Letter from the Editors: November 2019

Dear Reader,

Thanks for picking up the latest edition of The Fenwick Review! 

In our September edition, we mentioned that this year is an exciting time for us, and this edition is further evidence of that claim. For one, we have an exclusive interview with Bishop Robert McManus, the Bishop of the Diocese of Worcester. He talked to the Review about Holy Cross, Catholic education, and how students can live out their Catholic faith on campus. We also have a great article on the Traditional Latin Mass, a call for politics to be taken out of homilies, a brilliant satire on some controversial chapel aesthetics, an insightful analysis of what Dr. Jordan Peterson can (and cannot) teach Catholics about evangelization, a piece on the dangers of political polarization, and a take on the political exploitation of science.

Because this issue takes a close-up and inside look at the Church - both in America and on-campus - it felt fitting to use a blueprint of of St. Joseph’s Chapel for our front cover. Not only is it a unique picture, but it’s a powerful reminder that the Catholic Church is, in a sense, constantly under construction. It’s up to young people like us to build it up.

Finally, we are very excited to host Heather Mac Donald, Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and New York Times bestselling author, at Holy Cross for a talk on her 2018 book The Diversity Delusion: How Race and Gender Pandering Corrupt the University and Undermine Our Culture.  The talk will take place on Monday, November 18, in Seelos Theatre.  We hope to see you there!

Once again, our goal is to start conversations, give voice to often unheard points of view, and inspire productive reflection. We hope that what you’ll find in the following pages will do just that. 

Seamus Brennan ’20 & Jack Rosenwinkel ’21

Co-Editors-in-Chief

Political Polarization Produces Demons, Real and Imagined

Political demonization is older than the College of the Holy Cross and even the Cross itself. During the Peloponnesian War between Sparta and Athens over 2,400 years ago, the violent demagogue Cleon asserted in the Athenian democratic assembly that public speakers (politicians) use tricks to deceive voters. Cleon conveniently labeled any dissenting opinion as aimed for self-gain. In short, “don’t listen to what my disingenuous opponents say!” However, Cleon likely wouldn’t be airing such dangerous, anti-democratic labels if those speaking in the assembly supported his desired policy: to take as slaves the women and children of the rebellious region of Lesbos while slaughtering the men. Cleon hypocritically strove to deceive his audience to prevent others from acting mercifully, which he considered a base deception against the proper enactment of revenge and gaining the fear of other cities through the shedding of blood.                                     

In 2019, we can find a relative of Cleon’s opportunistic cynicism in the language used in American public debate between the Democrats and the Republicans. Some Democrats like to categorize those who support socially conservative policies as fascists and/or Nazis, while some Republicans attempt to label the Democratic Party as uniformly socialist, especially regarding its healthcare and educational policies, with the connotation that Democrats are destructive communists. However, the use of the loaded labels of fascist and communist sinisterly shields party voters from listening to what the other side has to say. In other words, “We (insert party) don’t have to and must not talk to the evil enemy.” Implicit in this attitude lies the fear that one’s ideology does not contain all the answers and, if undermined, can no longer provide surety of moral righteousness. Convenient.    

Notwithstanding, Democrats and Republicans likely have more in common than they like to admit. Although divergent in ideological tenets and political solutions, both communism and fascism in the twentieth century reacted against certain aspects of modernization. These included the loss of tradition, meaning, and order amidst the whirlwind of technological change—ushered in by the advent of new theological, philosophical, and scientific understandings. Likewise, although not to the totalitarian extent of the Nazis and Soviets and their genocidal nature within concentration camps and gulags, America’s parties both strive ideally to achieve the common good within the spirit of the Constitution, weighing material and spiritual needs within an ever-escalating modernization.

However, taking these labels at face value, is the Democratic Party the party of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, or Brezhnev? Is the current Republican party an illiberal party of Mussolini’s and Hitler’s racist political descendants? Or in admiration of Spain’s authoritarian Generalissimo Franco? Such large claims require evidence.                                    

Compared with Russia in 1917 after its near annihilation on the eastern front against Germany in World War I, the morale of the current-day United States is not equivalent to a society racked by massive defeat that would bring an American Lenin to power. If otherwise, one would have to argue that the political situation that led to the election of Trump rivals a world war costing millions of lives. Do Democrats make such a dramatic claim that Trump is a manifestation of the failure of capitalism (aligning Trump’s election with the Marxist concept of the “crisis of capitalism,” foreboding international revolution) and that one can no longer work with Republicans, requiring a more totalitarian mindset to prevent psychological assaults upon people’s identities? Some Democrats make this claim, but it is a strange claim amidst so much material prosperity in the United States. Further, do large paramilitary armies with members in the millions waltz through the streets creating chaos, like the situation that Hitler manipulated to bring his Nazi Party to power in the early 1930s amidst the Great Depression? No. If yes, one would be forced to make the wild claim that United States law enforcement and ICE parallel the Nazi Storm Troopers and exterminatory SS.

Today’s opposing polemicists who label Democrats and Republicans respectively communists and fascists/Nazis, the historical embodiments of absolute evil on the left and right, reveals that they view the world in pseudo-religious terms. Americans take pride in their freedom from theocracy, but American political parties have filled the void produced by post-Enlightenment secularism. Humanity is intrinsically religious, and one cannot escape from dogmatisms that provide a structure to one’s lived experience. Within their dualist “good and evil” visions of the world, today’s American parties now offer new articles of belief, including identity politics, healthcare, immigration, environmental policies, guns, and economic equity. When former Democrat presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke maintains that religious organizations that do not toe the line regarding LGBTQ+ issues ought to lose their tax exemption status and receives an applause at a Democratic town hall, laid bare is the reality that today’s political elites do not respect alternative visions of the world and will not tolerate heretics or anything that runs contrary to their version of reality.

What is more extensive than propagandist Josef Goebbels’s mass media in Nazi Germany and the local party offices of Soviet Russia is the vast reach of American political advocates acquired through the millions of smartphones and computers into every American home. Hoping to get people off their coaches to cast a vote and shame the opposition, political demagogues and media outlets present each election as an existential threat. However, they offer no final peace free from suffering. Compared with the parties’ presentation of utopian, futuristic visions, where the articles of belief are perfectly codified into law and believed by all citizens, all progress and achievement in the present seems disappointing when held up to the ideals of the articles. Unfortunately, justice for all humanity cannot be perfectly achieved nor comprehended by the limited human intellect. Additionally, technology only offers material solutions, not ultimate spiritual fulfillment and happiness. Nonetheless, America’s political parties have urged us to cease rest until the world is set aright and humanity lives eternally, like gods. This worldview inevitably necessitates a group to be blamed for the world’s continued woes.      

A Timely Warning (Satire)

Dear Members of the Holy Cross Community,

It is my regret to inform you of a discovery concerning a multitude of hate symbols on our campus. A student recently reported seeing swastikas in both Dinand Library and St. Joseph’s Chapel. We laud this student for their bravery in standing up and alerting us to these instances of hate. We encourage you, the Holy Cross community, to do the same if you bear witness to any grotesque language or symbolism.

I must say these particular findings cut deep to my core. Sadly, these symbols of hate have been living under our noses for decades now and, due to the culture of hate on our campus, they were never brought to our attention. I took a trip to St. Joseph’s Chapel and to Dinand Library after the report came forward to see for myself; not that I would ever doubt the brave report of a student, but simply to better acquaint myself with the problem at hand. As I looked carefully, I began to see those execrable, abhorrent symbols of bias that had evaded our sight for so many years. It was apparent –– the very architects our great college decorated the walls of those buildings with swastikas. Now I must admit, we did not know the architect, and many of you may state we should simply assume the design was created with no malintent. However, we cannot assume the motives of the architect, so we can only infer that the design came from a place of pure hate. Further, I know these buildings were constructed before the rise of Nazism in Germany, but that does not excuse the fact that they promote a hateful ideology. The context surrounding the advent of these particular symbols does not matter. They are hateful and they do not belong on our campus.

If you are able to stomach this venture, I invite you to catch a glimpse of these wretched stains of racism in the stone trim of each building. The administration will, for the near future, place professional staff members throughout both buildings for anyone who finds themselves in the buildings and needs them as a resource. 

While we have been ignorant to them for years, we will not let this hinder us in our quick expulsion of these images. 

Firstly, Fr. Boroughs has consulted with the Board of Trustees and concluded that – as part of an ongoing investigation of hate on campus – we will hire a third party investigator, who has no prior connection to the school, in order to conduct a thorough review of all the current buildings on campus. A new committee, The Committee to Review Architectural Prejudice (CRAP), will review the report he will generate. CRAP will then decide a future course of action depending on how many other instances of swastikas, or other hate symbols, have been systemically engraved upon our campus buildings. Further, he will chair an in-depth review of the plans of the ongoing construction on campus and expunge any instances of hate the architects may have included. CRAP will review this report and then determine whether the construction may continue.

But, I know, since this investigation may take years, this is a distant solution to an urgent problem. So in addition, we are offering a series of more immediate solutions. We understand that they too may be unsatisfactory in their nature; hate runs deep in our community and we cannot expect to completely expunge it, but we will try our best. 

So, as a second course of action, tomorrow we will be hanging “Hate Has No Home Here” signs over each and every obscene instance of hate, both in Dinand Library and in St. Joseph’s Chapel. We know this measure will not eliminate the symbols of hate, but it is the best we can do in the meantime.

Thirdly, the Counseling Center is opening their lunch hours every day of this coming week and cancelling all their previously scheduled appointments to, along with CRAP, accommodate support groups for those who feel threatened, or otherwise unsettled, by these recent discoveries. Please know that your feelings are valid. Simply because we, as a campus community, are just now realizing that there, in fact, are longstanding symbols of hate in our facilities, does not mean we aren’t entitled to be fearful; our collective blindness does not excuse this threat. Though we cannot connect these abominable adornments to targeted physical attacks, this does not mean they aren’t acts of violence. The white men who designed these buildings, in fact, committed this act of violence against the Holy Cross community and continuously commit acts of violence against us all until their symbols are removed. We will not let this violence continue into the future, which brings me to the fourth course of action.

Active December 1st, we will be ordering the Construction of the New Luth Recreation Center to cease (until the aforementioned CRAP review is completed) and all efforts will be redirected towards the demolition of the buildings containing the hate symbol.  Both St. Joseph’s Chapel and Dinand Library will be completely removed from our campus. In addition, any records, mentions, pictures, etc. of these facilities will be eliminated. All students will, voluntarily, turn in their phones and other electronic devices (laptops, tablets, etc.) to ITS, where their content will be reviewed to assure they contain no information that recalls or could promulgate the hate entrenched in these buildings. If such information is found, the student’s phone will be, with his or her consent, wiped clean of all memory. (Students who have not yet turned in their phone, or other device, for review will have a hold put on their enrollment and their dining plan. Similarly, students who have not consented to have the memory of their device(s) wiped, if the review deems necessary, will incur the same punishment. Note: our first intention, as always, is the free choice of action on behalf of the student.)

In place of these former temples of hate, we will leave signs declaring, proudly: “Hate Has No Home Here.” These signs shall be installed during a vigil run by the Chaplains’ Office here on campus, and we intend for them to remain permanently. We invite you, our student body, to create your own artistic works inspired by your experience of this hate  – whether that be visual art, a piece of music, a play, or anything your creative intuition wills – to be displayed or performed during these vigils. Please take this opportunity to just feel. Further, we will allow those minority students, whom this particularly effects, to cast a brick, or any other memento they so desire, from either building into a ceremonial bonfire, celebrating their liberation from these monuments of hate.

I know many of you may not find this an adequate response; there is always more we can do. I acknowledge this: we are imperfect. And I particularly want to apologize that these atrocities have, for so long, gone unnoticed. I will be more vigilant in the future. Because of this, we invite any and all of your suggestions moving forward as to how we can better address this culture of hate that runs so deep on our campus. Please join me in the hope for a better future.

Sincerely,

May King-Issues

Dean of Generation and Redress of Minute Affairs

An Interview with Bishop Robert McManus

A few weeks ago, Co-Editor-in-Chief Jack Rosenwinkel ’21 interviewed Bishop Robert McManus, the Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Worcester. They discussed everything from McManus’s own background to what it means for Holy Cross to be an authentically Catholic school. The interview has been edited for length and clarity. Questions are in bold; everything else is Bishop McManus.  

Bishop McManus was born and raised in Providence, Rhode Island. He entered high school seminary at the age of 14, studied philosophy as a Basselin Scholar at the Catholic University of America, and was ordained a priest in 1978. He has a Doctorate in Sacred Theology from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. In 1998, he became the rector of Providence’s seminary, and later that year, he was ordained a bishop. He has led the Diocese of Worcester since 2004. 

Do you like being a bishop? 

I accepted the role of bishop because that’s what the Church wanted me to do. I’d never thought about being a bishop. Unfortunately, it’s been a very difficult time in the life of the Church. I’ve been a bishop for 20 years, and for 17 of those, I’ve been dealing with the sexual abuse situation, which is absolutely a scourge. So, there’s many joys. Many, many joys, and I thank God for the gift and the responsibility of being a bishop, but the present context, in the last 17 years, it’s been a cross. But I think that’s God’s providence, because he chose me to be a Bishop and he gives me the graces I need everyday. It’s just amazing the source of strength one gets from meeting people throughout the diocese who are praying for me. If I didn’t have the prayers, I’d be in a mental institution. So it’s been a gift, it’s been a joy, but I’ll be frank in saying that there have been many moments of great suffering. 

Going off that… with the abuse crisis and increasing animosity towards Catholicism, your job has probably gotten a lot harder.

The greatest hurt for a bishop and a parish priest is two-fold. It’s secularism, and then a lot of the mistakes we made in the renewal of the Church after the Second Vatican Council… those two things have decimated the population in terms of practice of the faith. 

But I would say it’s a big church and there’s room for everybody as long as you want to be authentically Catholic. That’s what it’s all about. And that’s another difficulty I have. You see it so often with Catholics in public life, especially among Catholic public officials. What’s going on here in Massachusetts is a prime example of this. The mayors of Massachusetts just stood up at a press conference in front of the State House and publicly proclaimed their support for this Roe Act, which promotes abortion. Those Catholic politicians have to realize that by taking a public, pro-abortion stance, they jeopardize their relationship to the Catholic Church. They are, in some level, involved with a very, very grave evil. It’s a type of apostasy. 

It’s also very upsetting when Catholic institutions claim to be Catholic but have squandered their Catholic identity. Those are some of the biggest hurts. To see the beauty of the faith either being watered down, or set aside, or actually being repudiated by people who still claim they want to be Catholics. But they can’t have it both ways. 

What does it mean for a college to call itself Catholic? 

Well, first of all, any Catholic institution can only be called Catholic by the endorsement of the local bishop. The local bishop grants the title of Catholic identity to a local institution, and for very, very serious reasons, could withdraw that Catholic label. 

What fundamentally makes Catholic colleges Catholic is that they have to be completely and unambiguously supportive of promoting, fostering, and furthering the great Catholic intellectual tradition, which spans from Jerusalem right to the present moment. Just look at the 13th century. you had St. Francis, St. Dominic, St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Albert the Great—these great intellectuals. 

We had two magnificent pontificates with John Paul II and Pope Benedict, which I think was a great moment in the Church’s intellectual tradition. With then with Cardinal Newman’s canonization, we have to stand back and realize that this man—hopefully, someday a Doctor of the Church—has so articulately contributed to the Catholic intellectual tradition. These are the things that a Catholic college or university has to be rooted in. 

I think fundamentally, you do that by hiring for mission. You only hire people—even if they’re not Catholic—that thoroughly and authentically commit themselves to supporting the mission. The Catholic identity of a college is completely tied up with the mission, and if we don’t get the mission straight, the identity is going to be undercut. When you don’t hire for mission, you get off the track. Once you get off the track, it’s hard to get off the track, because of tenure. Once you have a tenured professor who’s off the tracks, you have a big problem. There’s very little you can do administratively in that situation. 

 How do we balance the belief in objective truth and the Catholic intellectual tradition with academic freedom?

Well, it’s very well established in Ex Corde Ecclesiae, by John Paul II. He’s very clear in that document. In 2008, Pope Benedict came to the United States and gave a talk at Catholic University to Catholic educators—from university presidents to elementary school teachers. He talked about academic freedom the way Ex Corde speaks about it, which is to say that a university cannot be a university without academic freedom, but within certain parameters. In some instances, what academic freedom means at Harvard University, or Berkley in California, that type of academic freedom cannot be exercised at a Catholic university, especially in the fields of theological education. Because we are a dogmatic Church, a Church with a whole doctrinal tradition. 

As a result, theology is faith seeking understanding. The theological tradition moves forward, but always within the confines of the dogmatic tradition of the Church. There certainly can be a development—Newman makes that clear, and we see it in the Second Vatican Council—but there cannot be theological rupture in the tradition, what Benedict XVI called “a hermeneutic of discontinuity.” We saw this after Vatican II. The mandate of the Council was to bring the tradition forward, but we saw some theologians—and I don’t say it was done with any ill will—actually get off the Catholic rails. 

What advice would you give to a student who is in a class, particularly a religious studies class, where they feel like the professor has gotten a little off the rails?

If a student hears something in class that he or she knows is not the teaching of the Church, and if it’s being propagated in a... theological… what do they call it? 

Religious studies. 

I know, they try to make the distinction between theology and religious studies. Well, fine, make the distinction, but the reality is, it’s a Catholic college, and if you hear something that is contrary to the faith, I think students have a right to put their hand up and respectfully challenge that particular position. Then, they should ask to see the professor—again, in a very respectful and civil way—and raise their objections.  

You don’t have to be Catholic to go to a Catholic college, but I think when you go to a Catholic college, or a college that claims to be Catholic and strives to be authentically Catholic, then you’re going to be introduced to the great Catholic intellectual tradition, which may be very contrary to some of the tenets of religion that a non-Catholic student may have. 

That is why Ex Corde Ecclesiae says very clearly that a majority of the professors at a Catholic college should be Roman Catholic. I would go a little bit further and say they don’t just need to be Roman Catholics; they have to be Roman Catholics who are committed to the Catholic intellectual tradition. A college is a place where intellectual conversations go on all the time, but what I am finding is, in some quarters, some people who argue in the name of diversity, or argue for tolerance, are unfortunately very intolerant of positions that do not square with them. And if you disagree with them, it’s hate speech. I just find it very intellectually unsettling that this plea for diversity and tolerance often does not play out from their point of view. 

Over the years, there have been moments when Holy Cross has been at the center of this debate about what defines a school’s Catholic identity. How do you feel like the school has handled some of these incidents? 

I’ve been here 15 years, and I think the college has sometimes handled things very appropriately, and sometimes less so. A couple years ago, when had this controversy over Benny Liew, I was just completely disappointed in the reaction of the College. He shouldn’t have been hired. He shouldn’t still be hired. I don’t think he should be teaching in a Catholic college. He’s still there though. 

And then last May, I was upset too. I happened to give a talk up at the Cross for a group of physicians and nurses who are very attached to the Divine Mercy spirituality. I gave on a talk on the Church’s moral concerns about transgenderism. I was very forthright. I never named anyone, never named any colleges, never named faculties… well, there’s an article done in the paper, and I’m being criticized by the chief administrators at the college, saying that my speech was hate speech. 

That’s ridiculous! It’s just crazy. These days, I’m less than certain that the Catholic identity of Holy Cross is strong. I’m very concerned. 

Does that put Holy Cross’s official Catholic status in jeopardy?

Well, a bishop can remove the Catholic title, but I would rather dialogue with the school. But when it’s cut off by saying, “We don’t want you here on campus,” well, give me a break. 

So what do you do? How do you have dialogue if the other side refuses or just says it’s hate speech? 

You just have to pray for some type of conversion. It seems to me that when people want to cut off dialogue with these subjective arguments, basically they’re saying, “Well, you’ve hurt my feelings.” And that’s the end of an intellectual conversation, because it’s not about feelings. It’s about truth. It’s difficult. 

 My concern is, and I’ve said this to Fr. Boroughs, every Catholic kid and Catholic faculty member on that campus is part of my pastoral responsibility, and if I think something is being said or taught that I find dangerous to the faith, then before God I have a responsibility to speak up, and not only at Holy Cross. When people are on campus, they are part of the Church here in Worcester. And I take that seriously. 

 When young people are at Catholic institutions, they have absolutely every right to be introduced to authentic Catholicism, not a watered-down version of it.  

 Do you have any final parting words for Holy Cross Students?

Don’t settle for what George Weigel calls, “Lite Catholicism.” Young people want the real McCoy. By your example, your enthusiasm, your practice of the faith… it catches on. When my younger brother graduated college, we moved to Grand Rapids, and he had a roommate. One of the first weekends they were together, my brother gets up and gets dressed to go out. And the roommate goes, “Where are you going?”

My brother says, “Mass.”

“You’re going to Mass?”

 My brother goes. Three weeks later, the guy gets up and goes, “I think I’m gonna go to Mass with you.” And he came back to practicing the faith.

You people have a lot of responsibility. But it’s all about prayer. Prayer and living an authentically Catholic life, praying for the conversion of souls. But I ask you all to pray for me, and I pray for the College every day. 

Social Phenomena, Public Intellectual, Model of Christian Living? What Evangelical-Minded Catholics Can Learn from Jordan Peterson

Once upon a time, a Canadian psychology professor publicly denounced a bill that he thought to be an intrusion on free speech, and the ensuing controversy caused a media firestorm. Since then, the spotlight has never left him. That professor, Jordan Peterson, is a sort of modern sage, a mouthpiece of ancient wisdom commenting on the plight of modernity. The popularity of Peterson’s latest book (it sold over three million copies) shows that Peterson’s blend of philosophy, religion, and science is striking a nerve. 

I find the buzz that surrounds Jordan Peterson particularly exciting. His popularity reveals that our culture is grappling with big questions and is unsatisfied with quick answers and shallow ideologies. I am not going to attempt to summarize Peterson’s metaphysical worldview. Instead, my goal is to invite fellow Catholics to seriously explore his work and engage with his thinking, because if the Peterson phenomena shows anything, it’s that the world, if approached correctly, is ripe for conversion. Because of this, I believe Catholics can look to Peterson for insights on how to evangelize the present culture.

So what can Catholics learn from Peterson?

First, Peterson shows that Catholics must contend with the greatest minds and influencers of our time. Peterson does this through his engagement with Freud, Jung, Nietzsche, and Frankl—thinkers that modern, secular culture takes very seriously, but Catholics often write off. Catholics need to engage these thinkers; after all, evangelization relies on the ability to externally dialogue with the ideas of thinkers outside the Church. Today, the Church needs figures like Newman, who wrestled with the Enlightenment philosophers Hume and Locke; Thomas who baptized Aristotle's naturalism; Augustine, who engaged with the Neo-Platonists; and Paul who preached at the Areopagus. The Church must show outsiders that it not only understands popular modern thought, but that it also stands as a prophetic voice calling for something greater than modern thought. By engaging with Peterson, as well as the secular thinkers he draws from, Catholic intellectuals can open doors to evangelization.

The next lesson Catholics can learn from Peterson is authenticity. This comes in two forms.

First Catholics have to stop dumbing down doctrine simply because they think that watered-down Catholicism will be more popular. Peterson doesn't avoid hard ideas; instead, his lectures tie together an array of disciplines and are often over two hours long. The Church must do the same; it must stop thinking that people are stupid, that they can only handle a ten-minute sermon. In an educated and interconnected world, the Church doesn't stand a chance if it doesn't begin to ask more of its people intellectually. Most Catholics have a minimal grasp of the faith, the Bible, and Church history, leaving even the most devout unable to evangelize an educated modern audience. As evidenced by the Peterson phenomena, as well as the astounding number of young Catholics that stop practicing by the time they get to university, if the Church isn't an authoritative source of articulated truth, people will go elsewhere. Rather than settling for an elementary understanding, the Church must press her faithful towards intellectual contemplation.

Peterson can also help the Church be more authentic by enabling us to admit, like him, that we are seekers. Peterson readily admits the limits of his knowledge and, importantly, leads him to ask questions, wonder, and contemplate. As evangelists, we should never put on the façade that we have all the answers and dismiss new findings— for example, not pursuing a new philosophical understanding on the basis that Thomas Aquinas already answered everything in his Summa. The inquisitive Angelic Doctor would be ashamed of such close-minded thinking, and there are few things more unattractive to would-be converts.

Catholics must be informed, know the Truth, and be able to articulate it. However, the faith teaches that the Truth is a person, not a set of written ideas or ideological positions. Given that we can't even fully understand ourselves, how much more impossible is it to wrap our minds around the person of Truth? From this, in the back of every Catholic’s mind must be the words of Augustine: Si comprehendis, non est Deus—if you understand, it is not God.

Embracing mystery is key to evangelization. For seekers, there's something utterly attractive in this; evangelists must be co-seekers as part of their ongoing conversion, we cannot convert a culture that we refuse to learn about or learn from.

Lastly, Peterson boldly calls people to conversion. His message reminds people of their potential and how far they are from living up to it; calling out the mediocrity, nihilism, relativism, and expediency of modern western culture, he readily reminds those he lectures that their lives are full of suffering and their hearts are full of malevolence. Catholics are aligned with Peterson on this. We agree that there is a problem—what Pope Francis calls the 'culture of death.' Peterson boldly calls for change. In comparison, I think the Catholic Church is not demanding enough of its people. This is a massive impediment to evangelization.

Consider the "product" the Church offers: the forgiveness of sins and eternal life. If the Church fails to call out the sinfulness of the world, the world has no reason to turn to the Church for a solution. The Church must remind the world that its problems are not political, racial, or environmental—those are the wrong levels of analysis. Instead, it is the evil (sin) that lives within the heart of the individual. Peterson understands this and calls it like it is. Without proclaiming that the world has a problem, evangelization and conversion become, at best, an offer to join a weird club and, at worst, a means of oppressive influence (as post-moderns never fail to remind Catholics).

For many today, Peterson is the lone voice crying out in the wilderness, reminding his listeners that the lives they are living are not okay. People want to hear that they are not as good as they could be. Whether Peterson knows it or not, that's the Church's line—the call to Sainthood.

Catholics can (and should) learn a great deal from Peterson. That said, Peterson is not a Catholic. While we can seek what is valid and enriching in what he teaches, we must resist the temptation to totalize his philosophy as a sort of elixir of life that can explain everything. Much like the Catholic Platonist must resist the temptation to dismiss the body and the Catholic scientist, a kind of reductive scientism that negates spiritual reality, within Peterson, there is a tendency to reduce religion into a discipline for psychological well-being. This is the influence of the psychoanalytic-existential tradition that sees faith as a sort of logotherapy aimed at relieving suffering and making life meaningful. Interestingly, this tradition—religion as logotherapy—has long gripped western Catholicism, and in some way, through reading Peterson, Catholics can be made aware of this and work to avoid such temptation.

Catholics must walk a narrow path, wrestling with both God and man. As one can see, engaging the world is a real threat to one's faith, but so is refusing to participate. To use Our Lord's candle analogy, we must not be so bold in adapting to the times as to expose our flame to winds that might blow it out. So too, however, we must not be so reserved, so focused on merely preserving, as to risk smothering our flame. A flame needs both air and wax—the flowing breeze of the modern-day, finding warmth and light in exposure to Eternal Truth.

A Recipe for Division: Mixing Politics and Mass

As the old saying goes, “Never discuss politics or religion in polite company.” This is not to say religion and politics are to go unheard, but rather that discussing these subjects require a sort of rational delicacy and a consciousness of one’s surroundings. Both being essential parts of the human experience, religion and politics should, indeed must, be debated. Why this saying bears truth, however, is because of the incredible divisiveness in both subjects. However, sometimes religion or politics are endemic to certain situations. The campaign trail requires political dialogue, and a Catholic Mass is (and this should be no surprise to anyone) by its very nature religious. The question becomes what the relation between religion and politics should be when the two are mixed. In this article, I intend to make the case for why, in a Mass setting, overt partisan politics must be avoided. To put a slight twist on the classic maxim, “Never discuss religion and politics as one during Mass.” A core part of the  Catholic Church’s mission is to create a community of believers in the Catholic faith, and community requires a sense of belonging and being welcome. In the celebration of the Eucharist, the faithful come into communion with both Christ and the Catholic community. Particularly in the political environment of today, infusing partisan politics into a Mass serves only to divide that community.

Politics and Mass most commonly mix during the preacher’s homily. In an interview with The Fenwick Review, Fr. James Flynn of St. Matthew’s Parish in Southborough, Massachusetts, explained that a homily is meant to remind parishioners of the teachings of Christ, and to provide a thought evoking analysis of the Word of God as per Sacred Scripture. Homilies should certainly address the issues of the day, but should do in a non-partisan manner, and merely attempt to find what Christ would say. Fr. Flynn also explained that the homily is not a place for the preacher to attempt to provide his personal interpretation of Sacred Scripture. The responsibility of scriptural interpretation lies with the magisterium of the Catholic Church alone. Homilies are not simple stories, and require careful consideration by the preacher, for they are teaching laypeople about the Word of God. To try to frame that in a partisan political manner puts an unwarranted restraint on the teaching of the Lord. God is not bound by the fickle nature of earthly politics, and to posit that He would support a particular point of abstract political policy is simply ridiculous. 

In understanding what a homily is supposed to be, it can now be explained why one infused with politics is so incredibly harmful. Politics by its very nature is divisive. In the political environment of today, one would be hard-pressed to find a political issue that is widely agreed upon. Given this environment, it should hardly be surprising that bringing politics into Mass is a bad idea. The House of God should be reserved for the worship of God alone, not the preaching of the petty politics of the Earthly City. As Fr. Flynn explains, when this occurs, it is the inevitable result that people in the community of worshipers will be alienated. This runs completely contrary to a core mission of the Catholic Church: the unity of believers. The Church has a responsibility to carry out God’s will for One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and it is a failure of the preacher when that unity is unnecessarily undermined. 

It is worth delving deeper into what it is meant by ‘politics,’ because the necessity of its exclusion from Mass is not absolute. There are two kinds of political policy - one that serves as the only means of resolving an issue, what I will call direct policy, and one that is among many proposed ways of solving a problem, what I will refer to as indirect policy. When Catholic doctrine is explicitly opposed to a certain situation that involves a direct policy solution, the preacher has every right (and responsibility) to make that clear. Abortion can be categorized among these kinds of issues. The Church is categorically against the taking of an innocent human life, and there are no questions on that front. Additionally, there are no other options to avoid the killing of a child aside from a strictly anti-abortion stance. There is simply no alternative policy ground to stand on. Given this, the preacher is in the right to proclaim the inherent evil in the practice of abortion, and the need for its restriction. By contrast, for an issue like poverty, there are a plethora of proposed policy solutions. This would be an example of indirect policy. There are many streams of political theory on how to mitigate poverty, ranging from increased freedom in the market to an increase in government support. It is in a situation like this that the preacher has the responsibility to avoid pushing a particular policy point. He does not have the authority to dictate which policy path God would desire, and for him to do so would be tantamount to presuming to know the Will of God. One could say that the preacher is merely suggesting a solution, but this is not necessarily the case. In his role as pastor, he has a particular religious authority, and this authority includes a responsibility not to abuse it. There are few issues that fall into the category of direct policy, and many that fall under indirect policy, and it is in the latter that preachers most often get into trouble. This is not to say that the preacher should not address an issue that involves indirect policy, he should. In addressing it, he should explain the result that we can determine is God’s Will according to Sacred Scripture, and that we should move towards that end. On the issue of climate change, for example, the preacher certainly has a duty to advocate for the protection of God’s creation, but he should not do so in the context of a particular policy solution, for that (being indirect policy) should be left to the temporal world of politics. In following these guidelines, the preacher can best serve his flock. His goal should be the continued unity of the Catholic Church, and that can not be achieved if the congregation is unnecessarily divided on grounds of temporal politics. 

Participation in a Catholic Mass (or any Christian religious ceremony) should be a time for unity in the Light of God. Partisan politics only serves to artificially break this unity. The preacher has the ultimate responsibility to guide his parish to being disciples of Jesus and evangelists of the Church. While this may at times include political elements, the preacher has the added duty to refrain from unnecessarily divisive rhetoric. The best practice for a preacher when walking into the dangerous realm of politics is simply to urge the faithful to form their own opinions in light of God’s teaching. If Sacred Scripture is taught properly, the faithful should be more than capable of coming to a conclusion without the need for partisan preaching.

The Death of Liberty

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.