Choosing Truth Over Facts: Joe Biden Is Not Barack Obama

Please note: Portions of this article were inadvertently cut off in the print edition. This is the full and correct version of the article.

Democrats love Barack Obama. They enthusiastically voted him into office twice, he has a high approval rating amongst Democratic voters, and he has appeared in countless videos and interviews over the years. Because of this, pundits and newscasters think that Joe Biden, Obama’s VP, has a strong chance of securing the Democratic nomination for the 2020 election. Biden knows this and uses Obama’s popularity to increase his own appeal. But Biden’s strategy, as smart as it may seem, may not be the best. If Biden’s opponents can criticize Obama, they can dethrone Biden. Perhaps more importantly, Biden is not Obama, and sheer nostalgia can only go so far.

Obama’s legacy first came under attack during night two of the July Democratic Debates. Candidates like Bill de Blasio and Kirsten Gillibrand — both supporters for a single-payer healthcare system — criticized Obamacare for its high deductibles and the profit it provides for insurance companies. Biden spoke up saying, “My response is, Obamacare is working. The way to build this, and get to it immediately, is to build on Obamacare.”

This was not the only attack on the Obama administration. Another major attack involved immigration. Candidates such as Julián Castro and Cory Booker fight for the idea that crossing the border illegally should be a civil violation not a criminal offense. De Blasio and Booker took this time to question Biden on whether or not he supported the mass deportations during the Obama presidency. In response, he did not outwardly defend the deportations, but he bluntly stated his opposition to decriminalize border crossings: “If you cross the border illegally, you should be able to be sent back. It’s a crime.”

Trump, on the other hand, is able to use this to his advantage, and he has already begun to do so. “The Democrats spent more time attacking Barack Obama than they did attacking me, practically,” he said. “That wasn’t pretty.” Criticizing one of the most popular politicians of the party not only hurts the perception of the party but also helps the opposing party. Candidates think this is the way to take down Biden and therefore help their own campaigns. He continues to top polls, have high approval ratings amongst black voters, and be their biggest competition. Biden, however, continues to use the Obama administration as an advantage. He is focusing on all the positive aspects of it while also framing the negative aspects as “things to build upon” rather than broken, incorrect policies that need to be replaced. 

While doing this, he also attacks Trump and his administration: “I hope the next debate we can talk about our answers to fix the things Trump has broken, not how Barack Obama made all of these mistakes.” By focusing on trying to build on Obama’s ideas rather than replace them, he can win the support of the Democrats who hate Trump and love Obama.

But, just because Biden is more than happy to reference his ties to Obama, it does not mean Obama does the same. Obama has yet to endorse Biden, and before Biden even entered the race, it is reported that Obama privately told him, “You don’t have to do this, Joe.” Since he cannot use an endorsement from Obama to his advantage, he uses these attacks as a means to defend and protect the legacy he was a part of as well. 

One critical weakness of attempting to use Obama is that Biden simply is not Obama. One major reason Obama was able to rally support is he appears as a strong candidate. Republicans and Democrats alike agree that he is a good speaker, a solid debater, and knows how to appear likable and intelligent. He was under fifty when he took office, and Democrats loved his youthful, enthusiastic nature.

Biden, on the other hand, has been viewed as tired, old, and confused. He is seventy-six years old, and his age shows throughout debates and speeches. During each Democratic Debate, especially in June, he appeared very tired by the end. When Kamala Harris attacked Biden during the first debate, he, for a moment, attacked her confidently but almost immediately looked weak. He stopped mid-point to say his time was up, even though other candidates had no problem going over their allowed time.

To make matters worse, Biden continues to make mistakes in public appearances. Each day in the news, there appears to be a new Biden gaffe. For example, Biden was hyping up a crowd in Iowa explaining how, “We choose unity over division; we choose science over fiction.” With enthusiasm, he continued, “We choose truth over facts!” The crowd continued to cheer, but this was clearly a mistake, since facts should support truth. A little later, he opened up for questions and was asked who his favorite historical figure is, excluding U.S. Presidents, and his first answer was Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States. Adding on to these, Biden accidentally said, “We have this notion that somehow if you’re poor, you cannot do it. Poor kids are just as bright, just as talented, as white kids.” Realizing what he had said, he quickly added, “Wealthy kids, black kids, Asian kids, no I really mean it, but think how we think about it.” If Trump said something like this, the media would quickly say it is a statement reflecting inner racism. But since it is Biden, the left is hiding it and avoids commenting on it. Others include at the end of the July Democratic Debate him saying “go to Joe 30330” instead of “text Joe to 30330,” during a speech he mentioned that he was VP during the Parkland Shooting from 2018, and asked “what’s not to love about Vermont” while visiting New Hampshire.

Obama did not make mistakes such as these during his own campaign. He thrived on public appearances and inspired Democrats through strong speeches. Attempting to use Obama worked in the beginning, but people are starting to look past his association. He is not Obama, and he is going against Trump: a candidate who has been a strong President with a hard work ethic, the physical stamina to be president, and his clear intention with everything he says. If Biden is selected as the nominee, Trump’s lively nature, strong debating skills, and clever campaign strategies will all overcome him.

The 2020 Election, if Joe Biden wins the nomination, is simply him against Trump – not Obama and Biden against Trump. Using the former President can help his case, but it cannot win him the election. Biden’s weaknesses continue to come through, proving he is lacking the strengths that got Obama elected. President Donald Trump will use his own strengths at the expense of Biden’s weaknesses and serve another four years, much to the dismay of Democrats and the thrill of Republicans.

On Women's Ordination

There has been a lot of debate within the Catholic Church – debates on topics ranging from the moral obligation to recycle, the death penalty, and priestly celibacy. But there is a fundamental difference between these topics and another frequently debated topic: the issue of women’s ordination. The ordination is different from other controversial topics, like priestly celibacy, because while the Church’s position on celibacy can technically change, it’s position on women’s ordination cannot. Unlike priestly celibacy, there is no room for debate or discussion amongst the Church on this: women can never be priests. It simply is not possible. This is not a question of just custom, but infallible truth. This is evident from Catholic Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and from Reason.

When it comes to the Catechism, the section on ordination is pretty clear: "Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination" (CCC 1577). This teaching is rooted in the example of the “Lord Jesus [who] chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry” (CCC 1577). At this point one may be tempted to point out the example of the disciple Mary Magdalene, but one must note the difference between an apostle and a disciple. Christ did have female disciples, but the Apostles, who received a certain office from Christ Himself during the Last Supper, were all men and they only ordained men. The modern episcopacy is the direct successor to the original Apostles. At no point have women ever been ordained, because of the explicit example of Christ and His immediate successors. “The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself” (CCC 1577). The Catholic Church does not consider this mere human custom, but the Divine Will of God. “For this reason the ordination of women is not possible” (CCC 1577). This is not a question of the ordination of women being recommended or not, but it is simply not possible. As St. Thomas Aquinas writes in the Summa Theologica, “Wherefore even though a woman were made the object of all that is done in conferring Orders, she would not receive Orders, for since a sacrament is a sign, not only the thing, but the significance of the thing, is required in all sacramental actions” (ST Suppl. IIIae, Q. 39, Art. 1). In other words, someone who is not a validly ordained priest can lead a beautiful prayer service and say the exact words of consecration and do all of the steps properly and reverently, but even after all that, he would just be holding up a piece of bread and a cup of diluted wine, for he has done the external of the Sacrament without having the internal requirements that the externals signify. During the true Holy Sacrifice of the Mass the priest literally becomes Christ for the moment of the act of consecration, with Christ Himself saying the words, not the priest. For Christ to inhabit the person and perform this Sacrifice the person must have a masculine soul and body, for Christ borrows both of them when He performs the Sacrifice. It is thus clear from infallible Church Doctrine that the ordination of women is impossible.

When one opens up and reads his Bible, he will quickly discover this Doctrine is rooted in Sacred Scripture. Referring to the teaching and preaching within the Churches, St. Paul writes, “women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says” (1 Corinthians 14:34 RSV). This is partly meant to emphasize that women are not to have spiritual authority over a congregation as men. Again, from St. Paul: “Let the woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.” (1 Timothy 2:11-12 RSV). The context of this passage is again referring to that of worshipping within Churches. Some may be tempted at this point to argue that St. Paul was sexist and outdated.  They further discredit this statement by arguing that it is not Christ himself saying this, but an apostle of Christ, and saints can be wrong. But this is a grave misunderstanding: for the Church teaches the Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy: “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation…” (CCC 107). It is impossible for anything within Sacred Scripture to be wrong. This means that the Letters of St. Paul, which are part of Sacred Scripture, cannot err, and to say St. Paul is wrong is to defy the Holy Spirit, or in other words, God. A faithful Christian cannot validly make an argument against inerrant Sacred Scripture.

Finally, the truth of this conviction is apparent through Reason. God created two sexes for a reason, and although they are both equal in dignity, they have different roles. This does not refer simply to manual labor, but to spiritual roles as well. Everyone has a different role while they are on Earth, for God did not create everyone to be equal in virtues, wealth, capabilities, or authority. Not everyone is called to be a priest: not even most men. To quote St. Thérèse of Lisieux, “The splendor of the rose and the whiteness of the lily do not rob the little violet of its scent nor the daisy of its simple charm. If every tiny flower wanted to be a rose, spring would lose its loveliness.” Those who deny this are following the example of Adam and Eve, trying to make themselves gods rather than submit to the one God. There are too many Eves and too many Adams these days, and far too few who emulate Jesus and Mary. Mary was not an apostle: she did not offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, but instead received the Eucharist from the hand of St. John. Yet she is now above him, and above all of creation as Queen of Heaven and Earth. She submitted herself to God’s Will as His “handmaid” (Luke 1:38 RSV). While Christ as a man was the one who offered the Bloody Sacrifice on the Cross, she was by the side of the Cross, supporting Him and performing the greatest “active participation” in history. Mary was humble and fulfilled her role perfectly by staying within God’s Will for her, and has thus been set at the highest of creation. The Saints become Saints by doing this, by emulating this complete submission to the Will of God. Both men and women mutually do this, and from it comes their role on Earth: this fulfillment of their role is the source of true happiness, with the reward being in the end Divine Bliss.

Before concluding, there is a significant counterargument to address. Some argue that certain Protestant denominations and the Anglican Church have “ordained” women and thus the Catholic Church ought to naturally follow. The reason why this is not so is simple: the Anglican Church and other Protestant sects are not protected by the Holy Spirit in the way that the Catholic Church is. The Holy Spirit which protects Christ’s Bride from making grave errors such as the ordination of women, meaning it will simply never occur, for God will prevent it. As such, there never has been nor will there ever be a valid woman priest. A woman cannot turn bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. In conclusion, if you are a Catholic, you must subscribe to this Doctrine under the penalty of grave sin. Put more simply, don’t be an Eve, but be like Mary.

A Secular Case Against Abortion

There are few issues in modern politics as divisive and misconstrued as abortion. Both sides of the issue consistently use absurd and dangerous arguments, denouncing each other as ‘baby killers’ or for ‘wanting to oppress women.’ Regardless of the incredible damage this rhetoric does to the integrity of the body politic, which is already suffering from serious political divisions, there is little convincing about being castigated by your opponent as turning a blind eye to murder or promoting bigotry. The overwhelming majority of both sides of the argument have good intentions, and they should be treated as such.

In this article I intend to outline, in a civil and descriptive manner, the secular case against abortion. It is secular not because religious arguments are invalid, but because religious views are not widely shared among the people of this country, and because of the predisposition towards the view that religious morality should have no place in determining American law. The validity (or lack thereof) of these criticisms is not within the purview of this article. It is important to understand that a secular argument against abortion is not simply an attempt to veil an underlying religious motivation. The secular argument is fully capable of standing alone, without any semblance of religious support. 

Certain misunderstandings about the pro-life position must be rectified before any serious arguments can begin. First, being pro-life has no relation to a desire to dismantle women’s rights. In fact, women actually outnumber men in proclaiming a pro-life stance, at 51% to 46% (“Pro-Choice” or “Pro-Life”). Being pro-life is about protecting the right the unborn child has to life, the right that is by far the most important. Without a right to life, there is little reason to promote rights of any sort. By the same token, the gender of those passing pro-life legislation is irrelevant. Because the desire is to protect humanity’s most important right, a legislator being a man or a woman has no bearing on the validity or morality of the legislation. It is worth noting, that the oft-criticized Alabama pro-life bill of May 2019, passed by the all-male Alabama Senate, was signed into law by the female governor of Alabama, Kay Ivey. Another common misunderstanding is the prevalence of rape-related abortion. Rape as a cause for abortion accounts for under 1% (about 0.5%) of all abortions, a minute number. The case of rape is often used as the main example of why abortion rights are needed, an argument which, rightfully so, garners much sympathy. But because under 1% of abortions occur because of rape, it is not a valid reason to advocate the mass-availability of abortion. There can be cases made for why abortion should be available to rape victims, but those should be made separately from the main abortion debate. On a similar topic, being pro-life does not mean that abortion should be illegal if the mother’s life is in danger. To the contrary, the mother’s right to life supersedes that of the child, and if there is no effective way to save both mother and child, the mother must come first. Finally, there is no constitutional right to an abortion. The landmark case of Roe v. Wade superficially established some sort of right to abortion, but there is no basis for such a right in the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is easily accessible, and it contains nothing regarding or applicable to abortion rights, and the Founding Fathers would never have supported such rights. Roe v. Wade claimed that abortion restrictions infringed upon a woman’s right to privacy, but that is unreasonable. The law restricts people’s rights to privacy in innumerable cases. One does not have the right to privacy when they are restricted from insider trading or theft. Aside from this, the right to privacy does not supersede the right to life of the child, and thus the privacy argument becomes null and void. Roe v. Wade is a fundamentally flawed case, and lacks defensible legal foundations. Of course, it is currently the ‘law of the land,’ but that does not make it right and proper. 

With these misunderstandings aside, the central contentions of the secular case against abortion can be fleshed out. First it is important to understand where life begins. To do that, human life has to be defined. It could be defined by consciousness, but then the act of killing a person in a severe coma, vegetative state, under anesthesia, or when blacked out (all of which entail a lack of consciousness) would not be murder (which it is classified as under the law), so that definition is out of the question. It could be defined as the moment the fetus exits the birth canal, but a few inches of tissue should not distinguish life from a lack thereof. A baby is capable of surviving before natural birth, as in the case of a cesarean section or an early birth for example. Under certain circumstances, the fetus could grow and develop without the mother at all, so birth itself can not be an indicator of life. It could also be defined as the time at which a human can live independent of another human. The issue here is that infants, toddlers, and children up to their teenage years are incapable of living without parental care, yet children are considered living and their lives have equal worth as adults.

The only effective definition, that can not be undermined by any other circumstance is that life begins at the point of conception. It is at conception that a totally unique and new sequence of DNA is created, with the meeting of the father’s sperm and mother’s egg. It is that DNA that fundamentally makes a human different from a fish, an apple, or any other organism. And it is from that point of conception that the fetus is able to develop into an adult human being. Thus, conception is the only definition of life that is both universal and can stand up to a rigorous criticism. If life begins at conception, then abortion cannot be morally acceptable, for abortion at any point is the snuffing out of a human life.

To head off any potential naysayers, it is worth positing another thought. If, for whatever reason, one can not accept the definition of life as beginning at the point of conception, then there is another, more philosophical avenue to consider. If life is yet to be defined, and there is no concrete point at which it begins, then one could still not morally justify abortion. Take an analogy (the source of which slips my mind): You were driving down the road at night, and you saw something run out onto the road, yet you were unsure if it was an animal or a child. You have time to swerve off the road, possibly totaling your car, but you know that you will be unharmed. Would you choose to hit whatever it is or swerve? In this analogy, the thing running out on the street is ‘life’ and the car is the pursuit or non-pursuit of abortion. Of course the moral choice is to swerve the vehicle. 

With life defined, it is worth briefly outlining the stages of a baby’s development in the womb. Within the first four weeks of pregnancy, the baby will already have a minuscule organ which is the beginnings of the heart, capable of beating up to 65 times per minute. By the end of the first month, the likeness of the baby’s face will be visible. By the second month, the baby’s appendages will begin to grow, and the development of the nervous system will be well on its way. By the sixth week, the heart beat can be monitored. In the third month, the baby’s appendages complete their formation, and the baby can control the movements of the mouth. The main organ systems are also well into development. In the fourth month, the baby can, in a limited fashion, control its arms and legs, and its nervous system is beginning to function. By the fifth month, the baby starts to grow hair, and the mother can often feel its movements. In the sixth month, the baby can respond to certain stimuli, and can experience hiccups. Upon reaching 23 weeks, the baby can usually survive with proper medical care and incubation. In the seventh month, the baby is capable of hearing and can feel pain. In the eighth month, the baby will be nearly fully developed. And by the ninth month, the baby is fully developed and is ready to be born naturally. 

With the critical background information filled out, it is essential to understand the actual procedures by which an abortion is carried out. In the first 7 to 9 weeks, the most common form of abortion in the US is a medical abortion, usually through the utilization of mifepristone and misoprostol (or a very similar pairing). Mifepristone is used to eliminate the lining of the uterus, which halts the continuation of the pregnancy. At that point, misoprostol is taken, which initiates contractions, expelling the fetal remains from the body. The fetus is then disposed of, without any of the proper care given to a deceased human. Also used within the first trimester is the process of Manual Vacuum Aspiration, which is the process of inserting a small syringe-like tube into the uterus and then sucking out the fetus.

When the euphemisms are disregarded, and the actual process if understood, it is quite gruesome. The vacuum pressure rips apart and sucks out the developing baby from the womb similar to how a home vacuum sucks up the dust on the floor. Suction curettage, which is performed between six and 16 weeks of pregnancy, is a similar procedure. In this case, the uterus is expanded with medical instruments and a tube is inserted, which then can either suck out the fetus like in the aspiration procedure or will scrape out the tissue. The end result is the same. After 16 weeks, a procedure known as ‘dilation and evacuation’ is used. This procedure is also very similar to the previous two, except the fetus is now much larger. Sometimes the fetus is injected with a concoction of medication to ensure that it is dead. The procedure ends in the same way as aspiration and suction curettage. Finally, after 21 weeks, the ‘dilation and extraction’ procedure is used.

This procedure bears little resemblance to the others. The uterus is expanded so as to allow doctors to have access to the now well-developed fetus. Then surgical tools like forceps are used to pull out the body parts, including the arms and legs, through the uterus. It should be noted that these are torn from the body of the fetus. Then, a tube is inserted into the fetus’s skull, and the brain is sucked out, at which point the skull caves in upon itself. When that occurs, the remnants of the fetus are extracted from the uterus. It goes almost without saying that this is a horrendous and gore-filled  process. The remains are then disposed of. Abortion is an incredibly barbaric procedure, and despite the emotional pains that its description may cause, it is critical to explain that barbarity so as to comprehend why it is so awful.

Abortion is not the only path that is available to people who want to avoid having a child. Adoption accomplishes the same goal, and does so much more humanely. Adoption provides a win-win situation, with the unwilling or unable parents foregoing the responsibility of a child and the child experiencing the greatest right of them all: life. Of course adoption is not as easy as having an abortion, but the ease of the process should not be the primary concern over the preservation of the child’s life. No child’s life is reducible to the supposed ease, or potential lack thereof, of the parent’s life. In most cases, it was the parent’s choice to have the child, and when there is a clear choice involved, it is important to understand that there are consequences for one’s actions. The disdain for those consequences does not justify an abortion. 

With over 50 million abortions having occurred since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the case against abortion becomes more and more important every year. That is 50 million lives snuffed out, 50 million unique and valuable individuals who could have contributed so much to society. And this is what the secular case against abortion is founded upon: the inalienable right of every individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It does not bode well for a  society when the most vulnerable are denied their most fundamental right. Those who have been aborted are forever lost, but every day to come provides the possibility for lives to be saved. We must come together as a country, as a principled and righteous people, to preserve the lives of future generations.

Trump's Reelection Strategy? Staying Quiet.

“Wait a second, did the President actually say that?” 

Ever since the 2016 election of Donald Trump, it seems like every single American has either heard that phrase or said it themselves. From his infamous Twitter account to his controversial statements and policies to the Mueller Investigation, it's no secret that ‘The Donald’ loves to be the center of attention. And that is exactly his problem. President Trump’s obsession with being the top story in newspapers across the country everyday will without a doubt be his Achilles’ heel when the 2020 Election arrives.

Trump’s actions over the last few months have embodied this obsession. July 14th saw the president attack ‘The Squad,’ a group of four congresswomen who have been known for their progressive politics and for their criticisms of the president. ‘The Squad’ is comprised of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of NY, Rashida Tlaib of MI, Ilhan Omar of MN, and Ayanna Pressley of MA. In the tweet, Trump suggested that they ought to “go back” to the “totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.” Not only was the tweet downright unnecessary and despicable, but it’s also factually wrong. Three of the four congresswomen targeted were born in the United States, with Omar being the only exception, as she was born in Somalia. Still, she is a legal citizen of the United States and should not be ridiculed by the president for simply not being born in the United States. Trump gained absolutely nothing from this tweet, and it is absolutely childish of the President of the United States to attack four duly elected congresswoman for simply disagreeing with his politics. 

It is perfectly acceptable to not agree with The Squad’s politics. Heck, a lot of people in America, including myself, don’t agree with them. However, when you start to attack them based on something other than their politics, that is when you know the line has been crossed.

Another example of Trump unable to keep himself in check was seen with the suicide of financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who was recently arrested on July 6 on federal charges for sex trafficking. It is no secret that Epstein had contact with many famous people including former President Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew of England, and President Trump himself. When news broke of Epstein’s suicide, Trump posted a pair of tweets accusing former President Bill Clinton and former Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton of being involved in Epstein’s suicide. One of the tweets retweeted by Trump claimed that documents were unsealed that revealed that top Democrats, including Bill Clinton, took trips to Epstein's private island in the Virgin Islands.

There are many things wrong with this retweet by the president. One is the blatant hypocrisy of Trump, as he also had connections with Epstein, and was even recorded on video partying with Epstein in 1992 at his Mar-a-Lago estate. What’s also hypocritical is the fact that Trump’s Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta was forced to resign when his handling of Epstein’s 2008 plea deal came to light, in which Epstein dodged federal sex abuse charges by pleading guilty to state charges, which resulted in a 13 month sentence and requirement to register as a sex offender.

The fact that the President of the United States is retweeting this wild conspiracy theory blaming a former president for committing murder is not only appalling and wrong, but it also brings shame to the Oval Office. Trump must have forgotten that he also had ties with Epstein, as he would have been better off remaining silent this time.

Other controversial statements by the president include saying that any Jewish person who votes for a Democrat shows “a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty” and even talking about buying Greenland. Talk about a crazy summer for Donald Trump.

Despite these controversial statements, Trump can still win the 2020 election. As a matter of fact, President Trump has done a lot of positive things while in office: tax reform, nominating two justices to the Supreme Court, and recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital seem to be his most popular policies. The reality of the situation is that while a lot of people like these actions by President Trump, they are always shadowed by the president’s loud and abrasive personality. In response to this, he must have a different approach once 2020 comes around: stay under the radar and let the Democrats battle each other for the nomination. 

While this will certainly be a challenge for the president, it is the smartest thing for him to do if he wants to remain in office. While supporters of the president like the fact that Trump is vocal about his beliefs on Twitter, others just want the chaos to stop. To stop this chaos, I highly suggest that someone in the Trump Administration snatch his phone and delete Twitter ASAP.       

The 2020 presidential election will certainly be one of the most important elections in recent history. This election also poses many questions, the most important of which will be whether or not the president can stay out of the spotlight and let the tides of Washington settle for a little while. This will without a doubt be the difference of him winning reelection or him packing up his bags and saying goodbye to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

A House Fitting for the Lord

You’re stuck shoulder to shoulder with a somewhat familiar face from your orientation group while a voice echoes from the ambo, barely audible over the droning roar of circular fans. The sharp crack of a small rock dropped on the marble floor jolts your mind from the stifling stupor of the late summer heat, if only for a moment. A bead of sweat journeys down your forehead as the grumbling of your stomach recalls the promise of food ere long. Convocation – perhaps, the first time you’ve truly sat in St. Joseph’s Chapel.

This first time formally gathered with your entire class may not have instantly screamed beauty, though it was undoubtedly a charming event. Too often are we caught unaware of the beauty that St. Joseph’s chapel holds. However, I must say, the chapel, although far from the pinnacle of church architecture, maintains a standard of beauty unsurpassed by any other structure on campus – a standard of beauty sacrosanct with the beauty of the Mass celebrated within its walls. A beauty too often buried by apathy. In reality, Church design far surpasses everyday beauty and encompasses a realm of symbolism that encapsulates the whole of salvation history. I invite you to simply observe. If you’re able, take this article and read it in the chapel so you may observe any details I highlight. Let me take you on a tour.

St. Germanus of Constantinople prescribes the standard of a Christian church in his work “Ecclesiastical History and Mystical Contemplation,” pronouncing “The Church is an earthly heaven in which the supercelestial God dwells and walk about.” And we as Catholics know this to be true. Does not our God truly dwell in the tabernacle? Does He not walk about in each of us when we receive His true Body and Blood? Surely, He does. So the Church must then look the part. This is why we see Gold ornamentation a plenty. This is why the predella is constructed from marble. This is why the ceilings lift high as though to somehow mimic the vast glory of Heaven. What houses the glorious must be glorious, if only a mere shred of the glory of the former. The earthly beauty helps our weak mortal minds to conceptualize the incalculable majesty of God – a God truly present in the Church.

Perhaps my favorite feature upon the predella is the ciborium. The four columns support a grand golden canopy, under which is the tabernacle of Christ (though St. Joseph’s Chapel houses the true presence of our Lord off to the left side, a decision I will not discuss here). This ciborium not only supports the majesty of what dwells beneath, but as St. Germanus connects, harkens to the Holy of Holies – the dwelling place of God in the Old Testament, which housed the Ark of the Covenant. This similarity deepens once we recognize that, as the Ark housed the sign of the Mosaic covenant, the tabernacle under the ciborium houses the sign of God’s final covenant, Christ Himself.

The columns, which support this grand canopy hold weight, yet hold a vastly greater host of symbolism. In 1 Kings 6:16 Solomon adorns the temple with “palm trees and open flowers.” Upon closer glance, we see that St. Joseph’s Chapel is similarly adorned: the Corinthian column, with their capitals of foliage rise like the palm trees. Rosettes comprise the backdrop of the stained-glass windows and carved flowers adorn the edges of the octagonal segments on the ceiling. These are not exclusive to St Joseph’s Chapel but adorn most any church, though the symbolism runs deeper than mere decorative similarity. Church tradition holds that this design of churches, and Solomon’s temple reference the Garden of Eden, before the fall. As places of Heaven on Earth, they recall the time when man was closest to God. This perfect, unblemished state of man is paralleled by the neat, orderly rows of the columns, the consistency of the foliage from capital to capital, the seemingly perfect placement of every floral detail. The Church itself strives to be perfect as was the garden before man ate of the forbidden fruit.

Still, there is more to learn from the columns. Notice how the columns are Corinthian, not Ionic like those of Dinand. This differentiates the house of God from merely a house of study. There are two other places on campus, to my knowledge, where Corinthian columns can also be found.  They can be found in Fenwick, for instance, but even more importantly, they can be seen in the interior of Kimball. Why do these similar architectural choices appear in both locations? Well, think — what do Kimball and the chapel have in common? Two things, for me, come to mind – they are both houses of feasts and of celebration. In Kimball we hold banquets and common meals – we eat and are sustained. In the chapel we consume the Body and Blood of Christ – we eat and are sustained. In Kimball we celebrate holidays and events, and in the chapel, we celebrate the most magnificent moment in history: our salvation.

So far, I’ve elucidated some deeper symbolism and ancient significance of the Chapel, however one particular detail, a personal favorite of mine, speaks to more recent church History. If you venture up the steps of the predella and look closely at the marble floors, you’ll notice something peculiar – a thin rectangular strip of marble, a slightly different color from the marble surrounding it. A quick glance, left or right, will tell you why the floor was patched. On either flank are the remnants of the altar rail, a relic from the Church pre-Vatican II. The rail once separated the lay from the priest, maintaining a higher degree of sanctity about the altar. It was a place where only those performing the sacrifice might dare to step. Now, we’ve lost that symbol of deep sanctity, though the altar remains as holy as ever. It’s these little details that go unnoticed, and that many in the Church want to go unnoticed, that speak to the true sanctity of the place, as well as the historical operations of the church.

As the altar rail (or the remnant thereof) tells us, the congregation of the Church stands removed from the altar. The altar is the place of God, the pews are the place of people. What great reminders of this are the beautiful stained-glass windows that flank the walls depicting Confessors on one side and Martyrs on the other. We stand, not only amid those other people present with us at Church in the moment, but with the entire congregation of the Church in Heaven as well. What great company to dwell with us!  Yet, they are, like us, nowhere near the greatness of our Lord. 

I would now like to return this tour to you. You’ve heard my spiel on some symbolism. You’ve heard my interpretation, that of the traditions of the church, and of St. Germanus. But take some time to view the chapel with your own eyes. What catches your glance? What enraptures you? What lifts your mind and heart to God?

There is so much beauty within this chapel, a beauty common to many Catholic churches across the globe. We are lucky to have such a rich history of architecture – of architecture with meaning. So let us not forget the importance of the Church. Quoting St. Germanus once more, “…it is glorified more than the tabernacle of the witness of Moses, in which are the mercy-seat and the Holy of Holies. It is prefigured in the patriarchs, foretold by the prophets, founded in the apostles, adorned by the hierarchs, and fulfilled in the martyrs.” It is the house of our truly present God.

The Climate Strike

Environmental activists gathered on the Dinand steps today, in front of the statue of Christ’s Crucified Hand. Representatives from the Chaplain’s office tried to hang one of their strike signs on the statue, but the wind blew it off; they made sure to use the statue for the remaining time as a placeholder for their plastic water bottles and cell phones. To prevent starvation, protestors were given dozens of colorful bagels to munch on as they paraded with their capes and signs.

“The world is dying and we need to do something about it,” said student Jack Parks ‘23, who told The Fenwick Review that he was protesting “deregulation on things like mercury, or waste - how people handle waste, stuff like that. Companies throwing stuff into any bodies of water that they can pollute just to get waste away from them.”

Despite the protesters’ widespread opposition to plastic items like straws, the protest’s organizers were passing out plastic Climate Strike stickers. When pressed, protestors acknowledged that it seemed a little hypocritical.

At a little past nine, the event officially started, with speeches given by the march’s leaders. The first speaker was a junior who attempted in vain to rally people up. The cheers were vaguely reminiscent of teenagers at a concert. There were calls to demand action, and to interrogate their fellow students on why they didn’t attend the rally: “...you must hold the people around you accountable.” The first speaker was the longest and was followed by other students with similar points.

Finally, Marybeth Kearns-Barrett, the head of the Chaplain’s office, addressed the crowd. She continued to use the same rhetoric as the former speakers, quoting Pope Francis and calling for action. Towards the end of her speech, she spoke about God’s graciousness and love, referring to God with the pronoun “she.” When asked to clarify that this is what she meant, she did so without hesitation. Her speech ended with a prayer.

Our warriors then proceeded to march through the streets of Worcester to City Hall to demand their voices be heard.

A Statement on the May 2019 Telegram & Gazette Article

"This week, there has been a considerable amount of controversy about a speech delivered by Bishop McManus, a Telegram and Gazette article about that speech, and the school’s subsequent response. Some students are calling for Holy Cross to jettison Catholic values, which are often construed as archaic and regressive. On the other hand, as a Catholic institution, Holy Cross has a responsibility and a mission to uphold the teachings of the Church. Thankfully though, these two goals—to be a place of love and a place that upholds and defends authentic Catholicism—are not in conflict. Unfortunately, many have come to believe that the Catholic Church is guided by regressive hatred, homophobia, and the denial of science. This is a cartoon, a comically false depiction of the Catholicism. In reality, the Church calls for all human beings to be treated with dignity and respect, a point which Bishop McManus made clear in his speech. This love, observes Pope Benedict XVI in his 2009 encyclical Caritas in Veritate, must be guided by truth, since authentic love cannot be divorced from absolute truth. In times of confusion and chaos, Catholic teachings are a beacon of clarity and stability that guide, clarify, and enable both individuals and institutions like Holy Cross to love authentically.

For further clarification on the Church’s teachings on gender and human sexuality, there are a variety of resources—including papal encyclicals, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Pope St. John Paul II’s theology of the body—available online."

Death, Graduation, and Being an Easter Person

“Do not abandon yourselves to despair. We are the Easter people and hallelujah is our song” –Pope Saint John Paul II

At the time that this article is written, we are still in the Easter period. By the time that this article is published, at some point in May, it will still be Eastertide. Christ is risen - Christ is risen indeed - so let us be glad and let us be joyous that our Savior has risen from the dead. Let’s face it: if Christ did not rise from the dead, he would have been another so-called prophet that was put to death for his radical ideas. It is not enough to limit the Resurrection to a metaphor and it is not enough to pretend that it was just a part of a nice story. Jesus Christ was sentenced to death on the cross, died between two thieves, descended into Hell to free the heroes and prophets of the Old Testament, rose from the dead, walked among us again, and then ascended into Heaven. That is what we believe, that is what we defend, and that is what we should be in awe of every day of our lives. To be Christ-like, among other ways in which to emulate Him, is to assert that death has no dominion because we are an Easter people. We are focused on the Resurrection.

When I was growing up, I attended many wakes and funerals for deceased family members and friends. From an early age I was exposed to the grim realities of death and to face this fact of life head on. How do you explain to a child why his Great Aunt isn’t with us anymore? How do you explain to a teenager that the Grandmother who was the strong Matriarch and glue of his family has passed away? How do you explain to a college student that one of his dearest friends and role models has died very suddenly? How does a young adult face the fact that his parents, his family, his friends, and all the people he loves will one day die? How does he face the fact that he too, will die someday? These aren’t easy questions to answer, and they’re reasons behind why people look toward religion for the answer. In my faith, I have found solace in that I am a member of the Body of Christ and this Body has conquered death.

I am no theologian, nor will I ever say that I have all of the answers to life’s challenging questions. I trust that the thousands of years of Church scholarship have already approached these subjects and offer a much more articulate answer than I ever could. It took a while for sure, but when I was willing to take a leap of faith and trust in God for the answer I found that things made sense. Thankfully, we are subject to the mercy of Christ, a mercy that included walking among us, teaching us how to live, dying for us, and ultimately opening up the gates of heaven to all people. Thankfully, there is an outline in the form of the Catholic Church as to how one can follow Christ’s footsteps and conquer death. It makes sense that if we don’t follow the instructions, we are going to have a hard time and ultimately fall victim to the temptations of Hell, a place void of God (which, suffice it to say, is devoid of love, hope, charity). Hell is not the place to be, no matter what people may try to suggest. To say that you want to be devoid of all that is good is just a blatant lie to yourself and others. We are not meant for Hell, we are meant for Resurrection, and we are meant to be constantly living in the model of Easter.

All of this may seem grim, and frankly, a talk about death is going to be grim and uncomfortable. In navigating our discomfort with the subject of death, we can find the joy that Christ died in order to bring us: we don’t need to be afraid of death. If we are truly an Easter people, death is just another motion toward Eternal Life with the Body of Christ. That Body is the Communion of Saints, those holy souls who dedicated their lives to serving Christ and to serving others. That Body includes our family and friends who have answered Christ’s call to community, compassion, and all things that are good. In dying, we are not alone. That part is particularly important because we must face the reality that we are all probably going to Purgatory first, which is not a bad thing. It is that final purification before Heaven and we, as the Church on Earth, can pray for the souls in Purgatory and help them along their journey. Please always pray for the deceased, as they may need all the help that they can get. The Venerable Fulton Sheen has a beautiful quote on this connection, saying, “As we enter Heaven, we will see them, so many of them, coming toward us and thanking us. We will ask who they are and they will say: ‘A poor soul you prayed for in purgatory.’” There is nothing but love in our call to prayer.

To wrap up this idea and, ultimately, my final article as an undergraduate, there are many things in life that seem to offer the opportunity for despair in a similar manner to death. For example, as a graduating Senior there are many times that I feel like I’m dying in a certain way. I feel like I’m losing a part of my identity and, in a sense, this may be true. In graduating from college and Holy Cross in particular, it seems like a whole world is being left behind. Post-grad seems a type of ‘Purgatory’ before getting a job or establishing myself. It is so common to get into these nostalgic daydreams of desolation as the doomsday clock seems to tick ever so closer to midnight. Yet I cannot stress this enough: we are an Easter People. Graduation isn’t death, it is a resurrection of one’s own self that has been aided by four life-changing years. We don’t have to leave everyone and disappear. We will see each other again and true friendships will last. Death, or rather graduation in this sense, will only have as much power as we will let it. Do we fear it and run from it or do we have the faith and confidence to trust that it is not the end?

I trust that my graduation is not the end of my connection to Holy Cross nor is it an end to any sort of life. I will forever be grateful for the guidance, for the people, for the challenges, for the heartbreak, and most importantly, the outpouring of love from my friends and family. We are an Easter people. We are an Easter campus. We are meant for something greater than death or graduation; we are meant to rise into new life with Christ. May we always be comforted by Christ’s love and mercy and may you, reader, find solace in the victory of Christ over death because you are meant for Heaven and meant to be loved.