Identity Crisis: Preserving Our Catholic Roots in a Postmodern World

In recent months, the College of the Holy Cross has become further engrossed in efforts to dechristianize the school and its identity. Even many in the College’s administration, it seems, perceive secularization and cultural assimilation more favorably than the values on which the College was founded and reached national eminence.

The decline of tradition and uptick in societal conformity at the College of the Holy Cross has run rampant this academic year. For instance, most recently, a sector of the College’s faculty initiated a movement seeking to change the name of the student newspaper, The Crusader, out of fear that “the growing anti-Muslim tensions in our country, and […] the fact that the Ku Klux Klan official newspaper shares the same name as our own” somehow poses a threat to the College’s mission and identity. These claims indicate just how easily the College community caves to political pressure. If the Crusader moniker becomes “anti-Muslim” during times of national religious tension, then what does “Holy Cross” become? After all, Jesus was nailed to a cross: does “Cross” propagate the same violent connotations that Crusader does? Should all Christian symbols and paraphernalia be removed from campus as so not to offend? Should the College change its name to “College of the Holy Cross and the Sacred Ka’abah” to promote religious equality and multicultural inclusivity?

Additionally, many non-Christian students have declared that the Crusader moniker is unwelcoming and not applicable to all students. I must ask, why do these students feel unwelcome? The last I checked, Christian students aren’t running all non-Christians off campus, and the College does not impede the rights of anyone, regardless of their faith. Likewise, mascots like Notre Dame’s Fighting Irish and Seton Hall’s Pirates surely do not apply to every student on campus – yet I do not see students at those institutions demanding a mascot change. Holy Cross should not modify its mascot and institutional customs to suit the demands of every identity group. If “Crusader” and other indicators of Christianity make a student feel uncomfortable, then perhaps he or she should not have enrolled at the College of the Holy Cross.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, there are only currently only 5,000 members of the Ku Klux Klan, or 0.001% of the United States population. Even with this statistic in mind, chances are slim that a large fraction of those 5,000 members actually subscribe to and read the publication. Had anyone even heard of the KKK’s Crusader newspaper prior to a few months ago? Are we at Holy Cross – one of the premiere colleges in the nation – really naïve enough to allow a diminutive publication belonging to a hate group that is no longer relevant to dictate what our values and identity should be? I would hope not. All efforts to abolish the mascot and moniker are sparked by nothing other than political correctness and desires to further secularize the College.

As one Holy Cross student said at The Crusader fishbowl discussion, “The term crusade can be used in a variety of ways and obviously the KKK has chosen it as a name for a reason, and they are on a particular crusade; but I would argue, at least I hope, that we at Holy Cross are on a very different crusade. I don’t think the problem is that we have the same name as the newsletter of the Klan, but how we’re advocating for what crusade we are on. The more pertinent issue is to say to the Klan, ‘No, you are not crusaders; we are crusaders and this is what our crusade is.’” Why is Crusader something so many see to be innately bad? Judging a mascot based on the historical connotations it may lead to is foolish and unwarranted.

Unfortunately, through actions, policy changes, and movements like the Crusader objections, the College of the Holy Cross is further regressing into a postmodern establishment that tucks away the Church’s teachings when politically convenient, favors a relativistic ‘multicultural competency’ over the school’s long-rooted Catholic identity, and perceives fundamental components of the College’s mission and culture as obstacles rather than assets.

The Crusader “discussion” appears to be a part of a larger trend. In 2014, the College replaced what was a unique and esteemed seal with what looks like a reconstruction of the Wal-Mart logo, albeit in a purple shield, that would more suitably represent a school named the College of the Purple Sunlight. Noticeably absent in the new logo is a cross or any clear Catholic symbolism. Though the shield is, in fact, vaguely representative of the Society of Jesus, does it not seem strange that the College of the Holy Cross no longer chooses to represent itself with a cross?

In a similar vein, many prospective and current Holy Cross students report that their campus tour guides go out of their way to downplay the College’s Catholic identity. In a recent edition of the Holy Cross tour guide manual, the three “big things to emphasize” while talking about academics are listed as “Liberal Arts,” “All Undergraduate,” and “Jesuit identity.” The Office of the College Chaplains touts itself as being “Inspired by our Jesuit identity” with no mention of Catholicism anywhere on its “About” webpage. Descriptions of the Holy Cross retreats mention “Jesuit” several times; however, fail to mention “Catholic,” “Christian,” or even “Jesus.” The “Oath of Inclusion” video produced by the Student Government Association earlier this academic year labels Holy Cross as being “in accordance with Jesuit traditions and values,” yet makes no mention of Catholicism. All in all, it is not difficult to see that the Holy Cross administration, faculty, and oftentimes student body uphold the College’s Jesuit values over its Catholic identity. In fact, one might be inclined to believe that Holy Cross is ashamed of its Catholic, Christian origins: seemingly every time the College represents itself to a public audience, it will proudly boast about its Jesuit values but turn a blind eye to the root of those values, as though it is a source of shame or embarrassment. This predicament raises several questions: Are “Jesuit” and “Catholic” entirely different entities? Can one exist independently of the other? Is our Jesuit standing an excuse to neglect certain Catholic teachings? Is Catholicism something to be ashamed of? The answer to all of these questions is, of course, no. Historically, the College of the Holy Cross has been considered among the top Catholic colleges in the nation, but its place in certain national rankings has dropped in recent years. Is it purely coincidental that its decline in national reputation follows the same timeline as its decline in commitment to Catholicism?

The Holy Cross Become More campaign seeks for Holy Cross to be recognized “as the premier Catholic college.” If this is truly the College’s goal, perhaps it ought to start embracing its Catholic identity rather than rejecting it. We have had enough discussions about identity over the past year. Some have been worthwhile while others have been senseless. However, it is important that we as a college community don’t get caught up in the politics and silliness of these arguments. Unfortunately, it seems as though we already have. But that doesn’t mean it’s too late. As Pope Francis said, “Have the courage to go against the tide of current values that do not conform to the path of Jesus.” Holy Cross’s own identity is a slanted version of what it could and should be, and as Catholics, it is our mission to resist the tide.

Name Change

Recently, a dialogue arose concerning the name of our mascot, The Crusader. A letter, signed by forty-eight distinguished faculty members, appeared in the latest The Crusader, urging students to engage in conversation because our newspaper shares the same name as the KKK’s and the feelings of animosity they believe the term “crusader” carries.

Claude Hanley ’18 already addressed how the College is purposefully slating the dialogue on this very matter in his article “Welcome to Secular Sunday School”. I echo what he said and would like to emphasize that changing our mascot solidifies our entry into this heretical “Secular Sunday School.”

In response to citing the KKK as a reason to discuss changing the name, that argument seems eerily close to an existential instantiation- a logical fallacy where one assumes existential import. I do not think that the vast majority of people know that the KKK’s newspaper bears this name and also, I do not think that the mutual name associates us with them. A proper assessment of Crusaders reveals that they (they being the Crusaders) were anything but white supremacists (since racism did not surface until later). The KKK’s message and agenda of hate and supremacy should not deter us from acknowledging that Crusaders are remembered for being staunchly Christian, above all else, even if that is simply a stereotype.

However, the crux of the argument to change the name that we identify with is not the connection to the KKK, but rather the “anti-Muslim tensions…counter to our mission and goals” as the faculty writes. This assumes that there is a direct connection between the Crusades and anti-Muslim tensions. While I can see how one could reach that conclusion, I believe that conclusion is an oversimplification of a complex series of wars.

Dr. Thomas Asbridge, a leading expert on the Crusades, in The Authoritative History of the War for the Holy Land writes “when Latin crusading armies arrived in the Near East to wage what essentially were frontier wars, they were not actually invading the heartlands of Islam. Instead, they were fighting for control of a land that, in some respects, was also a Muslim frontier.” Dr. Asbridge provides an excellent backdrop for how we should examine the Crusades- as a political war, not primarily a religious war. Understanding the Crusades as a political war allows you to recognize that both sides waged war over territory, not exclusively religious zeal.

Michael Haag, a historian with books published by Yale University Press, American University in Cairo Press, etc. writes in The Catholic Herald “In 1095, Pope Urban II called for a Crusade, but neither Christianity nor the West was the cause of the Crusades…The Crusades were part of a centuries-long struggle between Islam and Christianity throughout the Mediterranean world.”

Synthesizing these two historian’s thoughts, we see that the Crusades were a war fought between two groups of people, one mainly Christian and one mainly Islamic, but the Crusades resulted from political struggles.

Understanding the dynamic of the Crusades is crucial to understanding my argument about keeping the name. If one views the Crusades in a historical context, one sees that the Crusades do not originate from a place of Islamophobia, as some may argue. This distinction between hatred of a religion and a territorial struggle defines how we view the actual Crusaders.

Speaking of actual Crusaders, history and society stereotypes them as a zealous Catholic, pillaging every village and killing everyone in sight. As with most stereotypes of Christians, this is completely inaccurate. Dr. Thomas F. Madden, a Crusader historian, addresses this common misconception in his article The Real History of the Crusades by writing “They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world…But the truth is that the Crusades were notoriously bad for plunder. A few people got rich, but the vast majority returned with nothing.”

Immediately, Dr. Madden deftly squashes the stereotype of the pillaging knight, similar to how the College squashes open dialogue about perpetuating our Christian tradition. I write this statement ironically because similar to how I am advocating for preserving our Catholic history, the Crusaders believed that Islam would destroy Christianity as they destroyed Zoroastrianism, according to Dr. Madden.

As Christians, as American citizens, as people, as whatever we identify as, a universal truth that most, if not all, of us can agree upon is that everyone should have freedom of religion. Then, if a group tries to take away that freedom, wouldn’t we fight? The short answer is we’ve already done that. Earlier, I stated that the Crusades were a political struggle, which is true, but this political struggle led to Muslims inhabiting more territory and as Dr. Madden points out, posing a threat to Christianity. Dr. Madden concludes his article with “Without the Crusades, it might well have followed Zoroastrianism, another of Islam's rivals, into extinction.”

I write this not to justify the Crusades because anything that results in killing, stealing, etc. is morally wrong, but I think it expands our view of the Crusades. The Crusaders simply are not what they are remembered as, therefore we should not change the name of our mascot because of a misconception of their intent.

Yes, Crusaders committed atrocities, but so did people on the other side. I do not wish to justify their sins, but rather emphasize that they fought for their families, rights, and religions- in other words, what we call “noble causes”.

In my view, when we call ourselves “Crusaders”, we remember those who prioritized preservation of the family and Christianity. Beyond the stereotypes that society pins upon it, the term Crusader always evokes Christianity. To me, to change the name is to ignore that the message of Christianity is love. In Matthew 22, a Pharisee lawyer asks Jesus what the greatest commandment is, and Jesus responds “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like unto it: love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these commandments.”

In this time in history where hate is unprecedented, it is crucial and essential that we spread love everywhere. Since we live in a time where Islamophobia is rampant, we need to speak out against the hatred with a message of love, which I believe we can do as Crusaders and as Christians. In my mind, our path forward is self-evident.

We need to delineate what we believe being a Crusader means, educate others on this, and then, check our personal contributions to hatred. Every slightly racist joke or phrase, instance of gossip, insult or jab, even sarcastic comment piles up and smothers the true message of Christianity.

Since Crusader carries negative connotations, we cannot simply do nothing about those connotations. I believe that we should stand by our Christianity, stand by our values of love, and stand by our name as Crusaders. As I wrote before, we need to educate others on the Crusades and what we mean by using the name, underscoring our commitment to Christianity. I view this name change as one attempt of many to rid the College of Christianity, which is why I strongly oppose the name change. Instead of denying our Christianity, let us embrace it, as the Crusaders did, and show our love for God and our neighbors by doing so.

The False Pretenses of Diversity in Higher Education

As one of the most beloved catchwords of 21st century academia, the term “diversity” has become one of the most used and celebrated attributes of our nation’s colleges and universities. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to find a top university that does not tout diversity as one of its most prized qualities. For a term that is so widely used and flaunted in the U.S. educational system, we ought to have an appropriate grasp of what it really means – or perhaps more importantly, what it should mean.

When the term “diversity” comes to mind, most will likely think of matters relating to multiculturalism. On the surface, a student body representing a wide range of races and socioeconomic statuses seems appealing and fair. From the lenses of America’s leading institutions of higher education, a racially diverse environment is best equipped to engage with difficult topics. Again, at first blush, this seems logically practical and socially just. But is this really what our colleges and universities should be focused on?

According to many school administrations, a racially diverse community is innately strong. In reality, this is nonsense. To claim that a student body can attain strength and success merely because of racial and social diversity is misleading, and detracts from what is truly meaningful in learning environments. While racial and multicultural diversity are not necessarily negative attributes, they are not necessarily constructive either. For instance, a racially diverse charitable organization is no better or worse than an all-black church ministry; melanin level is not the true determinant of values and meaning, and nor should it be. There is something deeper and more substantial that diversity of skin color cannot achieve on its own.

Diversity of thought is infinitely more important than diversity of skin color or economic standing. Variety of ethnic makeup does not hold a candle to differences of values, ideals, and beliefs – and we shouldn’t pretend that it does. An academic and faith-based community is not strong because of its racial and socioeconomic makeup. Rather, its strength emerges from its members’ composition of beliefs and values. But even this on its own is not enough to form a truly strong, robust community. As evidenced in many colleges and universities over the past several years, administrators tend to believe that diversity cannot thrive in an environment in which people disagree. Thus, they seem to advocate openness to an extreme level that dilates any values they once claimed to represent. This, again, is nonsensical. What good is there in learning and engaging with ideas if we are all expected to hold the same views? Thus, diversity of any type is meaningless without basic human decency. In an era as politically polarizing and ideologically difficult as today’s, it is more difficult than ever to cultivate a diverse community that also maintains decency and respect for people of all viewpoints and beliefs. Leftist practices such as “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces,” as well as nebulous terms like “white privilege” deter us from achieving intellectual freedom and liberty. Attempting to shut down a presidential candidate’s event because of opposing viewpoints – as we have seen across our country in recent months – does not achieve anything. It is sillier than it is effectual. The college campus should be the heart of intellectual progress, and it is difficult to advance when many use vain, insincere excuses to silence opposing viewpoints, all in the name of “diversity.”

The College of the Holy Cross mission statement states, “As a liberal arts college, Holy Cross pursues excellence in teaching, learning, and research. All who share its life are challenged to be open to new ideas, to be patient with ambiguity and uncertainty, to combine a passion for truth with respect for the views of others. Informed by the presence of diverse interpretations of the human experience, Holy Cross seeks to build a community marked by freedom, mutual respect, and civility.” In an environment in which people are offended by something as puerile as party themes and demand administrative punishment for ideas they disagree with, are we nurturing an academic community that excels because of all of its members and their ideas rather than only those that do not offend people?

Diversity cannot be meaningful without decency. Thus, it is time for our nation’s colleges and universities to move away from their preconceived focus on racial diversity and move towards promoting an environment that tolerates and respects ideas. Dr. John Ellison, a Dean of Students at the University of Chicago, sent a letter to all incoming freshmen this past September. The letter read, “Fostering the free exchange of ideas reinforces a related University priority — building a campus that welcomes people of all backgrounds. Diversity of opinion and background is a fundamental strength of our community. The members of our community must have the freedom to espouse and explore a wide range of ideas.” It’s about time that other colleges – including Holy Cross – take note.

Quod Verum Pulchrum: What's Behind the Fenwick Review Motto

By Stephen Merola ‘16, Editor Emeritus

The motto of this journal was once the Latin phrase quae nocent, docent – what harms, instructs – and its acerbic veracity reflected well the Review’s predilection for tough love. Then for one issue (November 2012) it was changed to the less blunt but equally strong Ciceronian aphorism “If we are not ashamed to think it, we should not be ashamed to say it.” For whatever reason, however, that quotation never again appeared as the journal’s maxim. “To give witness to the truth” (testimonium perhibere veritati) stayed for a few issues three semesters ago, but after that the paper was left without any pithy prescription to adorn its front page.

But as any observer of this edition’s front page can observe, the year-long dearth of dicta has come to an end. We have chosen for our motto three Latin words which contain elements of the above three phrases (essentially, the need for the truth) and add to them a description of the nature of that truth. It is simply, quod verum, pulchrum – what is true, is beautiful.

In his treatise on moral obligations, Cicero (by no means the first to see the relation between truth and beauty) expounds on the concept of decorum. In his context, this Latin word refers not to its modern connotation of seemly behavior, but rather expresses the idea of propriety and rightness. Decorum is the ideal but attainable form that a thing possesses, to which it aspires and away from which it is imperfect. In short, it is the truth in which an entity is called to participate fully. And Cicero argues that someone or something which has attained this true form is beautiful for having attained it. We perceive things that exist rightly as expressing an inherent pulchritude and lacking that decorum we apprehend them in their deformity. Beauty, then, is the experience of truth.

Cicero’s observation (if we think it accurate) necessarily points us to a larger question: why does truth have an inherent aesthetic appeal? Why does it follow that, if something is what it ought to be, it must be beautiful? Cicero’s own answer to this question is that the relation is accidental. His descriptions of the decorum-beauty reality seem only to say that it is simply the nature of things for it to be so. And so, although his exploration of this relation provides us insight into its unfolding within nature, we are still left to ask whether there is any grounding to that relation at all.

In an effort to discover this grounding, we should begin by trying to pin down what we mean by “beauty.” As St. Augustine observed about time, we all seem to know what beauty is until asked to define it. And although we cannot deny that the Sanctus of Palestrina’s Missa Papae Marcellior the coming New England autumn, for example, possess the rapturous and delightful quality we call beautiful, the reason two things as disparate as the October florae and a Renaissance Mass should evoke (ultimately) the same ineffable experience remains mysterious. Yet when we consider the beauty that nature or music effect, we can acknowledge that this beauty is utterly gratuitous; it need not be. As (among others) theologian David Hart has argued, beauty is an end unto itself. It is not ordered toward any one end, as most other things are, but simply exists to exist. It is a gift we are delighted to receive amidst our participation in reality. But although beauty is a gift, we would be foolish not to acknowledge that without beauty our experience of reality would be severely lacking – indeed, entirely different. In Hart’s words, “the beautiful presents itself to us as an entirely unwarranted, unnecessary, and yet marvelously fitting gift.”

With this understanding in mind, we proceed to a modified form of our original question: if something is true, and for that reason beautiful, does truth express the same gratuity its aesthetic appeal portends? If we are to understand truth as a gift, we are led to contemplate the idea of creation. All that exists exists solely because it participates in the transcendent reality of its Creator. Creation is the temporal unfolding of the eternal logos, and as such finds its source and sustenance in a reality both eternally beyond and wholly immanent to itself. In short, being as we know it is only so by the grace of the ineffable Godhead. Truth is an unwarranted, unnecessary, and yet marvelously fitting gift, and by virtue of that givenness is inherently beautiful.

Yet because of the gift of revelation, we can delve even further into this transcendent understanding of beauty and truth. For as Christians we confess belief in the Trinity, a God who is one in being and three in personhood. The three persons neither divide the Godhead nor are confused among themselves, but rather the Son and the Holy Spirit eternally proceed from the Father, and, though not created, are begotten by Him through all eternity. Though we cannot say that the persons of the Trinity are unnecessary as we are, we can nonetheless see that the pattern of the divine life is one of eternal and necessary gift and thus eternally beautiful. Since we, therefore, exist in a reality whose source and sustenance is this same divine giving, our truth is a temporal reflection of that eternal outpouring of love. The beauty of the Trinity is our origin and the end for which we are made.

To answer the question prompted by Cicero’s initial observation, then, truth is beautiful by virtue of its givenness as creation and its participation in the Trinity.

Though I cannot adequately treat these matters in a mere editorial (or in any capacity, for that matter), I hope I have at least made clear some of the logic behind The Fenwick Review’s new motto. Our past mottos (and indeed our mission as an independent journal) have always expressed a striving towards and defense of the Truth.  Those who write for the Review are often at odds with the predominant animus at Holy Cross, and as such have been made to endure ridicule, vehement opposition, and even the accusation of being hateful. Nonetheless, our hope is simply to give witness to what is true and to turn from what is false. And our new motto should serve as a reminder that regard for the truth is not hateful. It is just the opposite; to pursue the truth is to pursue the ultimate, ineffable beauty toward which we aspire and to which, from all eternity, we have been called.