The Triumph of the Holy Rosary

Pope Leo XIII said that “the rosary is the most excellent form of prayer and the most efficacious means of attaining eternal life”. Popes throughout the centuries and the greatest of saints have spoken of the marvels of this prayer in bringing souls to Christ through His Mother. Leo XIII promoted October as the month of the rosary; as October is the prime month for farmers’ harvests, so too may the rosary be the way in which souls are harvested.

In attestation to the power of the holy rosary, God has shown us great miracles throughout the ages. Many have heard of the tremendous miracles attributed to the Blessed Virgin Mary’s intercession at Fatima, Lourdes, and Lepanto (but if you have not, look them up!). Such events to this day astound historians and scientists, leaving no explanation except for the miraculous. There are also many lesser-known miracles that are just as astounding. Here, I will tell of two.

The Battle of Muret

The Albigensians were a neo-Manichean sect of heretics that were prominent in southern France during the 12th and 13th centuries. They were a violent opposition that denied the Incarnation of Christ, and their ideas were growing rapidly.

A man named Dominic Guzman of Spain (St. Dominic) was a great opponent to the Albigensians and would preach from village to village about the errors of their heresy, while simultaneously proclaiming the truth of incarnational Christianity. His efforts, however, were a failure. Despite the fact that he was well-educated and a great orator, he could do nothing to rid France of the Albigensian poison. He needed help.

In 1208, when Dominic went into a forest in France, that help he needed came: not from Earth, but from Heaven. After three days of prayer and fasting, tradition holds that Our Blessed Mother appeared to Dominic and gave him the prayer which we now call the rosary, instructing him to use it as a preaching tool to win souls back to Christ and his Church. From that point on, as he resumed his campaign - but now with this new method of prayer and preaching - he found miraculous success and brought back countless souls from the heresy of Albigensianism. Such apologetic victories began to reunite France in orthodoxy, but the Catholics were triumphant on the battlefield as well.

In 1213, Pope Innocent III sought to put an end to Albigensianism, so he called for a Crusader force to go fight in southern France in the city of Muret. Only 1,500 men led by Simon de Montfort showed up for the battle. The Albigensian forces, however, had over 30,000 men ready to fight, and all were ambitious to wipe out the Catholics. Such a lopsided matchup stirred great confidence in the Albigensians. As they had 20 soldiers for every one Catholic soldier, an absolute rout was inevitable. Providence, however, had other plans.

Cemented with the conviction that they were invincible, the Albigensians drank and relaxed the night before the battle. All of the Catholics, on the other hand, spent the night praying the rosary and the morning celebrating Holy Mass. As the Catholic militia knew well, they needed divine help if they were to come out of this battle alive.

When the time to fight arrived, Dominic retreated into a church. He spent his time in the church praying the rosary with the intention that the Catholic forces might be victorious against the Albigensians who had caused so much havoc among Christians in France. Miraculously, by the time he finished praying his rosary, Simon de Montfort and the Catholic troops had already obliterated the Albigensians. Confused and hungover from the night before, the 30,000 Albigensians barely made a dent against the 1,500 Catholics. In fact, the Catholic force killed a staggering 20,000 Albigensians while sparing only 8 of their own men. This was truly one of the greatest military upsets in world history.  

Following the Battle, as Fr. Donald Calloway writes in Champions of the Rosary, “the territorial expansion of the Albigensian heresy ended” and “every Catholic in the area attributed the victory to the rosary.”

Our Lady of Las Lajas

Just as the Battle of Muret astounds historians, so too does a little-known event, which occurred in Colombia some 500 years later, leave even contemporary scientists and geologists at a loss for words.

In 1754 a woman named Maria Mueses de Quinones was walking with her deaf and mute daughter, Rosa, when a great storm came down upon them. Underneath cliffs in a grotto at the Guaitara Canyon, they

sought shelter until the storm passed. Maria had heard rumors that this area of the Canyon, Las Lajas, was haunted. Distressed, she began invoking the Virgin of the Rosary. At that moment she felt someone tapping her on the back. Terrified, she fled back into the storm and walked back home with Rosa.

Several days later they were walking along the same path when Maria sat down near the grotto to gather her breath, as the area was rocky and steep. Suddenly, her deaf and previously mute daughter spoke out saying that she saw a beautiful woman who held a little child in her hand and had “two little mestizos” next to her. Maria was astonished that her daughter miraculously spoke for the first time, but she did not see the woman.

Several days later, Rosa disappeared from home. Maria looked all over town, but Rosa was nowhere to be found. She then went to check the grotto at Las Lajas to see if Rosa had gone to look for the woman. Sure enough, it was here that Maria found Rosa playing with a little boy whose mother stood before them. Knowing that it was Christ and His mother who were in her presence, Maria fell to her knees in awe. After this, Maria returned to the grotto frequently with Rosa to pray for the Blessed Virgin’s intercession.

Several months later, a great miracle occurred that spread the news of this apparition throughout the lands. Out of the blue, Rosa became very sick and died. Everyone in the village had heard of her tragic death. Her mother was devastated, and at a loss of what to do, she panicked and brought her dead child to the grotto to pray that Our Lady might ask her Son to bring little Rosa back to life. As an answer to her prayers, the child was miraculously returned to life. The people of the town had heard of her resurrection at Las Lajas and went to explore this area where such a great miracle had occurred. What they found imprinted upon the cliffs, however, provoked even more attention than the resurrection of Rosa.

Upon the rocks was a magnificent image of the Blessed Mother with the Child Jesus in one hand and, in the other, a rosary that she was handing to St. Dominic. The Child Jesus in this image is handing a friar’s cord to St. Francis of Assisi at His side. Maria had not seen this painting before, nor had anyone else. No one knew who made this spectacular piece of art.

Over time, when no one was looking, some people began to chip away at this image on the rock; it could have been worth a grand sum of money. Even after they chipped away over three feet into the rock, the image remained. Geologists and civil authorities concluded that the image was not a painting at all. Rather, the image was a part of the rock itself! It penetrates several feet through, as the colors of the image are quite literally the colors of the rock itself. The only artificial parts of the image are the crowns upon the heads of Christ and Mary, which were added in later years.

The image still exists today in near-perfect clarity at the shrine of Our Lady of Las Lajas in southern Colombia. It has been a site of devotion that brought forth many pilgrims, each desiring to see this miraculous image. In 1951, the site achieved Vatican approval as a miraculous site worthy of pilgrimage.

These two miracles attest to the power of the holy rosary. In fact, Our Lady, in her 15 promises to those who pray the rosary, said to St. Dominic and Bl. Alan de la Roche that “you shall obtain all you ask of me by recitation of the Rosary”. Yet these are just two of the thousands of miracles attributed to the rosary. We truly do not understand what great power every rosary prayed has in our world. We may not feel it and we may not see it, but the holy rosary delights our Lady and terrifies demons beyond our imagination. As St. Padre Pio said, “the rosary is a weapon in our hands with which we can overcome the devil’s attacks.” Now, when evil is present everywhere, even in our own Church, let us turn to the Blessed Mother and her rosary so that she may lead us all to her Son.  

The Sexual Revolution: What Went Wrong

It seems that we are starting to subtly backpedal on many of the leaps towards progress we have made in recent history (particularly the 20th century) because we realize what we once thought was progress is actually destructive. The Sexual Revolution, in particular, stands out as a prime example of a reach for respect and equality that, in many aspects, took those virtues away. Many components of the Sexual Revolution have led to some of the most challenging problems people, and specifically young adults, face.

First, one of the most visible effects of the Sexual Revolution is the widespread acceptance and prescription of “The Pill.” While the benefits and risks are widely debated, the medical community has accepted the birth control pill as Gospel. They use it as a band-aid solution for additional issues young women deal with while simultaneously promoting it as the most legitimate form of contraception (second only to the IUD). If so many women are on the pill, what is the problem? For one, many women begin taking birth control hormones as teenagers; according to one study done by Reuters, approximately “eighteen percent of teenage women ages 13 to 18 filled prescriptions for oral contraceptives in 2009.” The first time a doctor recommended hormonal birth control to me, I was twelve. Young women are hardly developed before they begin to take regular doses of hormones, which many of them will take for years on end. We do not even like to drink hormones in our milk, so why does it make any sense to put regular doses of hormones into our bodies for years without blinking? For many, the answer is fear.

Second, that fear of pregnancy and loss of respect for motherhood can also be accredited to the Sexual Revolution. While unplanned pregnancy was one of the great fears that led to the development of birth control and, in part, the Sexual Revolution, the irony of it all is that women are more afraid of an unplanned pregnancy than ever. The Women’s Movement that coincided with the Sexual Revolution put women in the workplace, which is monumental and ought to be appreciated. But the culture of working women led to many people looking down on motherhood as less than a career - as if women are not living up to their potential or succeeding if they become mothers. Young women are so afraid to have children because there is glory in a career, but shame in early motherhood.

Third, another destructive component of the Sexual Revolution is the liberal view of sexual relationships that led to modern day “hookup culture.” The increasingly lax view of sex has perpetuated it in the form of casual one-night stands. Attempting to eliminate emotions from sex has caused feelings around it, committed relationships, and interactions with the opposite sex to warp. Emotions only become more confusing and misunderstandings more likely to happen, especially if snapchat usernames are exchanged. As a result, kids are growing up with sexual pressure coming at them from all sides. Part of hookup culture is the expectations that society and we, ourselves, place on our peers and friends. Women are expected to have sex, but not too much sex. Men compete with their peers to be seen as sexually, and therefore, generally, competent. As a result, we are all boxed into some kind of shame, while our sexual actions and abilities are examined as some sort of measure of our value as people. This is why millenials do not have a clear idea of true feminine and masculine virtues. These virtues have been twisted into things that become toxic: in hookup culture, we are all just using each other.

Fourth, an offshoot of hookup culture is one of the most well-known effects of the Sexual Revolution: the increasing occurrence of sexually-transmitted diseases. It is estimated that one in four college students will contract an STD during their time at school. I mean, yikes. So gross. Nothing more to say about that one.

Fifth, there is less respect for religion, the sanctity of marriage, committed relationships, the unborn, and women. Things that we once saw as sacred are now seen as disposable, for they do not align with the way people want to have sex. Just like everything else in a culture of instant gratification, we want pleasure like our fast food (immediately! yesterday!), or if we are particularly patient, our Amazon Prime shipping (two days is tolerable, same-day is preferred). When we treat sex and love in this way, we cheapen it, we make it less valuable. We dilute the greatness of marriage when we try to imitate it, only resulting in a knock-off. When we women try to “have sex like men” we are just exhausting and hurting ourselves to even the score, just to say we are “equal.”

Sixth, a sub-effect of viewing people as disposable is a normalization of abortion, and therefore, an increase in abortion. According to the World Health Organization, approximately  40 to 50 million people are aborted each year; 125,000 people are aborted each day. This is the world’s greatest poverty; we run a 125,000 person deficit each day worldwide. The selfishness on part of our culture, large institutions with larger lobbying budgets, and the media prey on terrified women in difficult situations.

Seventh, and last, is another sub-effect of the objectification of people as a means to an end: rape culture. When we start to treat each other as disposable and worthless, we step into dangerous territory. People are complex, multi-dimensional, and full of value and potential for greatness. When we look at anyone and simply see an opportunity to fulfill our sexual desires, it is a massive oversight of the value another person carries. When we see other people as objects, our culture loses its humanity.

So, what are we to do? We should backpedal on destructive activities and change what we can to create a healthier view of sex in society. For example, the medical community should be encouraged to explore holistic medical treatment for ailments young women face. Natural Family Planning should be more accessible to all people and recognized as the credible pregnancy prevention and health tracking method it is. We need to start talking about sex and sexuality in a way that does not pose sex and morality as mutually exclusive. We must reframe sexual education so that it can be informative and not posed as a battle between abstinence and “Godless” sexual teaching. We have to start appreciating mothers for what they are: heroes who shape human beings through hard work and endless effort. We must start respecting each other, regardless of sexual rumors and reputations on college campuses. And, most importantly, we must make a conscious effort to view people as full of worth rather than just sexual potential.

These are big problems that require big changes, but if respect grows, so can solutions. Perhaps the “modern woman” will not have to use people to feel equal to men, and men will not use people to feel manly.

Catholic Rite of Catholic Lite

In a shocking turn of events, the Vatican has released a new encyclical that will “fit our modern times.” As the Church faces a time of crisis, it seems as if more and more people are turning away from Catholicism in response to unanswered questions from their clerical leadership. In order to address these questions, the Vatican has decided to avoid controversy by refusing to initiate any dedicated discussions on the topic. Instead, the minds of the Holy See have released Tempus Boomerorum, a brand-new, full-length document that confronts the current trends of modernity.

 Many proponents of the encyclical are lovingly referring to the document as “Catholicism Lite.” One Vatican official added, “We call this Catholicism Lite because sometimes tradition is hard to uphold. We’re in a very fast-paced time, and it’s up to us to meet that pace. At the same time, through Tempus Boomerorum, we can appeal to many of the lost sheep and be the “lite” to bring them back. It’s a very fitting name.” Inside the encyclical, we find encouragements from papal authority to reduce all the difficult aspects of Mass, such as kneeling, being silent, and paying attention. The specifics are clear: the Church wants to work with us and base itself on our example rather than thousands of years of tradition.

The press release indicated that Tempus Boomerorum will address several Mass-related issues. Mass attendants will be encouraged to keep their phones on and with them at all times. One congregant stated, “I’m glad I can finally feel guiltless about when my phone rings during Mass. Sure, it’s usually just my friends inviting me over to watch football, but it could be something serious.” As we can see through the above example, sometimes we have to give people the benefit of the doubt; they might be attending to important matters rather than mindlessly browsing social media. The encyclical also encourages congregants to wear shorts and sandals into Mass. The Vatican wants to encourage comfort – not a hot, unfocused congregation – when commemorating Jesus Christ’s suffering and dying for our sins. A parishioner at St. Thomas Aquinas Church told reporters, “I mean, I never saw the problem with wearing sandals at Mass. Jesus wore them, right?” The encouragement to bear more skin seems like a net-positive for Church attendance. Dress codes are, after all, the most significant factor in most people’s Mass attendance.

Tempus Boomerorum is a groundbreaking encyclical because it adds another optional Mass that the celebrant may offer. The “Lite Mass” is one that can fit the pace of society. Each Mass has a maximum run time of 30 minutes; while God only asks for one day a week, that time can always be repaid later on in the future. The celebrant is also encouraged to offer Mass from the pews with the laity as a way to involve everyone in the proceedings. While ad orientem Masses may seem “hip,” they exclude the people in attendance, who are the backbone of the Mass itself. At the same time, versus populum may seem like a happy medium, but for the Lite Mass, it just isn’t enough. The rest of the Mass remains the same, but the attendees are also encouraged to join in holding hands for the music. The music will also feature the “instruments of the people,” the guitar and piano, rather than the exclusionary organ and choir. At St. Cecilia’s in New York City, a parishioner added, “Well, the organ is nice and all, but if I can’t see the person playing the instrument, what’s the point? I want to feel involved rather than excluded.” The proponents of this encyclical are willing to abandon outdated, traditional liturgical music for a more relatable soft-rock atmosphere.

 Perhaps the most lauded piece of Tempus Boomerorum is the 100 page warning against global warming: an absolute must for this update to the Church. Vatican officials wanted global warming to be the focus of the encyclical, despite commotion from detractors that “wanted to focus on Church-based issues rather than political debates.” The response to these detractions was to include another 50 pages that were loosely related to Church issues, but were sure to mention the importance of separating trash and recyclables. “Our Earth is ours for future generations, and we are called to be stewards of creation”, stated one Vatican official. While it seems like no one was criticizing the statements about respecting our environment, the inclusion came at an interesting time of deflection (or, rather, reflection) in the Church.

The greatness of this document will shine for generations. Each Youth Synod will be allowed to make alterations to the document, which is a novel idea to the eternal Church. As the youth are the next to take charge of the Church, officials felt that their input on the encyclical will begin a new bridge between two out-of-touch generations. One staple of each Youth Synod is the inclusion of a suggestions box for how the Church may improve. The youth in attendance are encouraged to write down their suggestion on a notecard or tweet with #MyModernChurch to @Pontifex. The very nature of this document being open for changes is a sign that the Church is going in the right direction. In such open-ended and free responses, there had to be some restrictions. For example, the Minister for the Youth noted, “The youth think they’re humorous in writing their responses in Latin, but frankly, the Latin language isn’t very inclusive for most of the world. Please write your response in the vernacular. The Minister of Vernacular Languages added, “I’m glad to announce that our Catholic Church has received suggestions in over 60 languages, and am looking forward to appointing a committee to go through each response in their native tongue.” Truly the Church can say to its critics, “we’re keeping up with the world, so how about that?”

Tempus Boomerorum is sure to be the stepping stone for a Third Vatican Council. One can only hope that the Church can better fit with the world governments today and make the necessary changes to exist in the 21st century. As we await the positive outcomes of this encyclical, rather than addressing the negatives, we hope to be able to stay in touch with Vatican officials in order to see a new, tolerant, and truly universal Catholic Church. 

An Urban Legend of Holy Cross

A conversation overheard at Crossroads, 9/15/2018, 11:47 P.M.

Student 1: “Last time, I’m pretty sure they trapped a Dominican friar and then released him inside Campion house. I’m pretty sure it’s true, too.”

Student 2: “I’d believe it. Kind of like the Exorcism Room.”

S1: “Yeah, initially it was like a ghost story. Everyone heard sounds in the walls as the Dominican scurried about, but they dismissed that as the pipes or the house settling. The chaplains thought it might’ve even been a squirrel on the roof collecting acorns or a mouse chewing on wires. The building’s pretty old – early 1900s, I think, and it actually used to house Jesuit priests for a while. Mice wouldn’t be out of place, right? But anyway, next they noticed additional St. Thomas Aquinas icons lying about, and the cookies kept disappearing.”

S2: “A shame. Those are good cookies.”

S1: “Oh, but that’s just where it started. There were reports of a figure in all-white – a ghost, perhaps – talking about existence and essence, synthesizing faith and reason so well that it terrified the students greatly.”

S2: “That really does sound terrifying. I thought faith and reason were completely separate entities.”

S1: “That’s what most people seemed to think, so the students reported their fears to the chaplains. The chaplains, hearing that report, assembled and came clean to each other about some of their own paranormal experiences. One mentioned that he went back to his office and found that his decorative Summa Theologica was open, while another chaplain explained that when he was having lunch, his Twitter had been used to correct James Martin.”

S2: “James Martin, S.J.? Bold move.”

S1: “Eventually they mustered up the courage and headed into the attic to investigate. As the story goes, they saw the form of a man in all-white speaking in some demonic tongues (and I took Latin 101 last semester – looks like those were actually prayers). They all screamed ‘ghost!’, but then they remembered that the supernatural doesn’t exist. They thought back on all their experiences: the Aquinas icons, the open Summa, Jesuit fights on Twitter, synthesis of faith and reason so well that students were converting at a rate much higher than the 15-person RCIA cap, the Salve Regina being sung from the ceiling, and they realized that it must be a Dominican.”

S2: *visibly shudders.* “I’m glad I wasn’t there. Anything that serious would’ve freaked me out.”

S1: “It got even spookier, though. At every theological error, the Dominican would pop out of the floorboards or descend from the ceiling to make a correction. The chaplains tried to catch him with bear traps and theological books from Dinand, but they weren’t in the original Latin, so he wasn’t interested. Apparently, they even tried to lure him out of the attic with a prostitute.”

S2: “That doesn’t sound very Jesuitical.”

S1: “Well, this is all hearsay anyway. He chased her away with a fire poker, as the story goes, although I’m not sure where he got the hot poker. He then collapsed on his knees, receiving a chord from an angel and growing in power.”

S2: “But I’ve been in Campion – how come I haven’t seen him? After all that, did the chaplains finally manage to get him out?”

S1: “I’m not sure. He got pretty heavy from the cookies, at least, so that might’ve been his undoing. Maybe he headed up to Ciampi, the new Jesuit residence. I’ve never been up there, so I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s been sneaking in and out of their hallways. In fact, I don’t even know if Ciampi has hallways. I’ve never gotten so close as to see in a window.”

S2: “That friar is probably still creeping around here somewhere. I get the feeling, somehow, that he hasn’t left – that he watches, disapprovingly, from afar.”

S1: “Who knows. Let’s get our pizza, though, before Croads closes. At least that isn’t a theological error.”

Letter from the Editors: May 2018

Dear Reader,

We have come, at last, to the end of the year at Holy Cross—another semester, another sequence of months, an arbitrary measurement of elapsed time.  But it is far more than that, as you invariably knew we’d say. It’s the end of a time together, by turns terribly stressful, thrillingly contentious, and wondrously exhilarating. So too this year, for this publication.  A sponsored lecture in Rehm Library, a published interview with a prominent public intellectual, six issues, a substantially expanded readership, a growing list of alumni supporters.  As one of our predecessors put it, “All in all, not a bad run.”

The Fenwick Review has been around for twenty-nine years.  When it was founded, publications like this one had been springing up for a decade across the country. Many of the social changes of the last few years were inconceivable.  Much of that has changed.  Iraq and Afghanistan discredited the neocons; social conservatives have lost on most of the issues they ever cared about; the neoliberal economics of Hayek and Friedman, once conservative bread and butter, now face increasing criticism from the Right, and particularly from the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.  Does a magazine built on this synthesis still have anything credible to say?

We believe we do.  “Traditional Catholic principles and conservative ideas” are perhaps less popular in academia today than they were thirty years ago, but they aren’t any less relevant.  Thirty years ago, the Right was all about freedom. While the contemporary left might claim the banner of liberation, it continues to fundamentally undermine the authentic sense of freedom.  It isn’t merely a political problem, either: the de rigeur understanding of human beings is extremely toxic in this regard.

That is precisely where this magazine becomes important. We’ve taken our stands in defence of life, conscience, and religion.  We’ve published cultural criticism and spiritual reflections. We’ve touched frequently on contemporary politics, particularly on the relationship of freedom and the common good.  All of these resist the identitarian flattening of human beings into acronyms or protest movements. All of them communicate the freedom and the dignity of every human person.  In our lives on this hill and beyond it, there are truths to be discovered, and choices to be made. We have to seek them freely, and make them truly.  We hope that we have sometimes helped to do that.

Petite Veritatem,

Claude Hanley ‘18

William Christ ‘18

Editors in Chief

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.

Catholicism and Secularism in Europe's Public Square

In early April, French President Emmanuel Macron delivered a speech to his country’s bishops, urging them to use their Catholic faith to engage France’s political system. Macron’s speech comes amid debate over several controversial issues, like in vitro fertilization for lesbian couples and the future of euthanasia. It’s especially remarkable since Macron is no supporter of the Church’s teachings on either issue.  Nonetheless, he finds the Catholic voice valuable in the public square. In that regard, his statement has implications for political life beyond the Fifth Republic.

Macron’s viewpoint would be controversial in America.  In France, it’s about as revolutionary as the guillotine.  France prides itself on its secularism, and has for many year.s In 2004, the French government made it illegal to wear “conspicuous” religious symbols in government operated schools, which meant young Muslim girls couldn’t wear head coverings in public schools.  More recently, the 2016 “Burkini Ban” saw armed police force a Muslim woman to remove her clothing on the beach, for “not respecting secularism.”

The United States is not so tyrannically secular, but many Americans are quick to downplay the importance of faith in making political decisions. People give two key reasons for this decision. First, they argue that the First Amendment calls for a separation of church and state. Trouble is, it doesn’t. Instead, it asserts that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The purpose of the amendment was not to ban religious people from politics, but to prevent the government from establishing its own church or persecuting specific religious groups.

Second, people justify strict ideological secularism by arguing against imposition. In other words, they claim that while they personally believe in a particular religious doctrine, they don’t want to impose this view on others. Yet society has no hesitation about condemning other evils, like murder, theft, or child abuse. We have no qualms about telling people that something is wrong if we truly believe it is wrong. Personal opposition is just indecision, fear, or a lack of moral conviction dressed up as politeness. People are afraid they may be wrong, or they are afraid of being stigmatized or condemned for holding a belief that modern, liberal society deems unacceptable. And so they stay silent, depriving the public square of clear voices, informed by conscience and a sense of the common good.  In that regard, Macron’s speech serves as a call to action for religious people across the West.

In a diagnosis that is also applicable to America, Macron said, “What strikes our country is… not only the economic crisis, it is relativism, it is even nihilism.” In a world full of violence, confusion, pain, and nothingness, people are desperate “to hear from another perspective on man than the material perspective.” The Church can provide this perspective since it has a “voice which still dares to speak of man as a living spirit.”  If this is true in France, is it not truer in America?

The world suffers, obviously.  Our politics becomes ever more divisive, people on both sides of the aisle are concerned with “fake news,” and the #MeToo movement has revealed the prevalence of sexual assault in this country. Marriages are falling apart, there’s a raging opioid crisis, and it’s very possible that Kanye West will run for president. People can’t even talk about disagreements anymore, because everyone is furious and we don’t even agree about what truth is.  What we’re doing isn’t working.

This political moment needs the Catholic voice. We need a voice that is going to stand up and speak out. We need people to emerge from behind the façade of correctness in order to stand for truth.

This may be interpreted by some as a pointed attack on a particular political group. It isn’t. Because if Macron got one thing right, it’s that everyone needs to hear the Catholic perspective. This isn’t about Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal. The Church’s perspective transcends those divisions. It offers an entirely countercultural message. That’s why this is so difficult for some people. News reporters would love to claim that Pope Francis is basically a Democrat. He isn’t a Democrat. He’s a Catholic. And to confine the ideological richness of Catholicism to one political movement robs it of its universality. That said, not every vote is justifiable.

The teachings of the Church aren’t easy. No one said they would be. That isn’t an excuse to disregard them. On top of that, too many people write off difficult teachings because they don’t understand them. So do your homework. Figure out why the Church teaches what it teaches. The result will often be more logical, applicable, rational and convincing than you ever imagined.

But bear this in mind, too: you can justify anything. You can even warp the Bible or Church teaching to do it. Just because some rogue theologian supports gendercide abortions doesn’t make them Christian doctrine. Find credible theologians, papal documents, and legitimate reasons that explain the truth, goodness, and beauty of Catholic teaching. And then go out into the world and be the hands and feet of Christ.

At the end of the day, we simply have to step back and realize we don’t have all the answers. Maybe, just maybe, the Church can help us out.

A Reflection on "Finding God in All Things"

“Finding God in all things” is the catchphrase of Ignatian spirituality.  But what does it mean? To understand Ignatius, we need more than the buzzword version of his popular ideas.  To begin with, then, St. Ignatius tells us in his Spiritual Exercises that “Love consists in a mutual communication between two persons.” When this mutual communication is between myself and God, I can know with certainty that God loves me. I can know that He continuously gives Himself to me. He says through St. John, “In this way the love of God was revealed to us: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might have life through him”; through the prophet Samuel, He declares “Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind.” Thus, I know two things about God—He said that He loves me, and He is not a liar. His love is true and unconditional, and it is constantly communicated to me in every moment of my life. He has given me the freedom to “find Him in all things.” It is then entirely up to me whether I choose to freely reciprocate or freely reject His love.

The first time that I truly felt God’s personal love for me was in high school. It was the summer before my senior year, and I was out for a walk with my dog. It was early evening—the sun was just beginning to set, and the sky was a blend of purplish-blue and fiery orange-gold. The air was pleasantly warm and dry, and the crickets were chirping in the bushes lining the street. I remember my dog ambling along happily beside me and sniffing here-and-there at foliage as the fancy took her, and I remember listening to music and feeling quietly at peace. Coming to a fork in the road, I turned right, and, as the road led west, I had a clear and unobstructed view of the sunset as it turned the sky a rich orange-rose.

A deep wellspring of joy exploded within me and rolled down my limbs. The feeling was so strong that I nearly collapsed; I remember gasping, leaning on my knees, and immediately bursting into tears. At the same time, my surroundings seemed to shift slightly—I can’t quite describe it, but it felt as if everything had physically trembled and fallen into place, whereas before it had all been slightly off-kilter. Everything felt new; it was as if I had been blind and then could see. The world around me had come into sharper focus, and I felt that each blade of grass and each leaf had a new brilliance, heard the cricket-song as if it were a symphony and smelt the sweetness of the air as if for the first time. I felt as though our Lord had touched my heart with the very tip of His finger and said, “Look at what I have made, out of My love for you.” I was overcome—obliterated, by a dewdrop of His Grace.

Everything that exists is born of God’s love for us. While many of us have heard that idea, we rarely stop to ponder it. I never look at the pansies lining the Hoval and think, these were created out of God’s love for me. St. Ignatius aims in his Exercises to make us aware that creation is one of God’s many acts of love for us: “I will consider how God labors and works for me in all the creatures on the face of the earth; that is, he acts in the manner of one who is laboring. For example, he is working in the heavens, elements, plants, fruits, cattle, and all the rest—giving them their existence, conserving them, concurring with their vegetative and sensitive activities, and so forth.”  St. Ignatius makes it clear that God’s labor in keeping creation in being is done “for me.” He had each one of us personally in mind when He made reality.

In high school, I only knew that, in nature, God had touched my heart, and I had felt a deep and abiding joy. Nature, God and joy—that was as far as the reflective process went. Now, through the words of St. Ignatius, I can begin to see meaning behind the experience. I now see that God hadn’t shifted the world; He had shifted me within the world. He had touched my heart and shifted my perspective, so that I could begin to see and respond to His love at work in creation. By means of creation, God had made His presence known to me, in order that I might come to know and love Him.

As beautiful as experiences like these are, they don’t occur on a regular basis. I won’t try to predict how many moments like these God will choose to give me, but it probably isn’t many. Since that time five years ago, I can only point to two other instances where God, by means of His Grace, made His presence known to me, and neither of those experiences were in natural settings. Usually, I feel about as spiritually sensitive as a bag of hammers. I do not routinely feel God’s presence in my life: I do not feel His presence every time I step outside into the sunshine, nor do I get the warm-fuzzies every time I see the pansies outside of Hogan. However, that does not mean that God is not actively present in my life. I may not be aware of it, but He is everywhere and holding everything in being.

Not being spiritually sensitive all the time isn’t a bad thing; trusting that our Lord exists and loves me personally, even when I don’t feel it, is essential to a strong faith. As one priest frequently tells me, it is important to remember the words that our Lord said to St. Thomas, “Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.”

Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed. Our Lord makes it clear that we should not expect or demand profound spiritual experiences. In fact, Christ considers those people who do not receive many grace-filled moments and yet remain strong in their faith to be especially precious to Him. He calls those people “blessed.” I must admit, there are times when I wish that God would reach into my life and give me definitive proof that He exists, as He did with St. Thomas. But then I remind myself that faith involves trust. I remind myself of the words of Samuel and St. John—that God loves me, and that God is not a liar.