to think for themselves contradicts the founding of America. The Founding Fathers created a republic through vigorous debate. That debate has continued throughout American history until the present. Institutionally, the offices of the presidency, the Electoral College, and the Senate were constructed in order to calm passing crazes and prevent popularity from subverting the nation. Now, in America’s current culture, people restrict their opinions or emulate the “popular class” in order to gain approval from others in society. This form of restriction of free discussion is equally dangerous because people lose their sense of individualism and begin the march towards a collective identity. Standing against the winds of popularity and social approval is necessary because difficult decisions, ideas, and policies are required to calm a crisis. While it is difficult to maintain one’s opinions in the face of overwhelming social pressures, it is necessary for effective and authentic discussions.

While Holy Cross maintains free intellectual debates, the world outside of Mt. St. James may not. Threats to one’s identity and beliefs will be ever-present as society will try to manipulate or eliminate them. Pressures to interfere with one’s beliefs emerge from partisan politics, trends in popular culture, and from all religions. However, the College of the Holy Cross has provided the same principles that, for the past 175 years, have succeeded in educating students with a strong sense of civic duty, personal identity, and Catholic principles. These principles—a thirst for knowledge, respect for passionate and free debate, and the strong sense of Catholic identity instilled by the College into every crusader—are essential for the survival and growth of the American republic. Armed with these tools every crusader will, when faced with obstacles to free discussion, conquer in the sign of the cross. 

New Ways in Theology at Holy Cross

A little over ten years ago, on the occasion of their 50th Reunion, alumni of the College endowed the Class of 1956 Chair of New Testament Studies, a distinguished professorship associated with the Religious Studies department (Source 1).  In the autumn of 2013, the College appointed professor Tat-Siong Benny Liew to fill this position. Professor Tat-siong Benny Liew received bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Olivet Nazarene University and completed his doctorate at Vanderbilt University (Source 2).  Prior to his appointment at Holy Cross, Professor Liew had been Professor of New Testament at the Pacific School of Theology, and before that taught at Chicago Theological Seminary. According to the Department of Religious Studies webpage, his fields of specialty include “synoptic gospels, gospel of John, cultural and racial interpretations and receptions of the Bible, apocalypticism, and Asian American history and literature” (Source 3).

Professor Liew's numerous publications reveal an unconventional approach to gender, sexuality, and race in the biblical texts.  The 2004 article “Mistaken Identities but Model Faith: Rereading the Centurion, the Chap, and the Christ in Matthew 8:5-13,” provides a representative example. Professor Liew and his co-author, Theodore Jennings, argue that Matthew 8:5-13, the story of the centurion who goes to Jesus to ask for healing for his servant, ought to be interpreted in terms of a sexual relationship.  Matthew’s account, runs the argument, does not concern a centurion and his servant, but a centurion and his lover/slave. “The centurion’s rhetoric about not being ‘worthy’ of a house visit by Jesus (8:8) may be the centurion’s way of avoiding an anticipated ‘usurpation’ of his current boylove on the part of his new patron [Jesus],” they assert. Furthermore, “The way Matthew’s Jesus seems to affirm the centurion’s pederastic relationship with his παῖς, we contend, may also be consistent with Matthew’s affirmation of many sexual dissidents in her Gospel” (Source 4).

In 2009, Professor Liew edited the volume They Were All Together in One Place?: Toward Minority Biblical Criticism.  A copy of the volume is displayed in a case in the Religious Studies Department.  Professor Liew’s contributions give shape to this volume: along with serving as the primary editor, he wrote the introduction to the volume and contributed an essay.  As such, the volume as a whole sheds particular light on Professor Liew’s interpretations of the biblical texts.

Professor Liew’s contribution to this volume, a chapter entitled  “Queering Closets and Perverting Desires: Cross-Examining John’s Engendering and Transgendering Word across Different Worlds,” demonstrates the centrality of sex and gender to his way of thinking about the New Testament.  In the chapter, Professor Liew explains that he believes Christ could be considered a “drag king” or cross-dresser. “If one follows the trajectory of the Wisdom/Word or Sophia/Jesus (con)figuration, what we have in John’s Jesus is not only a “king of Israel” (1:49; 12:13– 15) or “king of the Ioudaioi” (18:33, 39; 19:3, 14– 15, 19– 22), but also a drag king (6:15; 18:37; 19:12),” he claims (Source 5). He later argues that “[Christ] ends up appearing as a drag-kingly bride in his passion” (Source 6). 

Professor Liew continues:

In addition, we find Jesus disrobing and rerobing in the episode that marks Jesus’ focus on the disciples with the coming of his ‘hour’ (13:3– 5, 12). This disrobing, as [Colleen] Conway points out, does not disclose anything about Jesus’ anatomy. Instead, it describes Jesus washing his disciples’ feet. As more than one commentator has pointed out, foot-washing was generally only done by Jewish women or non-Jewish slaves. 12 John is clear that Jesus is an Ioudaios (4:9, 22; 18:33– 35; 19:40); what John is less clear about is whether Jesus is a biological male. Like a literary striptease, this episode is suggestive, even seductive; it shows and withholds at the same time (Source 7).

Professor Liew asserts that Jesus’s “excessive” and “deceptive” speech would be considered “feminine” in the culture of the time (Source 8). In defense of this claim, he states that in Greco-Roman culture:

Women pollute since their moist and soft nature is also more susceptible to the assaults of wanton desires, erotic or otherwise. In short, women are wet and (thus) wild. I am suggesting that John’s constant references to Jesus wanting water (4:7; 19:28), giving water (6:35), and leaking water (19:34) speak to Jesus’ gender indeterminacy and hence his cross-dressing and other queer desires… (Source 9).

He clarifies that he is not suggesting that Christ is actually a woman, but that he is neither male nor female. “I want to suggest that John’s crossdressing Jesus shows that a so-called ‘core’ is but a(n significant) effect of bodily acts,” he writes (Source 10).

Professor Liew’s understanding of Jesus in “Queering Desires” suggests an unusual  interpretation of the Holy Trinity:

Suffice it to say that not only does this exchange of desires place the Father’s identity in question but also that the Father-Son dyad in John is always already interrupted by and dependent on the participation of a third party. One may, as a result, turn around Jesus’ well-known statement in John, “No one comes to the Father except through me” (14:6c): Jesus himself needs others to cum with the Father. Jesus’ statement that “I in them [his followers] and you [the Father] in me” turns out to be quite a description. What we find in John is a Jesus who longs to be “had” by the Father…Things do not get less queer as one gets to the other parts of John’s Gospel. It is noticeable that throughout the Gospel Jesus and his Father form a “mutual glorification society” (5:41; 8:50, 54; 12:28– 29; 13:32; 17:1, 4– 5). This constant elevation or stroking is nothing less than an exciting of the penis, or better yet, phallus. Its consistency is then explainable, since “we all know that after … an orgasmic dissemination or circulation, the phallus, like most penises, becomes limp” (Sifuentes-Jáuregui 2002, 159). Fast forwarding to the passion narratives, Conway observes that John’s Jesus is a “quintessential man” because he “reveals no weakening to the passions that might undercut his manly deportment” (2003a, 175). If this is so, there is also something quintessentially queer here. During the passion, Jesus is not only beaten (18:22– 23; 19:3) and flogged (19:1); his body is also nailed and his side pierced (19:18, 23a, 34, 37; 20:24– 28). Oddly, John defines Jesus’ masculinity with a body that is being opened to penetration. 24 Even more oddly, Jesus’ ability to face his “hour” is repeatedly associated with his acknowledging of and communing with his Father (12:27– 28; 14:12, 28; 16:10, 17, 28; 17:1– 25; 18:11), who is, as Jesus explicitly states, “with me” (16:32) throughout this process, which Jesus also describes as one of giving birth (16:21– 22). What I am suggesting is that, when Jesus’ body is being penetrated, his thoughts are on his Father. He is, in other words, imagining his passion experience as a (masochistic?) sexual relation with his own Father (Source 11).

Professor Liew’s editorship of the volume reflects the same method of interpretation. In the introduction to They Were All Together in One Place?, he and his fellow editors explain the idea of “minority criticism,” admitting that the “dominant criticism” will at times “outright dismiss” minority criticism. One of the stated goals here is “relativizing” the “dominant criticism” which exists.  Other chapters in the volume include such titles as “‘That’s Why They Didn’t Call the Book Hadassah!’: The Interse(ct)/(x)ionality of Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Sexuality in the Book of Esther” and “Incarnate Words: Images of God and Reading Practices.”

Readers will note that They Were All Together in One Place? and “Mistaken Identities but Model Faith” were published in 2009 and 2004, respectively. Professor Liew's more recent works reflect similar lines of thought. For instance, the 2016 essay, “The Gospel of Bare Life,” describes obedience to God as “troubling” and “infantilizing.” Professor Liew writes, “If John’s Jesus, as well as those who follow John’s Jesus, are supposed to be fully subjected to the will of the Father to the point of death (6:35–64; 10:1–18; 15:1–16:4; 21:15–19), then are we not back to a scenario in which a Caesar-like head sits comfortably in a choice seat and watches bare life performing death for his purposes and his enjoyment?” (Source 12).

Professor Liew is often responsible for teaching “New Testament,” the College’s primary New Testament class. Its course description lists three texts: The HarperCollins Study Bible; The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, by Bart Ehrman; and The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle, by Harvard Divinity School professor Karen King. In addition to this class, Professor Liew has also taught “Sex, Money, Power, and Sacred Texts” and “Apocalyptic Then and Now,” according to the College’s student registration website.

Professor Liew’s unconventional readings of Scripture has brought a new theological perspective to Holy Cross. The position and prestige which accompany an endowed chair in Religious Studies testify to the esteem in which his work is held by the College’s administration and academic community. He continues to be held up as an example and a bold successor to the learned and discerning tradition of our Catholic and Jesuit College of the Holy Cross.

Notes

1. https://www.holycross.edu/departments/publicaffairs/hcm/2009_01Winter.pdf (page 12)

2. https://web.archive.org/web/20130623015854/https://psr.edu/tat-siong-benny-liew-0

3. https://news.holycross.edu/blog/2013/10/01/holy-cross-hires-13-new-faculty-members-for-2013-14-academic-year/ and https://www.holycross.edu/academics/programs/religious-studies/faculty/tat-siong-benny-liew

4. Theodore Jennings and Tat-siong Benny Liew, “Mistaken Identities but Model Faith: Rereading the Centurion, the Chap, and the Christ in Matthew 8:5-13,” Journal of Biblical Literature 123, no. 3 (2004): 491.

5. Tat-siong Benny Liew, “Queering Closets and Perverting Desires: Cross-Examining John’s Engendering and Transgendering Word across Different Worlds,” in They Were All Together in One Place: Toward Minority Biblical Criticism, ed. Randall C. Bailey, Tat-siong Benny Liew, and Fernando F. Segovia (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009), 253-254.

6. Ibid., 257.

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid., 259-260.

9. Ibid., 278.

10. Ibid., 260.

11. Ibid., 265-266.

12. Tat-siong Benny Liew, “The Gospel of Bare Life,” in Psychoanalytic Mediations Between Marxist and Postcolonial Readings of the Bible, ed. Tat-siong Benny Liew and Erin Runions (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016), 160-161.

Burial

April 6, 2016. During the monumental construction of Holy Cross’ new Luth Athletic Complex, much-extolled for its heft and grandeur, a time capsule is exhumed. As the Luth absorbs the Hart Center, a steel box is lifted from the latter’s dusty brick rubble. The ideals, memories, and relics of the College’s 1975-1976 students and faculty lie in a worker’s hands. The capsule is opened. Nestled inside is an assortment of memorabilia: copies of the Catholic Free Press, the Worcester Telegram, the Evening Gazette, the Crusader, and Crossroads. An American Revolution bicentennial medal and flag. Mementos from Rev. Francis J. Hart, S.J., and a newspaper article about his dear friend Will Jenks ’54. A letter regarding scheduling intramural basketball. A St. Ignatius Loyola Fundator Society of Jesus token. 

And lastly, a “beaded necklace” with images of Christ and the Virgin Mary. Catholics call it a Rosary. 

We do not know whose words those were. We do not know on whose account the misprint stole onto the pages of the Holy Cross Alumni magazine. What we do know is a much more sobering fact: that here at the College of the Holy Cross, there are individuals so estranged from the College’s Catholic identity and Jesuit charism that they do not know what a rosary is. The College, of course, doesn’t force prayer on its students; not one person must slide beads across his fingers out of some enforced necessity. But the problem is not that we have non-Catholic students. Rather, the real question is one of presence; one would expect that, in a Catholic institution, one of the most powerful prayers in existence would be visibly displayed on campus. If not that, we should at least recognize that the beads are used in prayer—not in fashion. There is no reason our faith needs to lie hidden. 

The misidentification tells us something, like the rest of the objects in the box. Consider the values of faith, history, and patriotism that so many at the College seem to be willing to abandon in the rubble. 

The time capsule also contained a copy of the Catholic Free Press, which, in 1975, must have merited value as an emblem of our faith. It was, after all, buried with the cornerstone of the Hart Center. Yet now, over forty years later, it would be bewildering to see a student know what the Catholic Free Press is, much less actually read it. The newspapers usually stand nearly untouched on the newspaper rack in Smith Hall, every-so-often picked at by students who, like winter fowl searching for nourishment, peck and decide that their worth is barren. The St. Ignatius token would have represented the spiritual legacy of St. Ignatius within the Catholic Church; the two were then inseparable. Now? It stands for a nebulous “Jesuit mission.” 

The copy of Crossroads accompanying its peers represents the gradual decay of our history. Among the undergraduate body, it has obtained no legacy here; perhaps graduates know it became the current Holy Cross Alumni magazine. And, over the impending years, the same may be said for the Crusader. Its name has been abandoned, buried by the Spire. One must wonder whether this noteworthy change will leave its predecessor swallowed up by the irrepressible gullet of time. 

The commemorative bicentennial flag and medal of the American Revolution represent another withering ideal: patriotism. In a college so vehemently concerned with social justice, which often takes the form of a double-edged sword - lacerating the faults of some to bolster the worth of others - patriotism shrivels like a dying vine. “He isn’t my President.” “Crooked Hillary.” The claim “I appreciate the United States for the opportunities it has offered me” is rarely made here. Perhaps that respect had roots here forty years ago, but there is little reason to expect a 250-year-anniversary commemoration of the Revolution in 2026. 

That time capsule represented the loyalties of an earlier Holy Cross: an inheritance of Catholicism within a Jesuit charism, history, patriotism. Thus passes the glory of the world. But, within a small scheduling letter, we find something the College has managed to retain: its concern for greater athletic community. We have, at least, accomplished that much. The Luth Athletic Complex will serve over a quarter of the student body with unwavering commitment and presents itself as a source of community pride. We shall, at least, excel in athletics. 

But since the Hart Center was built, how far have we come—or how far have we fallen? Does Catholicism still provide a thorough basis for the College’s decisions on the executive level? How much do our current undergraduates actually know about the history of the College? Is there still an underlying love for our country beneath our breath? Unfortunately, these questions cannot be easily answered with statistics and surveys. They embody a greater crisis in our very nature as an institution. And they must not, like our faith and devotion, lie buried. 

Emblazoned on the side of the Luth Athletic Complex is a massive cross, shamelessly on high for all to see. At night, it glows a radiant purple, shedding light over the campus and letting its presence be known in the city of Worcester. We aren’t afraid to show the religious tradition of Holy Cross; we need to find the courage to live it.