In Support of Priestly Celibacy

Not long ago, an article was published in The Spire about the abuse scandals surrounding the Catholic Church which included some suggestions for reform within the Church. As with most of the suggestions from ignorant college students, most of them were discernible by any thinking Catholic as radical and intrinsically wrong (i.e women priests). That being said, there was one suggestion that continues to be controversial within the Church and can indeed be changed: the requirement of priestly celibacy. Various groups of Bishops have discussed this topic recently, and in the Byzantine rite, it is indeed allowed. However, just because something can be changed does not mean that it ought to be changed, and when it comes to question of marriage for secular priests, the answer ought to remain the ideal: priests should stay celibate. As Russell Kirk said, if we want to make real just change within society, we must look back to “custom, convention, constitution, and prescription.” We must examine the history of the Church on this issue and above all the reason for this particular custom, this tradition of our Church.

When it comes to the history of priestly celibacy, an objector to it is always inclined to point to the fact that some of the Apostles were married, and that in the early Church there were plenty of married clergy. One can skip over the question of the Apostles, as they can easily be viewed as an exception due to their being part of the establishment of the Church. In terms of the other married clergy, as the Vatican will tell you, “one has to desist, when faced with this incontrovertible fact, from assuming that this necessarily excluded the co-existence of an obligatory celibacy discipline.” In reality, the Church had clerical celibacy even in the patristic era. “The first legislative expression of this is found in the eastern councils of Ancyra (314), c. 10, and Neocaesarea (ca. 314-325), c. 1, for deacons and priests respectively.” The prohibition “is clearly expressed in the Apostolic Constitutions and Apostolic Canons of the late fourth century.” Furthermore, “Canon 14 of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451) likewise endorses this discipline...and it is found in other documents of the fifth and subsequent centuries which consider the practice to be an ancient and timeless tradition” (emphasis added). From these examples and countless more from the early Church, it is clear that, at least on paper, priestly celibacy was a recognized tradition of the Church. As recent times have shown us, while some priests may disobey laws of the Church, nevertheless the laws themselves remain valid.

Since a foundation has been established from the early Church for priestly celibacy, one must now look to see if the long held tradition is itself valid by examining the pros and cons. The main reason for priestly celibacy is the attachment that marriage brings at the expense of the type of spiritual life that a priest requires. This is because of the sexual, familial, and financial obligations of marriage. For the sexual component, as Saint Augustine writes, “Nothing is so powerful in drawing the spirit of man downwards as the caress of a woman and that physical intercourse which is part of marriage.” This is of course not to suggest that sex in itself is inherently evil, or that married people cannot be highly devote. Marriage is a beautiful sacrament that shows the beauty of the Trinity through its love, but a married man cannot love and serve God with the same devotion that a celibate priest can, for he has a strong earthly attachment to his wife that a priest ought not to have to anything of this earth, but to God and the spiritual life alone. As for familial obligations, the priest is required to work incredibly long hours, including working on holidays, and is bound to have little time for his children or for his wife. To give an idea, the priest is required to say Mass everyday as well as attend the Sacrament, say the Divine Office, teach classes or run a parish, and do spiritual direction. For a married priest, there is bound to be strife between the priest’s hereditary children and his spiritual children, for a good priest is a father to many within his flock. Financially, a priest will find it extraordinarily difficult to support a family with his salary, especially considering that Catholic families tend to have a large families. With all of this in mind, it is likely that a married priest will be conflicted in his obligations to his wife and those to God, will have severe familial problems, and will struggle financially, all of which are bound to show in his preaching and in his saving of souls to the detriment of his flock.

In conclusion, there is much talk today about radical reforms within the Church that are meant to go against long standing tradition in favor of supposed “progress”. But change is not necessarily improvement, and is often a derailing perversion cloaked with the euphemism of “progress”, an eloquent wolf sneaking into the flock. To quote Henry Ford, “Change is not always progress...A fever of newness has everywhere been confused with the spirit of progress.” When one looks at most of the problems in the world today, one can usually find the answer to them from old traditions and thought, for our ancestors were far wiser than us. In line with that previously mentioned Spire writer, I will do my own suggestions for reform in the Church. The Church ought to return to its traditions and roots by proclaiming with more fervor and boldness its sacred doctrines, especially the ones that even many Catholics do not think about or practice. Specifically, the Church ought to focus on countering this perverted and sexually disordered society by proclaiming far and wide the Word of God, and clinging hard to the principles of Natural Law, as expressed by those such as the Angelic Doctor Saint Thomas Aquinas, for there are few greater sources than these. In any case, traditional Catholics need not worry about ridiculously radical reforms (i.e women priests), for as Christ said about His Church, “...the gates of Hell shall not prevail.”

In the Name of Freedom

In Defense of Our Freedoms

The Second Amendment is not only one of the most misunderstood amendments of the US Constitution, but is also (somewhat ironically) one of the most important. The fundamental freedoms Americans hold dear can only be protected by an armed populace. A government without that supreme check on its power is a government unrestrained, and a people without the ability to defend themselves are mere subjects. In this article, I will outline both the key arguments about the Second Amendment and some of the basic solutions for solving the very real problem of gun violence.

First, it is important to clarify the purpose of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. In order to pick apart its meaning, it might be useful to state the Amendment itself: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the safety and security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” (US Constitution, 1787). On its most elementary level, the idea was to protect against the potential tyranny of government. The ability to protect oneself and “check” the government, moreover, entails having weaponry at parity with what the government offers.

That often engenders the response that one would have to own drones and fighter jets for true parity with the government’s military power. That response, however, is completely false, as can be seen in any of the US’s major wars. Ever since Korea in the 1950s, none of our enemies have had comparable weaponry to the US Armed Forces; when looking to Afghanistan in particular, we can see that the nation’s militias managed to drag on the fight for over a decade with nothing but the most basic of modern weaponry.

Additionally, as with any law, one has to read it understanding its limits. For example, the Eighth Amendment, stipulating that there can be no excessive bail or cruel and unusual punishment, does not mean one can not be put in prison or that bail of $100 is too high. Even though the Amendment does not explain the particulars, it can be reasonably assumed that prison or bail of over $100 are not unconstitutional. As with weaponry, the right to bear arms is not all-encompassing for every conceivable weapon. What weapons are included will be further outlined later.

Parity requires basic modern weaponry, but we must also entertain who will be holding those weapons - and what they will be - by examining the terms “militia” and “arms.” “Militia” is often mischaracterized as meaning a national-guard-like organization under the purview of the government (state or federal). Yet this is misguided; in context of the late 1700s or in a textualist interpretation of the Constitution, the term “militia” encompassed any and all able-bodied male citizens who were not employed directly by the state. (Since citizenship is no longer limited by gender, “militia” would now include any able-bodied citizens.) Second, some assume that the term “arms” actually does not include modern weaponry. However, because Second Amendment was meant to keep the government in check, and thus for the people’s parity with the government, “arms” would include modern weaponry. The Armalite AR-15 rifle is a popular example. In addition, the founding fathers were not naive; they would have certainly understood that, eventually, technology would change. The Puckle Gun, for example, was an early repeating (semi-automatic) firearm, and many experimental examples followed suit, like the Austrian Girandoni rifle, a myriad of revolvers, and other new technologies of the 18th and 19th century.

Since I have established the basis of the Second Amendment, I must address a few points of modern debate to explicate the conservative argument for gun rights. Following the shooting in Parkland, Florida, many states and the federal government have taken up, or have considered taking up, legislation raising the purchasing age for firearms to 21. This would be patently unconstitutional. Raising the purchasing age would establish a precedent whereby the federal government could raise the age for any of the rights presented in the Constitution. It is a Pandora’s box that should never be opened. Constitutional rights are restricted for minors (under the age of 18) for that very reason: they are minors, under the protection of their parents or guardians. To restrict the rights of adults is an affront to the very foundation of the Constitution. The definition of an adult would have to be changed for such an act to be constitutional, which would entail raising the voting age, the age for joining the military, among others.

Another common argument (which completely disregards the Second Amendment) is that the federal government could enact a mandatory buyback like the Australians did in 1996. Despite there being over 1 million firearms in Australia in 1996, the government only managed to obtain 650,000 (Barrett, 2017). Even despite the 650,000 firearms taken, by 2016, there were more guns in Australia than before the buyback (Geary, 2016). In addition, according to a comprehensive study by Gary Kleck from Florida State University, the homicide rate changed only negligibly, and even at that, mass shootings were quite uncommon before the buyback. The cluster of shootings that caused the buyback encompassed only about a decade of Australia’s history and are a statistical anomaly (Kleck, 2018). Disregarding Australia’s abysmal failure just by the numbers, when we consider the fact that there are well over 300 million guns in the United States, we must realize that it would be logistically impossible to implement a similar program in America (Barrett, 2017).

Another point on that topic: by removing weapons from law-abiding citizens, weapons will only be in the hands of criminals, who by definition do not follow the law. The massacre in the Bataclan Theatre in Paris, France in 2015 could very well have been prevented, or at least mitigated, had some of the theatre-goers been carrying weapons (What happened at the Bataclan?, 2015). It is worth noting the fact that France, and Europe in general, have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the Western world. Police can not appear on the scene the second something horrible happens, so the people on the scene at the time of the shooting have the best chance at stopping it. This tragic event occurred in a country, and continent, with some of the strictest gun laws in the world, which should speak to the lack of efficacy of strict gun policy. By contrast, when in 2017 a terrorist began shooting at a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, he was stopped by an armed resident who owned an AR-15-like weapon (Montgomery, 2017). This event exemplifies the necessity of being able to own weapons with a high stopping power (ability to incapacitate), particularly in time-sensitive situations. The same holds true for areas where police are miles away and cannot reach the area in a timely manner. In regions around the Southern border or in the countryside, being able to have a high-capacity, high stopping power rifle can mean the difference between life and death. We cannot always count on the presence of police, and the citizen in danger often has the best chance at saving his or her own life.

Lastly, it is important to recognize that while mass shootings have become ever more common in recent years, guns have become less available and at the same time have not changed in any significant manner since the early-mid 1900s. Weapons like the M1 Garand or other semi-automatic weapons of the like existed for over 40 years until the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 banned automatic weapons produced after that date (S.49, 1986). This simple fact further diminishes the idea that the availability and type of weapons is the issue, rather than sociopathy or other mental complications.

Of course, there must be some overall regulation on the purchase and ownership of firearms, which very few people dispute. Anyone with a criminal history, serious mental health issues, etc. should be withheld from owning a firearm. NICS (the National Instant Criminal Background Check System) should forcibly include criminal information from all states. Gun violence restraining orders, like that proposed by David French of the National Review, should be implemented. These would allow someone of close relation with a gun owner or prospective gun owner to file for a restraining order preventing that person’s purchase and ownership of a gun, but the person in question would be able to challenge the order in court and must receive a verdict in a timely manner (French, 2018). Serious mental health issues must also be addressed, which may include the resuscitation of many mental institutions in America to provide better care for those suffering from mental illness. Simple, obvious solutions like these must be the future of gun reform, not the so-often-proposed restrictive, unconstitutional solutions.

Sources:

Barrett, J. (2017, October 3). Should The U.S. Adopt Australia's Gun Laws?

Here's Why That Would Never Work. Retrieved April 25, 2018, from The Daily

Wire website: https://www.dailywire.com/news/21884/

Should-us-adopt-australias-gun-laws-heres-why-james-barrett

French, D. (2018, February 21). The Gun Violence Restraining Order — Responding

to a Libertarian Critique. Retrieved April 25, 2018, from National Review

website: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/

the-gun-violence-restraining-order-responding-to-a-libertarian-critique/

Geary, B. G. (2016, April 27). Australians now own MORE guns than they did

    before the 1996 Port Arthur massacre - as it's revealed we imported a

    record number of firearms last year. Retrieved June 22, 2018, from Daily

    Mail website: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3562714/

    Australians-guns-did-1996-Port-Arthur-massacre-revealed-country-imported-record-n

    umber-firearms-year.html  

The Constitution of the United States. (1787, September 17). Retrieved April 26,

    2018, from National Constitution Center website:

    https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf

Kleck, G. (2018, January 12). Did Australia’s Ban on Semiauto Firearms Really Reduce Violence? A Critique of the Chapman et al. (2016) Study. Retrieved June 22, 2018, from SSRN website: https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=015017002073027124115002088083074018005089018032067023088097077093020106119007087024029042031023054007048069087022066068121086031021028008031095101127082067107093127008020005116116122124125029099097010029026080106100016015030123010126106119025028022097&EXT=pdf

Montgomery, D., Mele, C., & Fernandez, M. (2017, November 5). [Gunman Kills at

Least 26 in Attack on Rural Texas Church]. Retrieved April 25, 2018, from

The New York Times website: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/05/us/

    Church-shooting-texas.html

S. 49 (99th): Firearms Owners’ Protection Act. (1986, March 19). Retrieved April

21, 2018, from govtrack website: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/99/

s49/text

What happened at the Bataclan? (2015, December 9). Retrieved April 25, 2018,

from BBC website: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34827497

Faculty: Please Don't Deprive the Ciocca Center of Koch Support

In April 2019, The Fenwick Review obtained access to a set of faculty-authored letters and petitions aimed at terminating the recently established financial agreement between the Charles Koch Foundation (CKF) and Holy Cross’s Ciocca Center for Business, Ethics, and Society (CBES).  The documents, which were distributed to some faculty members, include a letter to the provost requesting that the College terminate the agreement as soon as possible.  Also included were four additional petitions asking the administration to reject the CKF funding, to suspend the activities of the CBES, to establish a Committee on Academic Programs-sanctioned review of the CBES, and to institute a faculty committee tasked with investigating the CBES.  The Review is not at liberty to directly quote any of the circulated material.  The letter to the provost has received 91 signatures from present and former faculty.

In an email sent to some faculty on April 19, the petition organizers wrote that by accepting funds from the CKF, the College of the Holy Cross has contradicted its mission and has potentially compromised the faculty’s own personal and professional ethics.  The circulators of the petition suggest that the agenda of the CKF is antithetical to Catholic social teaching because it embraces capitalism, an economic system they believe unjustly favors the wealthy.  The petitions are to be discussed and voted on at a May 7 faculty assembly.

The first petition, which calls on the administration to reject funding from the CKF, alleges (without any supporting evidence) that the Koch brothers, who fund the Foundation, advocate an unregulated free-market system that is incompatible with Catholic social teaching.  (The Kochs certainly favor free markets, but hardly “unregulated” ones – e.g., the elimination of laws punishing fraud or restricting air and water pollution.) Additionally, the Kochs are accused of violating Catholic doctrine for supposedly denying the existence of climate change and for profiting from the production of fossil fuels.  The petitioners cite Pope Francis’s 2015 encyclical Laudato Si’ as the basis for the Kochs’ supposed incompatibility with Catholic teaching.  Acceptance of CKF funding, per the circulators of the petition, would imply endorsement of the Kochs’ unacceptable business practices and environmental beliefs.

The second petition seeks to fully suspend the activities of the CBES until the College formally disbands the CKF-CBES agreement.  The petition suggests that the CKF-CBES contract poses a threat to the College’s institutional autonomy and academic freedom.  Use of funds from the CKF, the petitioners write, could set a dangerous precedent that might interfere with the College’s hiring and pedagogical practices, ultimately stifling academic freedom and surrendering to external political influences.

The third and fourth petitions motion to institute a review of the CBES, which would be authorized by the Committee on Academic Programs, and to constitute an ad hoc committee of faculty to oversee and investigate the academic and hiring practices of the CBES, respectively.  The ad hoc committee would include six designated tenured faculty members – each of whom also signed the letter to the provost – and would give members the power to supervise the makeup of the Business, Ethics, and Society minor curriculum.

These petitions and arguments present some crucial issues.  The petitioners’ attempt to ground their opposition to accepting funding from CKF in Catholic social teaching is puzzling, given that several Holy Cross academic and extracurricular programs, such as the annual production of “Vagina Monologues,” certainly violate Catholic doctrine, yet have never prompted protests from the faculty.  If faculty members are so concerned that College programming conform to Church dogma, it seems strange, if not simply hypocritical, that they have nothing to say about the College’s complete silence on matters relating to abortion as well as the College’s refusal to abide by Church teaching on other socially progressive causes – which are infallibly enshrined in the Magisterium and further reinforced in the Church’s Catechism.

Unlike matters of faith touching on familial and sexual life that are fundamental to the historic teaching of the Church, papal judgments on questions of science (climate change, astronomy, etc.) and of political and economic systems do not necessarily reflect any unique insight that faithful Catholics are obliged to respect. When it comes to science, one need only recall the Church’s condemnation of Galileo to see how unwise it is for Church officials to offer final judgments of scientific truth. Indeed, the Magisterium of the Church freely admits that papal infallibility only extends to faith and morals—not science and politics. As the distinguished Catholic political theorist Daniel Mahoney points out in his recent book The Idol of Our Age: How the Religion of Humanity Subverts Christianity, Pope Francis’s Laudato Si’ contains a multitude of highly questionable factual judgments about both climate change and politics. Apparently reflecting his background in Peronist Argentina, the Pope even lamentably blames “capitalism” for generating “debris, desolation, and filth” while naively disregarding the far worse environmental (and human) record of communist regimes (recall the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, resulting from faulty reactor design, and note the vast air pollution churned out by today’s Chinese coal-burning factories). As Mahoney points out, Francis even praises subsistence farming as a way of life – one that the poor themselves are desperate to escape. While radically underestimating the contribution that free markets have made to promoting socioeconomic mobility (see Deirdre McCloskey’s Bourgeois Equality), the Pope has regrettably expressed admiration for the murderous Cuban tyrant Fidel Castro, apparently under the illusion that communism has improved the lot of the poor – there or anywhere else in the world.

Perhaps the most concerning component of this faculty movement is its attempted imposition of partisan political criteria on College donors and financial supporters.  Should we, as a community, be applying political tests to respectable, philanthropic businessmen who are offering to fund nonpartisan College programs that align with the school’s mission?  To those concerned about the possibility of unethical behavior by businessmen, what could be more meritorious than a program designed to address the relation between business and ethics? Furthermore, considering the dependence of this College’s growth and prosperity on donations from successful businessmen – the source of funding, for instance, for the Luth athletic complex, the reconstruction of the field house, and the forthcoming arts center – shouldn’t faculty feel a certain gratitude to the free-enterprise system, and the philanthropic endeavors it encourages, rather than adopting a posture of contempt towards that system, à la Bernie Sanders? And what about all the alumni donations that support faculty salaries and student scholarships?

As stated on its website, the CBES exists to prepare students “to become ethical leaders and critically engaged citizens of a society deeply shaped by business” and to offer “opportunities to explore questions about how business can contribute to the common good and promote real, long-term sustainable value for society.”  The aim of the CKF’s grant-making is described on its website as being “to advance an understanding of what it takes to move toward a society of equal rights and mutual benefit, where people succeed by helping others improve their lives. We support a diversity of viewpoints and perspectives that foster respect for all people and protect human dignity, developing creative solutions that will help make the world better for all people. We reject racism, sexism, and any discrimination that impedes equal rights.” What is objectionable in such a mission statement? Further, the Kochs’ philanthropy has extended as well to such entirely nonpolitical, charitable causes as art museums, orchestras, and assisting the poor.

Above and beyond these facts, knowing the outlook of the Holy Cross administration and faculty as a whole, as well as the credentials of the faculty who will be leading the CBES, only a fantasist could imagine that this new center is going to become an apologist for “unregulated” free markets and climate-change “denial.” In fact, there is every reason to believe that the anti-Koch petitions arise not from any identifiable partisan dangers embodied by the CBES, but rather from pressure by a national, extremist political group, UnKoch My Campus, which has set out for partisan reasons of its own to remove any element of Koch presence from America’s colleges and universities – because of the group’s scorn for free enterprise and refusal to tolerate any dissent from its anti-fossil-fuel ideology. For the sake above all of preserving Holy Cross’s mission of pursuing truth on the basis of both reason and the authentic Catholic tradition, we earnestly hope that the faculty will vote down the petition to de-fund the CBES. And regardless of the outcome of the faculty vote, which may not even reflect the views of a majority of the faculty as a whole (only that of the attendees), we hope that the College administration will determine to maintain the CBES, which can only be of benefit to the Holy Cross community.

Letter from the Editors: March/April 2019

Dear Reader,

Thank you for reading the March/April issue of The Fenwick Review. It’s about time that we let it clear the press.

Given that our writers usually have entirely different ideas about what they should cover in the next version of the Review— ergo the “Holy  Cross’ Independent Journal of Opinion”—we most often do not create themed issues. However, after reading through the series of articles on these pages, it seems that there’s a common sentiment floating about. We all are looking back fondly on the past.

Mr. Foley’s article about sacrifice, Mr. Buzzard’s about St. Patrick’s Day, and Dr. Thomas Craig’s article on Holy Cross Athletics all explicitly look backward. They gesture to an older, finer time, where reverence and excellence were virtues held in higher esteem. As for Mr. Pietro’s article? The United States surely would not have dared entertain socialism 70 years ago.  Mr. Brennan’s article begs the question of why, now, so few people have thick skins. Ms. Anderson’s article and Mr. Rosenwinkel’s articles push us to recall a time when Catholicism was not lukewarm.

This issue of The Fenwick Review, thus, has a keen sense for tradition, whether it be our economic policies, athletic excellence, fervency in the Church, and so on. We hearken back to tradition because, in these so chaotic times, we desire it. 

In G.K. Chesterton’s Orthodoxy, he quotes: “Tradition means giving a vote to most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead.”  Let us not forget what they have given us, for it is they who brought us here.

Seamus Brennan & Michael Raheb

Co-Editors-in-Chief

Holy Cross Hysteria

On Vanderbilt University’s campus in November 2015, a bag of fecal matter was discovered on the porch of the University’s Black Cultural Center.  As might be expected, the incident garnered widespread attention on campus, and outrage immediately ensued. The discovery of the bagged feces came the day after a group of black students staged a public protest against alleged racism on campus.  Naturally, the optics of an incident like this are less than ideal; the placement of feces on the doorstep of a University’s Black Cultural Center only a day after a major protest might have certain implications and play into particular narratives.  Vanderbilt’s black student organization didn’t hesitate to denounce the incident as a “deplorable” act of hate: without delay, the group condemned the episode on its Facebook page, contacted police, and informed campus administrators of what it saw to be a “vile” act “of hurt.”  Within hours of the student group’s allegations, however, law enforcement officials revealed that the bag was left on the porch not as an act of racism or bias, but by a blind student who had just picked up after her service dog and hoped someone at the Center would properly dispose of the bag on her behalf.

In recent weeks and months, the Holy Cross community has been practically bombarded with allegations, assumptions, and assertions that echo the false cries of bias and racism from Vanderbilt’s campus several years ago.  Students and other members of the campus community have received a plethora of frantic emails, walked past constantly expanding arrays of condemnatory posters and signs, and attended narrative-driven on-campus events that paint Holy Cross as a nasty community festered with hate, plagued by intolerance, and beleaguered with bigotry.

““...The administration should practice what it preaches and aim to seek the truth rather than to impose a narrative.”
”

The Holy Cross administration’s tendency to leap to particular conclusions about rumors and allegations on campus has become entirely predictable.  Rather than withholding judgment about reported incidents until additional facts are available and investigations are completed, the school chooses to immediately default to the “hate crime” label.  This pattern has led to immeasurable harm within the Holy Cross community: the administration’s habitual rush-to-judgment approach when handling ambiguous incidents has cultivated an atmosphere of hypersensitivity on campus.  How can Holy Cross in good faith call for students to “be patient with ambiguity and uncertainty,” as it does in its mission statement, when the school itself refuses to be?  Instead of force-feeding students with unsubstantiated narratives of racism, sexism, homophobia, and bigotry every time vague incidents are reported, the administration should practice what it preaches and aim to seek the truth rather than to impose a narrative.

Like the occurrence at Vanderbilt in 2015, many of the incidents to which the Holy Cross administration has responded appear nefarious on a surface level.  When students are informed of torn-down black history signs and missing rainbow flags, it’s not entirely unreasonable to assume that such acts are bias-motivated or otherwise wicked in intent.  But the automatic presumption that these acts are ‘hate crimes’ is preposterous and unfair. On more than one occasion during my rather short time at Holy Cross, students have drunkenly torn down signs in residence halls.  Is it that far-fetched to think that the removal of the “Black Herstory” board in February could have been the result of drunken recklessness rather than an instance of “bias-motivated vandalism” and an “act of intolerance”?  Is it that far-fetched to think that the disappearance of a rainbow flag last November could have been caused by the wind? According to Holy Cross, apparently. In both of these instances, the administration explicitly noted that investigations had not been completed.  In the case of the rainbow flag, students were informed that school officials “do not know the motivation for the flag’s removal,” yet they still didn’t hesitate to label the incident as “deeply troubling.”

Of course, it’s not infeasible that some of these incidents have been bias-motivated.  And in cases where bias is proven and verified, such incidents should be condemned in the strongest possible terms.  But the constant presumption of bias in cases where no such bias is evident makes the Holy Cross administration look reactive, hypersensitive, and possibly motivated by a victimhood narrative.  As Professor David Schaefer of Political Science wrote in a previous issue of The Fenwick Review in response to the appearance of a swastika on campus, “Judging from my long acquaintance with Holy Cross students, I would guess that the swastika was far more likely a stupid prank provoked by the College's ever-increasing barrage of ‘multicultural’ indoctrination than a reflection of Nazi sentiment.”  In a sense, the College’s ultra-reactive responses to incidents like the torn-down black history sign, the missing rainbow flag, and other allegations with zero evidence are comical. How can one make such jarring assumptions based on such little information? How can the administration justifiably cancel a day of classes and force a summit on “campus culture” when over 100 hours of security footage and more than 40 interviews produced not even an iota of evidence for the supposed “hate crime” the summit was intended to address?  How does jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions and advancing uncorroborated narratives of hate in any way benefit students or the greater campus community?

Several national incidents have invoked this same sense of false outrage in the first two months of 2019 alone.  The alleged bias-motivated attack against actor Jussie Smollett, which several prominent politicians did not hesitate to label as “an attempted modern day lynching” and a “racist, homophobic attack,” turned out to be part of a not-so-elaborate hoax staged for the advancement of Smollett’s own career.  Ironically, it wasn’t until after the alleged Jussie Smollett attack was revealed as a hoax that Democrat presidential candidate Senator Kamala Harris said she wasn’t “going to comment until I know the outcome of the investigation” and Senator Cory Booker, another 2020 candidate, vowed to “withhold until all the information actually comes out from on-the-record sources.”  If the “outcome of the investigation” and “all the information” are important, why weren’t they when each senator immediately decried the attack as a “modern day lynching”? Likewise, students from Covington Catholic High School were instantly characterized as racist and bigoted based on a few seconds of video footage depicting a confrontation with a Native American elder, until it was revealed based on extended footage that the elder was provoking the students, not the other way around.  What do incidents such as these say about the state of the culture? Perhaps more importantly, what can we learn from them?

We live in a reactive society.  Whether our nation’s current level of hypersensitivity is rooted in animosity towards the President, towards people of faith, towards ‘straight white men,’ or towards anything or anyone else, people tend to jump to conclusions based on what they want to believe.  In reality, narratives of racism don’t hold any water when evidence for such racism ceases to exist.  America in 2019 is a pretty great place to exist: very few are truly victims, and all people – including women and minorities – have more opportunities now than at any other time in history.  Likewise, whether we like to admit so or not, Holy Cross is an extremely inclusive and welcoming campus.  Everyone who is fortunate enough to attend this school is far from being victimized, regardless of what the powers at be might want us to think.
Ultimately, everyone on campus would be better off if the administration were to take a step back, examine all available information, and let any investigations run their course before sending campus-wide emails decrying unclear incidents as “hate crimes” the second they’re reported.  Do we want to be a campus based on narrative or a campus based on fact? Do we want to assume the worst in one another or the best in one another? Do we want to be a campus that jumps to conclusions or a campus that strives to reach the truth? I can only hope we aim for the latter.  Our campus, our community, and our culture will be better for it.

““Ultimately, everyone on campus would be better off if the administration were to take a step back, examine all available information, and let any investigations run their course before sending campus-wide emails decrying unclear incidents as ‘hate crimes’ the second they’re reported.” 
”

In Defense of Being a Jesus Freak

For a long time, I was convinced that only weirdos were called to take Christianity seriously. That sounds harsh and judgmental, but in my defense, there are a lot of weird Christians. This isn’t anything new; Jesus spent most of his time on earth hanging out with the social outcasts, the weirdos of his day, and for the last 2,000 years, Christianity has embraced those on the fringes of society. The result, at least in my mind, was a religion full of weirdos. By that logic, I figured that, since I’m not a weirdo, I’m not called to take Christianity seriously or follow Jesus.

““As a result, plenty of people are content to write off the Catholic Church by its stereotypes, and society is full of rhetoric that consistently paints religious people in a bad light.”
”

I was wrong. I am weirdo. And I am called to follow Him. Now I’m not saying that God only calls weirdos, but I am saying that I certainly don’t break the stereotype. Furthermore, if you look around at groups of faithful, young, intelligent Catholics, you’ll find tons of weirdos. The result is that many people, inside and outside of the Catholic Church, come to believe the stereotype. It doesn’t help that the very structure of Catholicism can seem designed to breed weirdos: it’s full of secrecy and strange smoke and odd rules about sex. At times, it can seem like the Church is designed to attract weird people and then make them weirder. As a result, plenty of people are content to write off the Catholic Church by its stereotypes, and society is full of rhetoric that consistently paints religious people in bad light.

Here’s the truth: there is no shortage of…unique Catholics. But contrary to what society or even those within the Church want to tell you, I don’t think that’s such a bad thing. For one, society’s disdain for the uniqueness of Catholics can be hypocritical. Social media is full of people urging one another to be true to themselves and to fight conformity, but Catholics are derided or mocked for their refusal to conform. Our culture promotes pseudo-countercultural movements (like being hipster) while it simultaneously attacks ideologies that are actually countercultural. Ironically, the very people praising non-conformity miss the fact that some of the most unique, countercultural people are faithful Catholics. Even within the Church, there is often an unspoken pressure for young Catholics to not be “too” Catholic, too overtly or outspokenly faithful. While some think that “playing it cool” could make the Church more attractive, this approach could be lethal.

That is because uniqueness—authentic uniqueness, not the hipster uniqueness that can be found in every nook and cranny in Portland—is the stuff of Saints. Many writers have said that true holiness is about becoming yourself. If that’s true, then it makes sense that holy people don’t really blend in with the crowd. We were made to be unique individuals, and when we are the people we were made to be, we’re going to be a little unique. (I’m not claiming to be holy - I’m just saying I’ve got the unique part down pat.) If you look at the saints, this holds true. The lives of the saints are often shockingly different from one another, illustrating that sanctity runs contrary to conformity. For example, Anthony of Padua got sick of nobody listening to him, so he started preaching to the fish. That’s weird. St. Philip Neri once shaved off the right half of his beard so people wouldn’t take him too seriously. St. Therese of Lisieux was meek and gentle; St. Nicholas (aka Santa) punched a man during a gathering of bishops and spent a night in jail. God’s chosen ones come in all shapes in sizes. He calls all of us, and we’re all a little odd.

Society also freaks out about weird holy people because they don’t understand Christ, and true holiness divorced from Christ makes no sense. Take Mother Teresa. Most called her a living saint, yet a variety of atheists slandered her, condemned her, and compared her to Satan. Why? Because Mother Teresa was too Christlike to possibly comprehend without comprehending Christ. Her critics made up a million selfish motivations to explain the way she lived her life because they couldn’t figure out what her real reward was. They assumed she was driven by ulterior motivations. No one, they argued, could be that... good. True holiness is incomprehensible to those who don’t understand Jesus. When confronted with inexplicable goodness, the world naturally tries to explain it away with explicable badness.

I’m not saying that holiness necessarily makes you weird. As Fr. Mike Schmitz said, “I’ve met a lot of weird holy people, but most of them were weird before they were holy.” Nor am I saying that everyone who’s weird is also holy. I am saying that society tends to hyper-focus on the fact that Christians are weird. This weirdness comes in part from being ourselves. That’s a major aspect of holiness. It also comes from the countercultural nature of Christ’s message—anyone who wants to reject the culture in favor of Christ appears to be out of their mind. But I also think that some of this has to do with the devil.

I know, I know. Bringing up Satan. I sound like one of those weirdos from church. Oh wait—

Here’s the deal. The devil doesn’t just dance around in a red unitard with horns and a pitchfork. That would be too easy (and too funny). Instead, he gets in our heads. As C.S. Lewis points out in The Screwtape Letters, one way the devil does this is by convincing us that everyone at church is weird. If we think weirdness and holiness are inseparable, we’ll be deterred from our desire for holiness by our desire to be normal. I’ve been there before. I rationalized not living a Christian life by telling myself I was normal, and therefore not obligated to follow God. Looking back on it, I can see my exorbitant pride and selfishness. Yet how often are our impulses to follow God curbed by the fear that we’ll be seen as a “Jesus-freak”? The enemy benefits from that. By sheer pride, he can convince us to never even try to follow God.

““As a College we didn’t get to where we are now by inching away from our Catholicism.”
”

One last note. As the College reviews and examines its own Catholic identity, it’s all too easy to fall into the same trap. It would be easy to sacrifice our Catholic identity in the name of attracting more diverse applicants, gaining prestige, or earning respect in the increasingly secular world of academia. Whether we admit it or not, the same self-consciousness that prevents a college freshman from standing up for his or her faith can be found at an institutional level. There’s a fear of being “too Catholic.” There’s a worry that outsiders will stereotype us, laugh at us, and judge us. As a College, we didn’t get to where we are now by inching away from our Catholicism. In fact, Holy Cross has a long and storied history of embracing Catholicism, even when it wasn’t popular: the College is only in Worcester because Bishop Fenwick was run out of Boston by an anti-Catholic mob, and we chose the Crusader mascot in 1925 to anger the KKK, who had been attacking Catholic schools. Both instances highlight how, instead of shying away from our faith, we have embraced it. I urge all those involved in reviewing the school’s Catholic identity to do the same. Do not be afraid.

All I can say is this: maybe we’re not all called to be weirdos (most of us already are a little weird) but we are all called to holiness. So let’s embrace that and live for Christ—in all the wild weirdness that that may entail.

The Faith of the Least of All Believers

What comes into your mind when you think about St. Patrick’s Day? Is it the parades, the waves of green, and everyone getting to be ‘Irish for the day’? Is it a day of binge drinking with your friends on the lot? Even in the most innocent of descriptions about St. Patrick’s Day, one thing seems to be consistently forgotten: St. Patrick himself. How is it possible that we celebrate the Feast of St. Patrick on March 17th, and yet so many people ignore its actual purpose? All of these questions find their answers in how secular our society has become, in our ignorance of religious feasts and our focus on earthly desires. So, then: who is this St. Patrick, and why does he deserve to be appreciated with something other than binge drinking?

St. Patrick was a brilliant 5th century Saint who was responsible for bringing the entire island of Ireland to Christ. He was a gifted evangelist, so he could explain the fundamentals of the Christian faith to the pagans in Ireland in a way that made sense. For example, St. Patrick used his famous shamrock to explain the Trinity to the pagans, who were able to grasp the concept of Threeness from their own faith. With this foundation, Patrick was able to teach the Truth and establish the Church in Ireland. Since the Irish were deeply steeped in oral tradition, it is unfortunate that many of Patrick’s works are not written down like those of of equally popular saints. We know of Patrick mostly through his Confession and the tradition of the Church that speaks about his bravery and miracles. His bravery was seen in his ability to speak directly to the Pagan Kings of Ireland, to their druids, and to ignore the threats of violence that resulted from his attempt to convert them. His miracle-working and effectiveness was seen in his conversion of those same people who threatened him and success in saving their souls. How great is this Saint that, while staring down imminent danger, he did all things for Christ?

To understand the Patrick that exists in tradition, it is important to understand the Saint from his own perspective in his Confession. The Confession begins with the following admission: “My name is Patrick. I am a sinner, a simple country person, and the least of all believers.” As we think of our own lives as believers, and I think particularly of my own life, we must note that this is a man who genuinely believes that he, a sinner, is the least of all believers. This man is a Saint and the Confession is his defense of not seeking any ulterior motive in baptizing the Irish. He views himself as a lowly person who deserves neither status nor riches. Later in the Confession, Patrick discusses the temptation that he faces constantly in the pagan society, but he adamantly protects himself from those who wish him ill. He puts all his trust into the Lord. Patrick survived slavery, torture, 12 dangers (and many more that lay hidden, which Patrick spares his reader from seeing), with the confidence that the Lord was the author of his protections. To put it simply: Patrick was a Saint who was indebted to God for his freedom and, rather than using his earthly freedom for his own pleasure, decided to use that freedom to win souls for God. In his Confession, Patrick describes a portion of his life’s journey and how God, in all His mercy, helped Patrick to win over thousands of souls in Ireland during the 5th century onward.    

One story of St. Patrick is worthy of note in that it has been passed down in the Church through the centuries as a ‘small “t” tradition’ because its credibility is questionable, due to Ireland’s oral history. The tradition regards his 40 days fasting and praying on Croagh Patrick, one of the holiest mountains in Ireland. His intention, for those 40 days, was to pray for the salvation of the Irish people in present and future generations. In such an intense period of prayer, Patrick communicated with God through an angel and petitioned that, when he would be in Heaven, no unbeliever of Christ would ever hold Ireland. One of the most famous parts of his petition is his request that when “the twelve royal seats shall be on the Mount, and when the four rivers of fire shall be about the Mount, and when the three peoples shall be there - that is, the people of Heaven, the people of Earth, and the people of Hell - I myself shall be judge over the men of Erin on that day.” The angel told him that the Lord would not grant his request, so Patrick resolved to remain on the mountain until it was granted - with the stipulation that someone would follow in his place to fast should he die in the process. Patrick was then blessed with the proclamation that, “all creatures, visible and invisible, including the twelve Apostles, entreated, and they have obtained what you have requested.” This powerful proclamation may lack a base in theology, but the sentiment stands that Patrick intensely desired to save the Irish and wishes to watch over them through his intercession until the Judgement Day. No witnesses to his claim exist, since Patrick was alone on the mountain for 40 days, but if we are to trust in his claim, Patrick prayed for the intercession of all of Heaven to grant his request. While Christ is the judge, the sons and daughters of Ireland and their worldwide descendants should have some hope that St. Patrick is praying for them every day - including on that final day.

Patrick was truly a man of God and a man who humbled himself before the foot of the Cross. It is egregious that we have decided as a society to embrace drinking culture rather than to prostrate ourselves before Christ. We must ask ourselves: how would the Saint himself want us to celebrate his Feast Day? To put it simply, we ought to use our reason to come to love God rather than lose our reason in loving temporary pleasures. If you are of Irish descent, you have a powerful patron in St. Patrick, who loved the Irish people so greatly that he was granted God’s grace to live over one hundred years and see the establishment of the traditions and foundation of the Church in Ireland. We are called to be Christians every day and bear the suffering that comes with our faith. Let us pray for the intercession of our powerful patron, St. Patrick, that we may have the faith to earnestly honor our Irish heritage on his Feast Day rather than submit to the drunkenness of the world. To end with a final quote from St. Patrick in his Confession:

“I pray for those who believe in and have reverence for God. Some of them may happen to inspect or come upon this writing which Patrick, a sinner without learning, wrote in Ireland. May none of them ever say that whatever little I did or made known to please God was done through ignorance. Instead, you can judge and believe in all truth that it was a gift of God. This is my confession before I die.”

““While Christ is the judge, the sons and daughters of Ireland and their worldwide descendants should have some hope that St. Patrick is praying for them every day —including on that final day.”
”