Joy to My Youth: The Value of the Traditional Latin Mass
A lot of people seem to be under the impression that, before the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church was cold, barren, and excessively rigid. The Council, people think, represented an “enlightenment” that brought the Church’s teachings up to date and into the modern era. However, if we look closely at the pre-Conciliar Church, we discover that Catholicism had vibrant traditions and rich expressions of faith long before Vatican II. Nowhere is this hidden beauty better encapsulated than in the Traditional Latin Mass.
The Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) is the lost crown jewel of the Church, representing almost 2,000 years of continuous liturgy. Forms of the TLM have been around since the early days of the Church. It was formally codified by Pope St. Pius V in 1570, and the TLM continues to thrive into the present. And yet, among many Catholics, the TLM can be a source of discomfort and division. But why? If anything, TLM is a powerful and ancient tradition that has something valuable to offer the whole Church.
As previously stated, the TLM represents timeless liturgy at its finest. The TLM is the Mass of our forefathers, the Mass in which the Saints were formed. It is the Mass of Bishop Fenwick, founder of Holy Cross, and of St. Ignatius Loyola. In seeking to follow in the footsteps of those who have come before us, what better method could there be than to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as it was in their time?
A criticism often leveled against the TLM is the barrier that is posed by the language, but this argument is flawed on a number of levels. For one, if one attends Mass in a foreign country, the Mass would be offered in a foreign language. Would this prove a barrier to one’s participation? Perhaps. But as a universal sacrifice, the Mass serves to bridge such minute barriers as language. The understanding of the sacrifice that is occurring on the altar, the focus and climax of the Mass, requires no translation. And as a matter of joining differing communities, the TLM is especially powerful in its use of Latin. Strangers are brought together by a shared sacred language, the language of the Church, and part of the common cloth of faith that unites us. Furthermore, for purposes of practicality, Latin-English missals are easily accessible through the internet.
The TLM is also unique in its liturgical construction, with each element of the Mass carefully constructed to give glory to the Triune God. The nine verses of the Kyrie represent the nine choirs of angels. The prayers prior to the reading of the Gospel recall the prophets of old and ask God’s assistance in worthily proclaiming his word. The prayers of the offertory emphasize that the Mass is a re-presentation of the sacrifice at Calvary, rather than merely a communal meal. The ringing of bells and lifting of the priest’s chasuble symbolize the radiation of God’s power as the consecration takes place. The three-fold (rather than singular) statement of “Lord, I am not worthy…” gives exceptional emphasis of the inherent unworthiness of mankind, yet exemplifies God’s love for us that he allows us to approach. Even the orientation of the priest, ad orientem (“to the east”), acting to lead the people toward God instead of merely making them the center of the Mass, has inherent symbolic virtue. Though it is possible to celebrate the Novus Ordo (the “New Mass”) ad orientem, this rarely happens. So many beautiful components of the TLM are completely absent in the New Mass.
Aside from symbolism, critical practices in the TLM related to the Eucharist illustrate the true presence of Christ in the holy sacrifice, serving to cultivate greater respect for the Lord as sacrament. After the consecration, the priest keeps his fingers together until the ablutions to avoid scattering precious particles. Reception of communion while kneeling acknowledges Christ’s nature as the sovereign king of all, and thus brings communicants to approach him in a manner befitting of this status. With only one third of US Catholics holding a belief in the true presence, according to Pew Research, perhaps the proliferation of the TLM would stand to fortify this critical dogma.
Critically, young adults as a demographic have been shown to be particularly drawn to the TLM. According to Matthew Schmitz of the Catholic Herald, “young traditionalists are competing against old progressives.” Schmitz adds that “many young Catholics feel that they have been denied an inheritance that was rightfully theirs,” and thus have searched for and found that missing birthright in the TLM. The TLM itself seems particularly to beckon the young. For those in the Holy Cross community‒a community almost exclusively made up of young adults–seeking a reverent, timeless liturgy, I posit that the TLM is precisely what you are looking for, and thus extend the invitation to go unto the altar of the Lord, to God who gives joy to our youth.
Letter from the Editors: September 2019
Dear Reader,
Thank you for picking up the first edition of The Fenwick Review of the 2019-2020 academic year!
This is an exciting time for The Fenwick Review. It’s the beginning of a new school year — and that means new classes, and a wave of new students. We’re also rolling out a new layout, making some staff changes (one of last year’s editors-in-chief, Michael Raheb, is now Editor Emeritus), and hopefully recruiting some new writers.
The excitement is not limited to what’s happening on the Hill. The 2020 presidential campaign season is officially underway, and so far, it’s been wildly entertaining (yes, Marianne, we’re looking at you). We’re looking forward to bringing you quality pieces about the candidates, the debates, and the issues that matter. But the election is just the tip of the iceberg. In many ways, our culture—on campus, throughout our country, and in the Church—is facing a major turning point. We’re grappling with issues like gun violence, immigration, and sexual misconduct. Dialogue is becoming more difficult, censorship more rampant, and polarization more prevalent. In this climate, we believe the work we do at the Review is even more crucial, which is why we’re so excited about the beginning of this new year and this new chapter.
This edition is just a hint at what’s to come. You’ll find articles about Catholic and conservative culture, a look at chapel architecture, coverage of former Vice President Joe Biden’s campaign, a theological discussion on women’s ordination, an analysis of the abortion debate, and a take on President Trump’s reelection bid. We don’t expect you to agree with everything you’ll find, but it’s our hope that these articles challenge you, make you think critically, and inspire you to pursue truth, goodness, and beauty.
Seamus Brennan ’20 & Jack Rosenwinkel ’21
Co-Editors-in-Chief
Contextualizing the Conservative Movement
The past several months have been nothing short of amusing for those of us on the right side of the aisle. With each passing day, the fragmentation afflicting the Democrat party becomes more apparent, the sheer absurdity of their policy proposals becomes more impossible to ignore, and the apparent race to the left in which most remaining presidential candidates appear to be engaged amplifies the case for their un-electability. The Democrat party and progressive movement more broadly are suffering from severe disintegration, and with it, a growing ineffectiveness of their ambitions, uncertainty of their values, and crisis of their identity. As gratifying as the self-destructive ‘let’s decriminalize illegal border crossings’ and ‘partial birth abortion is a human right’ talk has become, conservatives ought not lose sight of their own movement and the frictions it faces.
Our movement faces one key contention that has yet to be fully reconciled and carries along with it significant implications for our future. This dispute can best be recapitulated by last spring’s quarrel between Sohrab Ahmari of the New York Post and David French, senior writer at the National Review.
In his conspicuously titled May 2019 First Things piece “Against David French-ism,” Sohrab Ahmari, op-ed editor of the New York Post, tirades against what he calls “David French-ism,” or the “earnest and insistently polite quality” that he finds “unsuitable to the depth of the present crisis facing religious conservatives.” Prompted into writing the piece by an online advertisement for a “children’s drag queen reading hour” at a public library in Sacramento, Ahamri contends that figures like French have resorted to excessive politeness and disproportionate civility when engaging in cultural and political battles – a strategy that has left the conservative movement weakened, frail, and subordinate to the ever-growing cultural prowess of the progressive left. Ahmari argues that such “politeness” is wholly insufficient in combatting the bully-like tactics of the modern left and in achieving his own ultimate political objective, which is to “fight the culture war with the aim of defeating the enemy and enjoying the spoils in the form of a public square re-ordered to the common good and ultimately the Highest Good.” ‘David French-ism’ purportedly prioritizes individual autonomy above all else, which Ahmari claims has led to a self-exacerbating cycle of powerlessness for conservatives. French’s so-called inclinations towards “sentimentalization” and his “idle wish that all men become moral” amount to what Ahmari describes as “an almost supernatural faith in something called ‘culture’—deemed to be neutral and apolitical and impervious to policy—to solve everything.”
Unrestricted faith in individual autonomy – something Ahmari implies to be a byproduct of French’s classical liberalism – will inevitably lead to libertinism, in which cultural values are gradually “depoliticized” and become engrained in the social fabric that is already dominated by progressive ideas. Ahmari goes as far as to imply that government intervention might be necessary to prevent the spread of this “depoliticized politics” and the demise of conservative values. “Progressives,” he concludes,
understand that culture war means discrediting their opponents and weakening or destroying their institutions. Conservatives should approach the culture war with a similar realism. Civility and decency are secondary values. They regulate compliance with an established order and orthodoxy. We should seek to use these values to enforce our order and our orthodoxy, not pretend that they could ever be neutral. To recognize that enmity is real is its own kind of moral duty.
French punched back the following day with an adamant defense of his brand of conservatism and classical liberal values: the “two main components” of his worldview, he writes, are “zealous defense of the classical-liberal order” and “zealous advocacy of fundamentally Christian and Burkean conservative principles.” Conservatives’ defense of such values should “be conducted in accordance with scriptural admonitions to love your enemies, to bless those who persecute you,” and being “kind to everyone,” regardless of how hostile or otherwise antagonistic our adversaries may be. French maintains that “America will always be a nation of competing worldviews and competing, deeply held values” and defends “neutral spaces” as essential for American life. “There is no political ‘emergency,’” he concludes, “that justifies abandoning classical liberalism, and there will never be a temporal emergency that justifies rejecting the eternal truth.”
This quarrel is representative of a growing intellectual gap that seems to be taking shape on the right, and presents a crucial set of questions we cannot simply set aside – even in spite of the minor rifts it has afflicted onto our movement. While both Ahmari and French present insightful, well-considered, and valuable ideas and approaches, the best solution lies, as with much else this world, somewhere in the middle.
French’s political objective is, plain and simple, the correct one. Should we ever opt to forsake our classical liberal tradition in favor of a centralized, quasi-theocratic government that aims to “weaken” and “destroy” any institutions and ideas that conservatives don’t like, we would be annihilating the very premises Ahmari defends and the very foundations upon which the conservative movement rests. If conservatives aren’t fighting tooth and nail for a pluralistic society that treasures liberty and cherishes each and every man’s right to speak freely, no matter how egregious their ideas might be, we may as well not be fighting for anything at all.
Moreover, “civility and decency” should never become “secondary values,” and Ahmari’s suggestion that they ought to be overtly contradicts his self-described objective of reaching the religiously affiliated “Highest Good.” As French correctly observes, our political opponents are our fellow citizens. We can’t preserve Christian values and bolster Christianity’s role in society by discarding fundamental Christian behavior; a God-centered culture cannot be cultivated through godless character and un-Christlike conduct.
What French fails to understand, however, is that the American moral consensus that once permitted truly “neutral” cultural zones has been utterly obliterated. It has collapsed on its head, and its remnants are, day by day, being eradicated in similar fashion. We no longer live in an America that recognizes the value of a pluralistic society concerned with the virtues of classical liberalism. That America has been discreetly but forcefully replaced by a progressive cultural tyranny that does, in fact, set out to “weaken” and “destroy” conservative ideas, institutions, and individuals. The ‘French-ian’ conception of America simply no longer exists, and it is naïve and counterproductive to pretend that we are operating within the same cultural framework as in decades past.
The American people no longer share the unity of purpose and commonality of vision they once did, which has bred the divisive, relativistic, and purposeless culture in which we are currently trapped. As John Adams famously wrote, the Constitution of the United States “was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” An August 2019 Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that values such as patriotism, religion, and belief in God – which were once prized as the most important ideals by the vast majority of Americans – have become not only secondary, but also growing sources of division. The United States, broadly speaking, is no longer a nation of “moral and religious people.” The ‘French-ian’ tactics of persistent politeness and anti-confrontational conduct were perfectly fitting for most of our nation’s history, to be sure, and up until recent years, they were the only truly acceptable ways of engaging in political dialogue. But the progressive left has fundamentally changed the terms of our debates; they have aggressively and uncompromisingly imposed their own cultural will onto the American social fabric with an unforeseen intensity. The left has already broken the rules. Coerciveness has already come into play.
One need not look further than Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation process to comprehend just how far the progressive movement is willing to go to, as Ahmari accurately notes, to “destroy” anything or anyone that stands in its path. Cruelty and callousness cannot be responded to with an unwillingness to be combative and confrontational. Kindness, though always valuable, cannot suffice alone. Radical progressivism cannot be adequately fought with tameness and complicit agreeability, and if these are our only sources of ammunition, our failure is already imminent.
French is correct in his assessment that culture is the only proper medium through which conservatives should fight back against the ever-tightening clutches of progressivism, but in order to engage in the culture war, we have no choice but to acknowledge that a culture war exists – something French seems unable or unwilling to do. Nothing is “neutral” anymore, and if we intend to restore some sense of cultural neutrality and reestablish a faith in pluralism, we cannot merely stand on the sidelines preaching the virtues of “decency” while we idly watch our country and our values being violently dismantled and decimated.
Luckily for the conservative movement, no one in politics is better suited to take on the challenges we currently face than President Trump. The President is a perfect avatar of a brand of conservatism that is in-your-face yet far from repressive, bold yet not imprudent, and unafraid yet not unrestrained. He stands his ground, never backs down, and refuses to be silenced or intimidated by incessant (and typically outlandish) attacks from Democrats and those in the media. In fact, the President’s election can (and should) be understood as a direct consequence of the failures that the ‘French-ian’ approach has yielded over the last two decades.
No two politicians embody the tenets of ‘French-ism’ more impeccably than Senators John McCain and Mitt Romney. With unblemished characters, untarnished personal histories, calm and composed campaigns, and well-mannered demeanors, no one in good faith could question either man’s integrity, fitness for office, or ability to lead our nation. A case could be made, in fact, that McCain and Romney represented two of the most honorable and morally upright men in American politics. Nonetheless, Democrats jumped at the chance to disparage McCain as an unfit, war-mongering bigot and Romney as a vicious racist and sexist who sought to objectify women and, in the words of former Vice President Joe Biden, put African Americans “back in chains.” Each candidate held steadily true to the creed of ‘French-ism.’ Rather than hitting back and holding their own in Trumpian fashion, they continued their campaigns with their attacks uncontested, their demeanors unruffled, and unsurprisingly, their presidential bids unsuccessful. When we concede our cause to figures like John McCain and Mitt Romney in the current political environment – their respectability of character notwithstanding – we lose, and we lose soundly.
In the age of woke progressivism and search-and-destroy political techniques, ‘David French-ism’ is a recipe for failure, and in November 2016, the American people finally had enough. Ahmari writes the following of Trump’s election: “With a kind of animal instinct, Trump understood what was missing from mainstream (more or less French-ian) conservatism. His instinct has been to shift the cultural and political mix, ever so slightly, away from autonomy-above-all toward order, continuity, and social cohesion.” In short, President Trump has become necessary because the left does not play fair, and no one else in politics possesses the sheer audacity to withstand the influx of unsubstantiated cries of ‘racism’ and the orthodoxy of contemporary left-wing politics. As Thomas D. Klingenstein wrote in a May 2019 Claremont Review piece, President Trump’s “unequivocal defense of America’s way of life is nothing less than extraordinary.” “Even on the Right,” he continues, “he is virtually alone in making the arguments.” Conservatives are blessed to have someone in office who fights for our cause without timidity, without remorse, and without backing down.
Conservatives must not be complacent and we must never waver. Though we should never lose sight of civility and graciousness when we interact with our political foes, proper engagement in the culture wars requires some semblance of a backbone and some willingness to stand up for what we know to be the most superior vision for America and all of its citizens. All of this is achievable without discounting civility, relying on government coercion, or adopting the left’s bad-faith strategies for ourselves. We are better than that, and we owe it to our movement, to our country, and to our fellow citizens to approach this important episode in our nation’s history with fearlessness and fortitude, but in a way that doesn’t nullify the values we preach and hold dear.
We must not underestimate the power of words or undervalue our capacity to change hearts and change minds. The art of persuasion and the free exchange of ideas are cornerstones of American democracy, and even in these politically turbulent times, they ought not be forsaken. Winning our neighbors over to our point of view is not within the threshold of the federal government. Rather, that charge lies with each and every one of us. That charge is our duty as human beings, as Americans, and even on this campus as Crusaders. That charge, in fact, is the very foundation of this publication, and it is my hope that we continue to advocate for our ideas and our worldview in a way that is combative but caring, fierce but friendly, and daring but diplomatic. The truth is on our side. Let’s do right by it.
Catholic Culture and the Sacramental Imagination
The casual reader of Flannery O’Connor might describe her short stories as violent, gloomy, and full of grotesque characters. O’Connor herself would have added another word: Catholic. This might come as a surprise. After all, there are scarcely any Catholic characters or mentions of Catholicism in her stories. Furthermore, O’Connor’s blunt treatment of death and suffering seems out of place in a world where Christian stories all appear forcefully optimistic. And yet O’Connor herself wrote, “I write the way I do because (not though) I am a Catholic.” She’s not the only one. J.R.R. Tolkien insisted that his Lord of the Rings trilogy was also deeply Catholic, despite the fact that his books are devoid of any mention of organized religion. Yet Tolkien, who was raised by a Catholic priest, considered his Catholicism a driving force behind his fiction.
Both Tolkien and O’Connor—as well as countless musicians, painters, filmmakers, and poets—create art that’s Catholic, not because it’s full of overt Catholicism, but because it’s rooted in a deeply Catholic way of seeing the world. For these creators, Catholicism—with its nuanced understanding of good and evil, its awareness of the fallenness of humanity, and its intense physicality—provides a framework for engaging with—and portraying—reality. By looking at the world from a distinctly Catholic point of view, countless artists have created work that is both deeply and discretely Catholic. George Weigel, in his book Letters to a Young Catholic, refers to this Catholic worldview as “the sacramental imagination.”
In order to understand the sacramental imagination, we have to first make sense of sacramentality. Sacraments, simply put, are physical signs of God’s grace. In the sacraments, God uses elements like water, oil, and wine to enact the drama of salvation history. Catholicism is deeply sacramental, because it posits that God works through creation—rather than against it. Which is why Catholic churches are often full of stained glass, incense, and statues. These physical objects serve to help people place themselves in God’s presence. But sacramentality, properly understood, isn’t confined to the walls of a church. True sacramentality involves recognizing the ways in which God’s grace is present in the created world, even in the grittiest of places.
In case this all sounds rather abstract, let’s take a brief look at a concrete example of sacramentality in action: the conversion of Avery Cardinal Dulles. Dulles, who’d been raised Presbyterian, became a committed atheist by the time he was a teenager. One day, while he was a student at Harvard, he went for a walk and spotted a flowering tree on the banks of the Charles River. Suddenly, he was filled with the sense that there was a God who had personally created the world. Dulles later converted to Catholicism, entered the Jesuits, and became a Cardinal. In that moment on the banks of the Charles, the created world revealed something to him about the transcendent.
Sacramentality changes the way we interact with the world. The realization that God works through physical creation “allows us to experience the world not as one damn thing after another, but as the dramatic arena of creation, sin, redemption, and sanctification” (Weigel, 11-12). Essentially, Catholicism enables a deeply poetic worldview. The meaningless is imbued with meaning. Trees now have the capacity to trigger mystical experiences. God is not a distant concept, but an immanent experience.
In a sense, this was what St. Ignatius was getting at when he insisted that we try to find God in all things. God isn’t just found in church or on Christian radio stations. He’s in back alleys with addicts, He’s present in broken homes and bad neighborhoods, and He’s alive and at work in the muck of our humanity.
At the beginning of this article, I mentioned J.R.R. Tolkien and Flannery O’Connor. Why? Because their work is driven by the sacramental imagination. But it isn’t just them, it’s all Catholic culture, and that’s what I want to talk about now—Catholic culture. But before we really get into why Catholic culture is awesome, it’s important to understand how it’s tied to the sacramental imagination.
For starters, the sacramental imagination shows that something can be Catholic even if it isn’t overtly religious. Why? Because the entire point of sacramentality is that grace is often disguised. Just as someone might look at a host and miss the fact that it’s Jesus’s body, people might miss Tolkien’s heavy reliance on Augustine’s notion of evil. But just because people don’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not there. Sacramentality allows Catholics to create culture with a subtle Catholicism. In this way, Catholic culture is awesome, because it isn’t a distinct subculture. It’s not detached from mainstream, American culture. It’s American culture with an intentional Catholic flavor, and it says something about God. Look, for example, at G.K. Chesterton’s fiction. Some of it stars religious characters, but his novel The Man Who Was Thursday expresses profound Catholic ideas without directly engaging religion.
Because of the often “hidden” nature of Catholicism in Catholic culture, Catholic culture is remarkably distinct from America’s protestant subculture. While America’ protestant subculture is full of Christian rock music, low budget movies, and self-help books, Catholic culture is a direct engagement of questions about humanity, the purpose of our lives, and the nature of God, often in a veiled and incredibly creative way.
The sacramental imagination also demands that Catholic artists reflect something of the human experience as it actually is. Remember: a key feature of sacramentality is that God can work through all aspects of our lives, not just the neat “churchy” parts. It would be problematic, then, for Catholic artists to feel the need to pretend like humanity is less broken than it actually is. Weigel explains why in Letters to a Young Catholic. He points out that when God redeemed the world, He redeemed this world, with all its muck and brokenness. Yet for whatever reason, when many Christians create art, they seem to portray a painfully sanitized version of reality, a world that looks nothing like the world we actually live in.
But Catholics, writes Weigel, can’t do that. We have a responsibility to find God here. We have to engage “this world, not some other world or some other humanity of our imagining—because God took the world as it is. God didn’t create a different world to redeem” (Weigel, 14-15). A prime example of this is the film series 8beats, a collective of short Catholic films based off the Beatitudes. The film about the beatitude “Blessed are the pure of heart” is about an erotic dancer. Talk about engaging an un-sanitized reality.
The result is a culture that is at once relevant, transcendent, gritty, and real. Catholic culture doesn’t shy away from the hard topics, nor does it see itself as a refuge from the secularization of society. Instead, Catholic culture is a vehicle of change. It challenges nihilistic worldviews by suggesting that the world is imbued with transcendent meaning, and it uses beauty to communicate objective truths about the human experience. It has a lesson to teach all of us about sacramentality, and it stands as a challenge to artists who want to make art purely for political activism, and not for the sake of beauty. More than anything, Catholic culture engenders a commitment to seeing the world in a deeply Catholic way. That means acknowledging the fact that God works through the material, the mundane, and the messiness of our lives. It also means creating art that engages the world as it is, instead of pretending that we live in a utopia—or that a utopia is even possible. Catholic culture is about saying yes to grace, which often hides in the most unexpected places.
So if you have a moment, go and appreciate some Catholic culture. You got plenty of stuff to work with: The Lord of the Rings, The Old Man and the Sea, Sagrada Familia, the Dies Irae, the stories of Flannery O’Conner, the poetry of Hopkins, the novels of Waugh, Tolkien, and Greene, the music of Mozart, Rossini, and Haydn (but not Haugen), the art of Michelangelo—
Well, you get the idea.
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.