No "Right to Healthcare"

Our current healthcare system is, to put it bluntly, unsustainable. The cost of treatment inflates yearly to exorbitant new levels, and the system as a whole is laden with inefficiencies. Those who lack adequate health insurance rarely receive preventative or proactive care and often times preventable illnesses become costly emergency-room cases. In an effort to address this crisis, the American left has united behind a common rallying cry: “Healthcare is a fundamental human right!” 

The aim of such rhetoric is admirable. Confronted with the stomach churning reality of the large number of Americans who die each year because they could not afford decent medical treatment in one of the wealthiest nations in the world, those who make such proclamations are responding to a very real injustice. Nonetheless, this maxim is a caustic one. In claiming that access to healthcare is a fundamental human right they both distort the concept of human rights and imply a perverse set of assumptions about what it means to live in a society. 

Fundamental human rights exist in order to preserve the dignity of the individual. Rights such as the right to free speech and the right to practice one’s religion ensure that individuals within a society are free to act according to their conscience and beliefs, so long as they do not impede others from doing so. The establishment of basic rights preserves the dignity of the individual by protecting him from unjust coercion from his fellow citizens and the government itself. Under this schema of human rights, the claim that the right to healthcare should be included quickly breaks down. Medical treatment, or the resources used to procure it, inevitably come from another human being. The assertion that one has a right to healthcare thus implies that one has a right to the property or resources of another human being, and ultimately, that one has a right to coerce another to serve his own ends. At this point, a “right” no longer serves to protect the dignity and integrity of the individual within a society; it involves an overreach into the integrity of another. 

At this point the argument in favor of the government providing a basic healthcare safety net to its citizens appears to collapse. And indeed, under the terms of the prevailing mode of moral discourse in our society it does. But that is because the discourse is shaped by an unnatural, pernicious notion: that as a society our obligations to our fellow human beings extend only as far as the bare portion we owe to them as an absolute right. Such a conception of what it means to live in a society is one-dimensional and cold. It ignores the cooperative aspects of human nature that compelled us to sacrifice our natural total freedom in order to enter into a society in the first place. It labors under the delusion that the height of human political good in a society is a sort of cage match- a contest of all against all monitored by an indifferent referee whose only purpose is to cut things short when certain lines are crossed. 

When the obligations we have to each other by virtue of our common human nature are cast only in legalistic, bare bones terms -- of force and rights, of what I can and cannot be made to do, of what I owe and am owed -- we lose the freedom required to regard others as human beings deserving of our compassion. We transform them, instead, into entries in an accountant’s ledger, against which we must balance the books. Those who advocate for a government that operates on such terms advocate for an unnatural government, a government that exists not to support a society but a pack of individuals in constant competition. Even our founding fathers recognized this when they allowed the federal government to collect taxes for the “general welfare.”

I object to the argument that healthcare is a basic human right, not because I disagree with the need for government sponsored healthcare, but on two other grounds. Firstly, that it dilutes the precious concept of what exactly a human right is and our reasons for protecting them. Secondly, because it operates under and thus affirms the assumption that our debts to one another extend no further than political rights; that our society can do no better than hostile and reluctant concessions. I believe more of human nature.

On the Malice of the NRA

In the wake of shooting in San Bernardino, California in December 2015, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops released a statement strongly condemning gun violence in the United States. It called on Catholics to urge their congressmen to enact legislation such as universal background checks, limitations on high capacity magazines, and improved access to mental health care. 

That did not happen, despite almost overwhelming public support for universal background checks (86% according to Gallup in 2015). To this day, federal firearm legislation remains stagnant. If this makes anything at all painfully evident, it is that Congress would prefer to take money from the NRA than ensure domestic tranquility. 

And so, it happened again. On October 1, 2017, a gunman fired into a large crowd of people attending a music festival and killed 58 of them, wounding over 500 others. He is reported to have fired about one-thousand rounds, and used a modification known as a “bump stock” to allow his semi-automatic rifle to fire at a rate nearly equal to that of an automatic. Why, as a society, are we allowing individuals to buy high-capacity magazines and modifications to essentially create military grade hardware? You don’t need a machine-gun with state of the art optics and a 100-round drum magazine to kill a small deer. 

The United States stands alone amongst highly developed countries when it comes to the savage frequency of mass shootings. Two researchers, Jacyln Schildkraut and H. Jaymi Elsass, cataloged data from mass shootings in eleven countries (Australia, Canada, China, England, Finland, France, Germany, Mexico, Norway, Switzerland, and the United States) from 2000 to 2014. The US had more shooting deaths and incidents than the other ten countries combined. The common counter to this statistic would be the that, with the exception of China, the US is much more populated than the rest of the countries surveyed. However, when adjusted for population, only Switzerland, Norway, and Finland outrank the United States. 

Writers at PolitiFact note that data here is slightly skewed, as all three of these countries have very small populations coupled with only one or two mass casualty events. The US, nonetheless, appears to have a higher than ordinary number amount of shooting incidents than other countries of a similar level of development. This is a problem. A problem that lawmakers have continually failed to address. Neither Newtown, nor Aurora, nor Orlando, nor Las Vegas, nor Sutherland Springs have resulted in any substantial, long-term gun control legislation. 

Nor are mass shootings the only manifestation of America’s gun problem. As of September, The Washington Post reports that forty-three people were shot by toddlers in 2017. Meaning, on average, an American is shot by a toddler every week. It is absolutely ridiculous that children are being put in positions where they could cause serious harm to themselves or others, and US lawmakers refuse to do anything out of fear of the NRA. How many massacres, how many cases of children accidentally shooting each other, how many school shootings, before congress realizes that there is a gun problem in this country? How many more dead before something is actually done to address this problem?

Immediate legislative action is needed to prevent further deaths. I am not naïve. I do not think that stricter gun control will completely stop mass shootings, or gun related deaths. However, if even one life is saved, then we’re on the right track. 

But where to start? Universal Federal background checks might be a good place to begin. They would impede and, hopefully, prevent those with a history of crime or mental illness from purchasing a firearm, but would not prevent law-abiding citizens from purchasing firearms. Prohibiting high capacity magazines, and modifications that alter the rate of fire of semiautomatic weapons should be next. Then, of course, in response to these rather modest measures, a cacophonous chorus screams out “the 2nd Amendment!” Mind you, I do not wish to scorn the US Constitution, but it’s a bit odd that some in this country are using a document meant to shield US citizens in a bid to harm them. Do we imagine even for a moment that background checks could be unconstitutional? Or that any regulation whatsoever on magazine sizes is beyond the constitutional remit of federal power? I’m no legal scholar, and it may very well be against the law to enact the measures which I have proposed. But constitutionality is not the point of this piece; moral obligation is. The Constitution does not establish moral obligation; it establishes legality or illegality. If the 2nd Amendment does, indeed, guarantee unrestricted access to firearms, and any common-sense gun legislation would be unconstitutional, then the Constitution ought to be amended. For I consider laws which protect the lives of the citizenry to be the mark of a good state. If our founding document makes it impossible to prevent some of the 34,000 firearm fatalities this country sees each year, it is our duty and responsibility to modify them. Anything else is beyond immoral.

The Second's Opinion

Throughout the fall, the sight of mass shootings and similar gun based atrocities occurred so frequently that some American citizens and their politicians called for limitations as to prevent such horrors from happening again. In the months that followed the deadliest mass shooting in American history in Las Vegas in early October, victims of gun violence have been found at a Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas and a California elementary school. Almost immediately after such acts, Democratic politicians called for a vigorous expansion of gun laws while politicians on the right refuse to act because they, like the base, believe that they possess an inherent right to carry firearms.

Using the Second Amendment as the explicit reminder of Americans’ intrinsic right to use firearms, these advocates challenge any legislation that their gun control opponents propose. Noting that the first gun control laws proposed by the American Founders in the early republic mandated that most household be armed, believers in the Second Amendment argue that its purpose is to allow for the defense of the pubic liberties, in case the government acts tyrannically and violates these fundamental rights. Granted that America in 2017 is not acting tyrannical, the Second Amendment is not mooted by the cultural bond it has with politically active hunters and firearm aficionados. Although these enthusiasts engage in lawful activities and vote accordingly, they are often vilified by gun control advocates for “assisting” in mass shootings. Look no further than the statement of the disgraced Harvey Weinstein, who proposed pursuing actions that would eliminate the NRA’s influence from the political process after the Las Vegas shooting. 

Despite the outcry condemning Weinstein’s statement, a significant portion of the country still cannot fathom the close bond that their fellow citizens have towards guns and continue to remain isolated from people who “cling to their guns.” Second Amendment skeptics, like like Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT), have called for the banning of AR-15, a specific type of semiautomatic assault rifle. A Democratic colleague of the Senator Murphy, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), proposed a bill banning AR-15s in the U.S. Senate days after the deadly shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas. 

While the proposals of these Democratic Senators and other gun control advocates are well intentioned, they are severely misguided because the man who brought the shooting to an end in Texas used an AR-15. If there had been legislation banning the legal acquirement of an AR-15 that man, Stephen Willeford, could not have acted and the shooting could have lasted longer with even deadlier implications. Unlike the densely populated communities with police stations nearby where most gun control advocates reside, the communities reliant on their firearms for self-defense live significant distances away from law enforcement officials. Furthermore, Secret Service officers were able to prevent further injuries to Congressional leaders or House Majority Whip Steve Scalise because they were able to respond rapidly to the shooter at the Congressional Baseball practice. The presence of a deterrent firearm is the best precaution against mass shooting because it allows the rapid response that saves lives.

In the aftermath of the Las Vegas and Sutherland Spring shootings, gun control proponents frequently asserted that firearm laws needed be strengthened because it would then prevent future atrocities from ever occurring again. Such proposals are absurd; they fail to take into account the fact that the people who intend to break the law by murdering people will have no qualms about violating laws in order to obtain guns illegally. 

But what of background checks? They are a current requirement for people purchasing guns. However, due an error in the processing stage, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System failed to recognize that the shooter in Sutherland Spring was courtmartialed for domestic abuse because the Air Force failed to submit the records. The extension of background checks usually gains support across the partisan lines so policy proposals aimed at eliminating the inefficiencies between the agencies so that authentic checks could occur would most likely gain bipartisan support. Until recently, Congress has discussed bipartisan support for the elimination of bump stocks.

While Democrats and gun control advocates have been hesitant to respect the wishes of gun owners, they should listen to their voters because their options are going to be a matter of major political significance in eleven months. In a public opinion poll taken after the Sutherland Springs Shooting, Gallup found that only 36% of those surveyed would support legislation banning AR-15. With Democratic Senators representing deep-red states with a heritage of hunting, it would be politically imperative for Senators Tester, McCaskill, Heitkamp, Donnelly, and Manchin to oppose any regulation infringing upon the rights of gun owners. If they refuse, it is safe to assume that a politically coherent class of gun owners would be motivated by the NRA to select a Republican who shares their values. Hopefully these Senators will listen to their constituents, the American people, and the not the more radical members of their own party.

Let's Talk About... Jesus

“I’m really fed up with Christians,” my neighbor told me. “The other night I was by the pond when these two guys with beanies and acoustic guitars asked me if I’d found Christ, and then they started playing Jesus music.”

As a Catholic, the thought of two hippies playing Jesus Jams by a pond makes me smile. But I can understand how hipster-fueled evangelization with spontaneous music can be a little off-putting-- especially in a society where religion is akin to going to the bathroom: if you have to do it, fine, but don’t talk about it. This attitude is a serious challenge to evangelization-- it’s hard to make disciples of all nations when the nations are too fed up with you to listen. I understand that any amount of evangelization will alienate some people, but this alienation becomes a problem when it annihilates any receptivity to Catholicism. Given that Jesus told us that we’d be persecuted for spreading the gospel, some evangelists seem to judge their effectiveness by how many people they’ve made mad. That’s not the point; any evangelization that drives people away from God undermines its own purpose, no matter how Christ-like the ensuing stigmatization makes us feel.

That’s not to say there aren’t real barriers to evangelization. A recent New York Times Op-Ed by Nicholas Kristof cited several studies which indicate that in academia, there’s significantly more hiring bias against Conservatives and Christians than against minority groups. Kristof cited a study by a black evangelical sociologist who found that 30% of academics said they’d be less likely to support a candidate for a job if they found out the candidate was a Republican. The numbers jumped to over 50% when the academics were informed the candidate was also an Evangelical Christian. While Catholics and Evangelicals face different social stigmas, they are stigmas nonetheless, and in or out of academia, these stigmas are a real barrier to effectively spreading the Gospel.

On top of the social stigma, there’s also the very real and uncomfortable truth that no matter how logical and persuasive you are, you can’t argue someone into faith. So how do we evangelize in a secular culture that ridicules and delegitimizes Christians? How do we lead someone to the Truth if we can’t just… convince them of it?

The answer is sanctity. Look at Mother Teresa. Before she became known around the world as a living saint, a young British journalist named Malcolm Muggeridge was assigned to report on her. At the time, Muggeridge was an atheist. He died a Catholic. This was not because Mother Teresa was a great apologist or philosopher, nor was it her ability to jam out to Matt Maher on the acoustic guitar. Mother Teresa led people to Christ because she reflected Him. After all, it’s hard to look God in the eyes and say He doesn’t exist. Her life was a witness. It showed that people really can live entirely beyond themselves, for selfless motives, and glorify God. Saints are beautiful works of art, and art teaches you something about the artist. When the world saw Mother Teresa- now St. Teresa of Calcutta- they saw the God who shaped her, guided her, and led her to change the world. She, like any Christ-like figure, had her opponents. All evangelists will. Jesus did too. But by being a mirror for Christ, she was able to effectively show people the truth. As Dr. Peter Kreeft once said, “Nobody ever won an argument against Mother Teresa.”

But what does that mean for you and me?

It means that we have to live up to our Baptismal call--we have to be saints. If we claim to be Catholic, but we don’t live it, then we’re not just being annoying evangelists. We’re being hypocrites. Teach with your actions! If they say you’re judgmental, show the mercy of Christ. If they say you’re boring, show them the wild joy of living the Gospel. If they say that God is dead, become a generation of saints. Especially in a culture that thinks religion is the dying tradition of the elderly, young Catholics have a duty to rise up and fight for holiness. If we want to show everyone that this is real, then we have to really live it.

Look around you. People are hungry for love and acceptance. They’re hungry for peace and freedom. They’re hungry for a life that has meaning. They don’t know it, but they’re hungry for Christ. In our sanctity, we can be beacons- drawing people in, and then pointing them to Christ. If we pursue holiness, then our “halos” become like McDonald’s golden arches- a glowing sign offering the promise of fulfillment and an answer to the nihilistic hunger of our generation. We have the Bread of Life, the food that will satisfy. What more could we ever need?

Get Behind Me, Satan

Warning to Catholics: Compromise is not a Christian concept.

If the Truth is good, then any compromise to Truth is evil. On the road to Jerusalem, Jesus addressed the idea of compromise by saying to Peter, the first pope, “get behind me Satan”. Peter had told his master that he would never let him be handed over and killed, a seemingly good thing. However, in the face of Truth, such a proposed compromise to salvation could only come from the evil one.

Allowing abortion in the case of rape is a compromise. It is the duty of every Catholic to reject such a deceptive proposal, for if abortion is wrong in any case, it must be wrong in all cases. “It’s better to be an atheist than a hypocritical Catholic” –Pope Francis, much in the same way, it is much better to be adamantly pro-choice than to be to be a compromising “pro-lifer”. To be a pro-lifer with exceptions is to be a hypocrite. Weeds among grain. To be Catholic, one must be against abortion because by its very nature abortion aims at the destruction of life. 

Which brings me to my next point, no medical procedure intending to save the mother’s life is an abortion, even if the unborn child were to die as a result of such a procedure. Simply put, an abortion is an intended early termination of a pregnancy. Abortion by its very nature is aimed solely at ending a pregnancy. Therefore, any surgery with a different purpose cannot be deemed an abortion. For example, a surgery aimed at removing life threatening cancer from a woman’s uterus can’t be considered an abortion even if it ends the life of a child in utero. In this way, there is no such thing as an “abortion” to protect the mother’s life, for any such procedure would not be an abortion as its aim would not be that of ending pregnancy but rather that of protecting the mother’s life.

Don’t compromise the Truth to make yourself feel better or too avoid controversy. For in doing so it is no longer the Truth that you accept and spread, it is a lie. Being Catholic means that you are against all things that threaten the dignity of innocent life, not just the ones that are easy to condemn as wrong (slavery, death penalty, late term abortion, etc). In our modern democracy, compromise is the name of the game. Without compromise nothing would get done they say. Heed my warning Catholics, for you know as well as I do that apart from Him not only does nothing get done, nothing is. Look to your mothers and fathers in faith, you will see the blood, but you won’t see compromise for many died rather than adulterate the Truth. 

Stand up for the whole Truth or sit down. In matters of life and death there can be no room for indifference, it is either love or hate, to be indifferent is to side with hate. You cannot serve two masters. If you refuse to spread the message of the evil of abortion in all cases, don’t spread any message about the inherent dignity of the human person and the necessity of love shown towards them. To do one and refuse the other is hypocrisy. Choose controversy rather than compromise.

Remember, you don’t need to be Catholic, but if one is to be a Catholic one must be pro-life. Never compromise on truth.

Letter from the Editors: November 2017

Dear Reader, 

Thank you for picking up a copy of The Fenwick Review. As we go to press with the October/November issue, one “listening session” on the College’s mascot has come and gone, and the other looms on the horizon. It is now nearly a year since the College announced its intention to reconsider the issue of our traditional symbol. The Administration has implemented a “working group” to collate feedback on the topic. Students and alumni are invited to submit their thoughts: should the mascot be retained? Or should it be consigned to what is called the “ash heap of history”? Commentary is due by November 26, via an online comment form. We encourage our readers to submit their feedback. 

Throughout the last year, our writers and editors have discussed the issue in some depth; all three issues from last spring contain articles on the topic. Elsewhere in this issue, Mr. Hanley and Mr. Christ address various aspects of the mascot debate. Mr. Christ discusses the administration’s handling of the issue, while Mr. Hanley offers a final examination of the arguments in favor of and opposed to the mascot. On the next page, an alumnus from the Class of 1954 offers his thoughts on the topic to the editors. We will not repeat any of that content now. 

Instead, a simple note. Over the past year, we have met exceedingly few students who passionately thought that the mascot ought to go. A higher number, even at the first listening session, have argued that it ought to stay. But many, if not most, find the whole matter pointless babbling over a symbol. They simply do not care. In this minor culture war, it seems to have been forgotten that there are real problems on this campus -- housing, tuition, funding priorities. For both sides of the political spectrum, there are actual problems than need to be addressed. Let us leave the mascot unmolested, and go back to our crusade for things that really matter. 

Claude Hanley, ’18 
Bill Christ, ’18 
Co-Editors in Chief

Letter to the Editors: November 2017

To the Editors of The Fenwick Review, 

Here are a few thoughts on Father Mulledy, the mascot change, and Catholicism at the College. 

I would think that the Lord’s advice still applies: He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone.” Father Mulledy was a good man, true to his Faith, untiring worker in the field of Catholic education and, by all accounts, successful in what he tried. Look at the many priestly vocations he helped inspire among graduates. Look at the institution he helped found. Was he sinless? Did he make the right decisions in all cases? No. He was a man of his times as today’s Jesuits are men of their times. Slavery was accepted in the environment in which he worked, accepted by many of his contemporary bishops, priests and parishioners and an evil over which he certainly had no control. He was mistaken but he did what he thought he had to do at the time. 

As for retaining the “Crusader” name and mascot, perhaps today’s Holy Cross College should drop both. It certainly would be consistent with the recent discussion regarding the elimination of the “cross” symbol from the Holy Cross logo. And, too, it would be consistent with that “mission statement” we are so concerned about; There’s no mention of Christ or His Cross in that either. A “Crusader”, after all, is one concerned about the cross of Christ, concerned to the extent of being willing to fight and die for that cross. The current college is ashamed to show it in print. The whole issue is a dramatic reflection of the state to which the Jesuit administration and the Holy Cross board have brought the college—a politically correct, semi-Catholic institution that frequently weakens the faith of its graduates. New building galore, a rich man’s tuition and plenty of money in the bank but woefully inept at accomplishing the real mission of the college: graduating well educated men and women who are strong in their faith and who are dedicated to promoting the love of Christ and His Church throughout their lives. 

Daniel J. Gorman ‘54

Some Discernment on Spirits

When people from back home (I’m from the Midwest) find out I go to a school named Holy Cross, they assume that here on the Hill, we all like to spend our Friday nights praying the Rosary. They think that since it’s a Catholic school, there isn’t a lot of partying. That’s perpetuated when they hear that (allegedly) 40% of students say they don’t drink. Now I haven’t been on campus that long, but I know that number is either false or the other 60% drink enough to make up for the abstainers. So yes, here at Holy Cross, contrary to what many Midwesterners assume, we enjoy our drink. But this line of thought exposes a very real misconception: that there’s a contradiction between Church teaching and drinking alcohol. There isn’t. 

Take the word of G.K. Chesterton, apologist, poet, and Catholic literary giant, who once said, “In Catholicism, the pint, the pipe, and the Cross can all fit together.” He compared the Catholic Church to a thick steak, a cigar, and a glass of red wine. Then there’s St. Thomas Aquinas, a Doctor of the Church, who not only supported drinking, but believed alcohol should be used to “cheer men’s souls” and that we should “drink to the point of hilarity.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church has no opposition to the use of alcohol, tobacco, or gambling in moderation. Jesus’s first miracle was turning water into wine -- and he didn’t use grape juice at the Last Supper. And last but not least, the Trappist monks make the best beer in the world -- or so I’m told. 

But before you grab the keg, it’s also important to note that Aquinas--the one who recommended drinking to cope with sadness--also said that being drunk is a mortal sin. As a Catholic College, where we embrace the cross and the pint, it’s critical to discuss the intersection of morality and mischief that comes with drinking. At first glance, Aquinas’s classification of drunkenness as a mortal sin may seem a little extreme. But then Aquinas, in all his wisdom, points out that when we drink, we occasionally do stupid things. And to think - Thomas Aquinas figured that out even though he had no idea what a darty was. 

But it’s true. So many people say that alcohol can get rid of your inhibitions, but is that honestly a good thing?

If my inhibitions keep me from doing something stupid - like streaking, for example - then I think society should be all the more grateful that I’m inhibited. To top it off, we also live in a society where people post random and inappropriate things online while sober. Spend five minutes on Tumblr and you’ll agree that inhibition is not society’s greatest threat. But even then, Aquinas says, drunkenness may be a reason for sin, but it’s not an excuse. Coming back to the streaking example, the real issue isn’t me being drunk, it’s that I’m running naked across the Hoval. 

So if we just don’t do anything stupid while drunk… we should be good, right? No. The real danger, according to Aquinas, is the “drinking to get drunk” mentality that permeates American college campuses. He says it’s a mortal sin if a man drinks with the conviction that “he would rather be drunk than abstain from drink.” Now -- Aquinas isn’t arguing that wanting to be drunk is a sin. If that were the case, everyone who’d ever sat through Freshman Convocation should go to confession. Drunkenness gets sinful when we knowingly and happily choose inebriation over sobriety. There are a couple good reasons for this. For one, it’s gluttony. If you sit down and eat three pizzas, you may have a problem. If you sit down and drink a fifth of Svedka, same goes. On top of that, you destroy your body. But it gets seriously problematic when is when we drink to get sloppy drunk, because in doing so, we knowingly give up human reason, and in turn, reject our God-given human dignity. 

It loops back to the inhibition thing, but in a deeper way. When we drink so much we can’t make a rational decision or walk in a straight line, we’ve essentially become toddlers or very, very large squirrels. Human reason is a gift from God. It’s part of the mystery of salvation history -- that we can use reason as a way to discover and choose the things that lead us closer to -- or further away from -- God. When we drink to get drunk, we essentially decide to “turn off” the rational brains that God gave us. We are no longer in a position to love, reverence and serve God. It’s not just about avoiding stupidity, it’s about safeguarding and reverencing our God-given dignity. 

The issue is not that we drink on Friday night. Or Saturday night. Or maybe even Saturday during the day. Or Wednesday. Or Thursday. (As a classic Irish folk song says, “I only drink on the days that end in y.”) The issue is that when we drink, we pee on lawns. We dehumanize ourselves. Drinking to loosen up isn’t problematic- it’s a foreshadow of heaven and it can help us be the person God calls us to be. But when we get drunk, we’re not the best, most loving version of ourselves. Instead of “Men and Women for and With Others,” we become “Men and Women Puking on Others.” We can’t focus on God- we can barely walk straight. And when we choose to get obliterated, hammered, sloshed, schmizzed, totally tuckered or absolutely blitzed, we choose that over God. We say, “Tonight’s about me.” 

So with Aquinas, Augustine (a patron saint of beer), the Trappists, Chesterton, and even Jesus, let’s raise our cups (in moderation) for the love and the glory of God. Hillaire Belloc might have put it best -- “Wherever the Catholic sun doth shine, there’s always laughter and good red wine. At least, I’ve always found it so -- Benedicamus Domino!”