The Decline of Western Civilization at Holy Cross

The endangered species list is due for a new member: history of Western Civilization courses at Holy Cross. Out of 27 courses offered by the College’s History Department in the Spring 2022 semester, only two focus on pre-1500 Western history. In a department of 18 professors, only one specializes in pre-1500 Western history. The Department is currently in the process of hiring another Latin Americanist rather than a medievalist or ancient Mediterranean specialist. This might not seem objectionable at first glance, but it is a serious concern for anyone interested in a genuine liberal arts education. A robust schooling in Western Civilization’s origins is essential for the growth of responsible and informed citizens in a modern liberal democracy, and must be central to any liberal arts curriculum. 

Before delving into the body of the article, I want to specify that despite my criticism, I have a deep appreciation for the History Department. I am sincerely grateful for the opportunity to study under the professors I have taken courses with, for they epitomize the best of the historical profession. My quarrel is not with them (or any professor); indeed I can only commend them for their work in the discipline. Nor do I want to denigrate non-Western areas of study — those are incredibly important to the discipline as well. I only desire the recognition that medieval European and ancient Mediterranean studies hold particular value for the Western citizen.

To the postmodern mind, it is entirely uncouth to suggest that a particular area of history is essential and should be prioritized. Yet, despite a popular aversion to admitting it, there is indeed a hierarchy of historical importance, particularly during the finite time of an undergraduate education. Walter Lippmann’s 1940 speech at Harvard University’s Phi Beta Kappa Society, offers a cogent case for why universities must defend the necessity of educating students in the tradition and history of Western Civilization. It will serve as the basis for this article's analysis and criticism of the decline in the study of Western Civilization, both at Holy Cross and around the country. Lest he be dismissed out of hand, it should be noted that Lippman was hardly a conservative: he dabbled with socialism for a time, worked for the Wilson administration, and considered himself a progressive for much of his life. 

Lippmann begins from a bird’s eye view of education and its aims. The modern education system finds its roots in the 19th century West, with the goal – quoting Jefferson – of providing the foundation for “the preservation of freedom and happiness”. In Lippmann’s judgement, that foundation has utterly failed. Indeed, it is the students of these schools that in the 20th century “have either abandoned their liberties, or have not known, until the last desperate moment, how to defend them.” One can only defend liberties if he or she is educated in the history and principles that liberty depends upon. 

Lippmann understood that the individuals who built the United States, who constructed and maintained the freest society the world has known, did so with a deep understanding of the West’s past. Many of the concepts that undergird free societies  – such as universal subjection to the law regardless of social stature, the principle of representation, checks and balances, or respect for the human body (as created in the image of God) – were birthed in the ancient Mediterranean. These critical ideas, among many others, were then further developed and enriched in the medieval West. The institutions of a free society that are taken for granted today are but the tip of the stalactite of Western Civilization. Lippmann quotes French philosopher Etienne Gilson: 

“[Western culture] is essentially the culture of Greece, inherited from the Greeks by the Romans, transfused by the Fathers of the Church with the religious teachings of Christianity, and progressively enlarged by countless numbers of artists, writers, scientists and philosophers from the beginning of the Middle Ages up to the first third of the nineteenth century.” 

The American Founders were the heirs of this culture, they were manifestations of a continuous tradition and history stretching back thousands of years. Saint John Henry Cardinal Newman, in The Idea of a University, asserts that, at its foundation, the West is a synthesis of two great traditions: that of Athens and that of Jerusalem: reason and faith. Newman, however, stretches the West’s history back even farther, seeing its origin in the great civilizations of the Near East, from Egypt to Mesopotamia. While the geographical center of Western Civilization has shifted in the course of history, its continuity is not in doubt. Hence the importance of educating Western citizens – and this includes all who inhabit the free world – in the tradition of Western Civilization: to fail to do so is to fail to preserve this great inheritance.

Lippmann defends the importance of preserving tradition – which requires understanding it – in a manner reminiscent of Edmund Burke. No individual or society can start from scratch or jettison the accumulated knowledge of generations and expect to progress as a civilization. Like a stalactite, growth is conducted upon a wide and ancient foundation. Lippmann, similarly, analogizes this to the practice of modern science: “[Society is] able to do advanced experiments which increase knowledge because they do not have to repeat the elementary experiments.” Burke asserted much the same, although he termed respect for tradition as prejudice. This is not the kind of prejudice that one thinks of today, instead it is prejudice in favor of deferring to the combined wisdom of generations past, for, as Russel Kirk affirms in The Conservative Mind, the knowledge of the common man “is a kind of collective wisdom” without which “he is thrown back upon his own private stock of reason, with the consequences which attend shipwreck.” This Burkian prejudice is the response of the human mind to the problem of one’s inability to discover every truth for oneself — it is not to be thrown out as backward or primitive, rather it should be respected and utilized. Lippmann understood, however, that the educational system of 1940 – and this is even more true of 2021 – had no interest in strengthening the intellectual roots, or encouraging the Burkian prejudice, of Western society, as the curriculum had been progressively purged of pre-1500 Western Civilization. 

It is not just that there are fewer courses offered on the history of Western Civilization in institutions of higher education, the problem is also that the subject is no longer required. The typical university student’s education is far more subjective than it once was, with undergraduates – in most colleges – having only to fulfill a short list of vague requirements. At Holy Cross, this takes the form of Common Requirements, which include such expansive terms as ‘Studies in Religion’ or ‘Historical Studies’. These requirements are so vague that a student can graduate without having taken a single course on Christianity or Western history. More specifically, in the History Department, majors need only two pre-modern courses – and they need not be Western, pre-1500, or ancient history either. Educational requirements should exist not just to give the student a breadth of experience in various areas of study, but also to educate the student in those areas which are essential to the society that he or she will inhabit. 

 For Lippmann, a society can only endure when there are common bonds, part of which includes a common knowledge of shared heritage and tradition. Education fails in its civic duty – the preservation and furtherance of a free society – when it fails to have a standard of knowledge, when it fails to provide a common well from which members of a society can draw upon. Today, it is a concern for equity that has caused the teaching of Western Civilization — the common well — to be superseded and diminished. Rather than offering courses centered on the school’s duty of providing foundational knowledge for the student, history departments (Holy Cross’ included) have chosen to base their offerings in part on equity or equal representation of cultures and geographic areas — another symptom of contemporary relativism. There is nothing wrong with having culturally and geographically diverse history — indeed, it is a good — but when that comes at the expense of essential topic areas (such as the study of pre-1500 Western history), it does a deep disservice to the student’s education. 

What is required to revivify the education system is a revitalization of studies in Western Civilization and a rejection of the postmodern attachment to relativism. Not all areas of historical study are of equal importance for the educated citizen. Some areas should be prioritized – rather, required – and some should remain elective. This does not mean that the less traditional areas of historical study need to be removed from the curriculum – far from it. However, it does mean that the College should construct its Common Requirements so as to educate the individual in the society he or she inhabits. The History Department should rebuild its medieval Western and ancient Mediterranean history programs, and rework its major requirements to specify that all history majors must take at least one course in both of these topic areas. Politically unpopular they may be, but if the College truly desires to educate men and women “for and with others” in a shared society, these changes are necessary.

Why Classics is Valuable and Cancel Culture is Toxic

Over the summer, I worked as an intern at National Review and was fortunate enough to see many articles about a variety of different topics published in real time. At the beginning of my internship, I read an article by Cameron Hilditch called “Without the Classics, Our History is Incomprehensible.” In this article, Cameron discusses the underlying influence that ancient Greek and Roman culture has had on American history and the roots of our civilization as we know it. He also addresses the recent decision made by Princeton University to drop the requirement that classics majors must learn Greek and Latin. Expertly weaving in the implications that the “pagan classics” have had on politics and the intellectual beliefs of our ancestors (moreso, he says, than even the Judeo-Christian Bible), Cameron forms a concrete argument that opposes the cancellation of classics in modern scholarship and makes the case for preserving a curriculum that educates students about the trajectory of Western civilization.

“Western civilization” as a term has become a sort of polarizing concept these days. Mahatma Gandhi is said to have made this joke when asked what he thought about Western civilization: “I think it might be a good idea.” And sure, that may be funny, but there are some who have taken this literally, arguing that there is, in fact, no such thing as Western civilization. Scholars are doing it, and schools are doing it. A couple of years ago, the classics faculty at Oxford University, for example, recommended that Homer’s Iliad and Vergil’s Aeneid should be removed from the “Literae Humaniores” (a famous undergraduate course at Oxford focused on the classics in particular). Apparently, this decision was made because of the differences in exam results between male and female undergraduates in addition to privately and publicly educated students. However, seeing as all of these people are at Oxford, for goodness sake, the axing of two of the most influential epics of the Western canon is preposterous at best and disgraceful at worst. The effort to erase these two works from the curriculum is a microcosm of the wider attempt by modern scholars to do away with the concept of Western civilization - along with its art, culture, literature, and enduring ideas - as a whole.

In 2019, I wrote an article for WestView News, a newspaper running out of the West Village of NYC, called “Keeping Ancient Greek and Latin Alive.” Back then, I was an idealistic senior in high school who was just beginning to appreciate all that the classics had to offer but was also aware that interest in classical languages and history was in decline. I had studied Latin since middle school, travelled to Rome through a summer “Latin immersion” program, and been exposed to Greek culture my entire life as a second-generation Greek American. At that time, I was also deciding the next major step in my life: where to go to college. I chose to attend Holy Cross, not just for its welcoming community and high-caliber academics, but for its robust and expansive classics department. I was impressed by the sheer number of professors in the department and the fact that all of them were so supremely knowledgeable about a vast array of topics, ranging from Greek tragedy to classical archaeology to even gender in antiquity. The opportunities to expand my own capabilities as a classics student were seemingly endless, and looking back as a junior, they have proved to be more fruitful than I could have ever imagined. I wholeheartedly admit that I would not be as well-rounded and capable of a classicist as I am today without the brilliantly and expertly crafted language and culture courses offered by the Holy Cross Classics Department.

Reading Cameron’s article, I was heartbroken to learn that Princeton University announced that its classics majors will no longer be required to learn Greek or Latin. As of June 2021, the “classics track” was eliminated altogether (which required intermediate proficiency in either Latin or Greek to enter), and the general requirement of taking Greek or Latin was removed. According to the members of the department, these changes to Princeton’s requirements for the Classics track were instituted in order to create a more “inclusive” and “equitable” program of study. Although the school claims that this change will incentivize more students to become majors, what are the true implications of their decision? Are the Princeton professors admitting to the fact that classics as a field is racist, thereby invalidating and tarnishing their entire academic careers spent studying and teaching the subject? Or are they saying that some students at Princeton University are in fact incapable of succeeding in these rigorous language courses? It’s impossible to wrap your head around this issue without coming to these conclusions. Instead of doing away with a subject that is undoubtedly extremely difficult, shouldn’t a school like Princeton and others following in similar footsteps utilize the colossal endowments they have at their disposal to provide better resources for mastering Greek and Latin? By means of tutoring, implementing better structures to courses, and improving professor-student relationships, the problem of the difficulty of the subject matter in question could slowly but surely be eliminated altogether.

I definitely understand that the privilege to study classics is not afforded to all and am grateful that I have been fortunate enough to be given the opportunity to study this subject for many years with countless resources at my disposal. It is not an unknown fact that communities of color and students in underrepresented groups in the United States have indeed suffered from a lack of access to the classics; however, the classics community as of late has begun to fundamentally change this, especially in the United States. There are a multitude of upcoming initiatives in middle schools, high schools, and universities to incorporate more BIPOC (black, indigenous, and other people of color) and underprivileged students into their classics departments. I personally have been involved in these types of programs: in high school, I volunteered through the Paideia Institute’s Aequora program, which is driven by the belief that “Classics [is] an inclusive, diverse, and socially engaged field.” I would go every week to a public school in Flushing, NY to teach elementary school kids from underprivileged families Latin. This experience was not just helpful for them, but was also gratifying to me, and I was able to witness firsthand the benefits that Latin had on these students: they absolutely adored both Latin and the act of learning itself. I am also currently on the Classics Inclusion Committee at Holy Cross, which upholds those same values as the Aequora program and is working to establish an equitable community here at Holy Cross without getting rid of or dumbing down the already established language requirements. 

Classics has long been considered a very niche and “gatekept” subject, but this doesn’t have to be the case: with enough effort, classics can become open to all who wish to study it. Simply giving up and saying that students of color are at a disadvantage at becoming successful classicists is plain wrong and, frankly, offensive. If the classics departments of Princeton or Oxford do not truly believe in their students’ intellectual abilities along with their desire to fully immerse themselves in ancient languages, how are students expected to believe in themselves? Going forward, we have to be wary of the effects of this new and toxic cancel culture that is all too common in modern society. As Cameron so rightly wrote in his piece, “If anything, we need to expand the scope of classical education that kids receive, not further curtail it. Otherwise, we’re deliberately withholding from American children the conceptual tools necessary for contemplating our ancestors with sympathy and understanding.”

Why I Observe Columbus Day as an Indigenous-Blooded Woman

The DNA results are in.  Should any angry readers search frantically for my ancestry records, they would indeed find that I have quite a bit of Indigenous blood.  In fact, according to my father’s DNA test, I have more than enough to qualify for residence on most reservations, lest someone claim I am too removed from Indigenous people to comment on Columbus.  This fact is not particularly shocking considering my last name is Esquivel and half my family traces their origins to Mexico, where virtually everyone is ethnically Mestizo.  Still, it may come as a surprise to many that I do in fact choose to recognize Columbus day, and am saddened to watch Indigenous People’s Day be pinned against it annually.  

In principle, I am not opposed to Indigenous Peoples’ Day; in fact, I am quite sanguine about the idea of having a national day of recognition for Indigenous people.  Indigenous culture is central to North American history.  We would be remiss as a society to ignore or downplay its place in that history, and the abuses which have been suffered by Indigenous people at the hands of colonizers.  I resent the fact, however, that the push for such a day of recognition has been transformed into the club by which Columbus’s legacy is assassinated.  A “Columbus Day” and an “Indigenous Peoples’ Day” can and should peacefully coexist.  I do not observe Columbus Day as a celebration of the man’s character, nor are his personal sins or virtues of particular interest to me.  In the same way that I celebrate Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day despite allegations made against his character, I celebrate Columbus Day.  Both men changed the course of history, and our lives have been bettered because of their accomplishments.  

Columbus’s arrival to the Americas represented the commencement of American society.  No, Columbus was not the first man to “discover America”, but the semantics game does not succeed in watering down the gravity of what happened in October of 1492.  Columbus brought Western values to a land which never had the opportunity to experience movements such as the Renaissance or benefit from the academic progress of the Middle Ages or read Greek philosophy, all of which we are doing at Holy Cross on American soil thanks to Columbus.  This is not to claim that there is no beauty to be found in Indigenous societies as well; Westerners are still dumbfounded by the architectural feats of the Inca and tourists in Mexico pay just to have a glimpse of an Aztec temple outside of the major cities.  What could be better than Indigenous people and Europeans finally coming into contact with one another?  

Of course, it is not that simple.  With conquest comes bloodshed, and the Europeans who came to the Americas were in fact engaged in conquest, some malicious, some well-intentioned. This was the sad fact of virtually every society’s history at the time: European borders were created through ethnic and religious conflict, Indigenous tribes’ own land areas were won through violent conflict, as was that of the Mongolian Empire, the Islamic Empires, and so on.  Though today we see a decrease in such traditional man-to-man warfare, we observe similar patterns which are executed more quietly through the threat of nuclear force (think the USSR and modern China).  Thus, the arrival of the Europeans in the Americas was no historical exception.  

I still choose to observe Columbus Day.  I am eternally grateful that I was not born into the Aztec society of my ancestors.  Cultural relativism is a popular outlook in modern America, but I wholeheartedly believe that I enjoy life in an objectively superior society than that of my ancestors.  Had I been born and raised in Tenochtitlan, I would have watched several chests being slashed in order to harvest beating hearts and spilling blood for sacrifice to the god of the sun by now, had I not been the unlucky sacrificial victim myself.  Were I a member of a high-ranking family in the Empire, I may have had the privilege of engaging in cannibalism as a sort of reward for my noble status.  Were I from a low class I may have had to work as a serf or a slave, and would have been the first to starve during a famine or poor harvest.  

While it may seem as if I am simply berating the Aztecs and their brutal practices for the fun of it, it is not my intention to anachronistically hold them to my ethical standards — standards to which they had not been exposed.  I can, however, state with full confidence that I believe the society in which we find ourselves is exceedingly preferable to the one I just described.  Needless to say, I am thankful that a society arrived in the Americas to inform my ancestors that there is no need to sacrifice a compatriot to the sun god, because the sun operates independently.  Even a vast number of Aztecs seemed to agree with my evaluation, as masses willingly converted to the religion of their missionaries, namely Catholicism, which preached a dramatically contrasting message to the religion they had known for centuries.  

My gratefulness extends beyond my aforementioned points — I could not have been born without Columbus!  As stated earlier, the majority of Mexicans are Mestizo, meaning they are an ethnic combination of European and Indigenous blood.  Most Mexicans can rightly celebrate Columbus Day as a historic event which laid the groundwork for their own bloodline, not to mention the fact that Mexican society, a culture which I love dearly, traces its foundations to the arrival of Christianity on the continent.  A half-millennium later, I would be born, the product of a white mother and a Mexican father, in a society which gladly claims multiethnic people as its own due its philosophically enlightened foundations, an import made possible by Columbus’s landfall in 1492.

Still, ironically enough, Columbus finds himself being posthumously condemned by those who claim to hold the very values which his expedition brought to our continent.  As previously mentioned, I am not here to defend Columbus’s personal character.  The refusal to appreciate the historical importance of Columbus's landfall on the basis of ethical concerns, however, is unbelievable to me, as those criticizing him do not realize that their arguments are a product of a society which subscribes to the values Columbus had a large part in bringing to this side of the world. People ultimately fail to realize just how revolutionary the philosophical underpinnings of the West — brought to the Americas by Columbus — were and are in the face of world history.  Though certainly not carried out flawlessly by all who came before us, the Western value system has proven the greatest facilitator of social progress in history. We must appreciate Indigenous people and the value of their respective cultures, and we should not gloss over the human rights violations suffered by Indigenous groups at the hands of unjust men. I cannot help but celebrate, however, the fact that Columbus made landfall so that I could live the way I do today.  I therefore wish everyone a happy Columbus Day, and a happy Indigenous Peoples’ Day!

Blessed Karl of Austria: A Necessary Patron for the Modern Catholic

In our present age, our nation and our world are in constant turmoil. Our leaders lack virtue and true charity. The Church has become more powerless in society. Our time is very similar to that of Blessed Karl of Austria, the last emperor of Austria-Hungary, a truly Catholic ruler, father, and husband, who is the patron saint of world peace. The example of Blessed Karl should be the life that every Catholic should imitate, and in order to truly imitate his life we must learn more about him.

Blessed Karl was born into the royal Habsburg family in Austria during the summer of 1887. Karl was not supposed to become the emperor, as he was only distantly related to the reigning monarch, Franz Joseph. He was raised in a devoutly Catholic home, received a strong religious education, and was reared to eventually become a high-ranking political official. In 1911, Karl married Zita of the House of Bourbon-Parma, and they began a holy and virtuous marriage that produced eight children. Due to various circumstances, Karl was third in line for the throne at this time, and he was still very unlikely to reign until the assissination of the heir presumptive, Archduke Franz Ferdinand. After Ferdinand’s 1914 assissination in Sarajevo, Austria-Hungary entered into the First World War, Karl was next in line for the throne, and the Emperor — who had reigned since 1848 — was near death. Within two years, Karl ascended the throne in the war-torn empire. During his short reign of two years, Karl guided the empire through the conflict, and became a staunch advocate for a lasting peace. The Austro-Hungarian Empire lost the Great War, yet Karl deeply desired to keep his empire and her peoples together. However, the political headwinds of his days did not favor him, and nationalist movements grew throughout the empire. These movements and the Empire’s defeat led to the creation of new nationalist states — arising in the aftermath of the 1919 Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye — and Karl was forced to relinquish control in the administration of the state. As a result, he was left powerless, and eventually the new Austrian government banished him from their borders. After a few failed restoration attempts, Karl fled to the island of Madeira, Portugal where he became very sickly and died in 1922 at the age of thirty-four.

Now, this short biography of Blessed Karl is impressive, however, it does not entirely show the Christian virtues that we should strive to emulate, and it does not prove that he is a necessary patron for the modern Catholic. A deeper reflection into his marriage, suffering, peacemaking, and love of Christ show us that Blessed Karl is someone that we should ardently go to in our prayer.

Blessed Karl and Servant of God Zita’s Marriage:

Each Christian is called to a particular vocation in his or her life. Some are called to marriage, others the religious life or the priesthood. Whatever vocation we are called to, we are asked to fully live it to the best of our ability and for the greater glory of God. On the day after their marriage, Blessed Karl is reported to have told Zita that their job was to “help each other to get to Heaven.” Karl’s statement shows us the purpose of the marital vocation, and if we rely on his intercession and follow his virtuous example then we may be able to help ourselves and our spouse get to Heaven. Both Zita and Karl are currently undergoing the process of canonization, further attesting the holiness of their marriage. 

Blessed Karl’s Suffering:

Throughout his short life, Blessed Karl greatly suffered. He saw the downfall of one of the world’s greatest Christian empires under his command, he was exiled from his homeland, he had to send men to fight and die during the Great War, and he died penniless at a very young age from respiratory failure while in a foreign land. However, he did not grow depressed in his suffering. Instead, he brought it to Jesus, and he learned to bear his many crosses. For example, Karl’s last words, while his eyes were fixated on a crucifix, were “I can't go on much longer... Thy will be done... Yes... Yes... As You will it... Jesus”. Even in the midst of his final moments, his heart, mind, and soul was totally fixated on the Lord. When we are suffering, may we look to the example of Blessed Karl who dedicated all his sufferings to Christ.

Blessed Karl the Peacemaker:

Blessed Karl is the patron saint of world peace. Throughout his short reign as emperor, Karl strongly advocated for an end to the Great War and for global peace, much to the chagrin of the military establishment. Karl, who was personally opposed to the war when he was heir presumptive, was the only global leader to endorse every single point of the peace plan championed by Pope Benedict XV. In our own world, which is marked by much senseless violence, may we follow the words that Pope Francis offered about Blessed Karl and “call upon him as an intercessor to obtain from God peace for humanity.”

Blessed Karl’s Love of Christ:

Blessed Karl was only able to be a peacemaker, a committed husband, and suffer well because he was so devoted to Christ, especially His Most Sacred Heart. When reigning as emperor, he often made visits to the Blessed Sacrament throughout the day in between meetings. He had a deep love of Christ and the Church, and he sought to bring about the social reign of Christ the King in his empire. Karl attempted to accomplish this through an increase in the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Karl dedicated his entire family to the Sacred Heart, and he slept with an image of the Sacred Heart under his pillow. His love of Christ sustained him until his final moment. May we have the ability to follow the example of this saintly man, and devote our lives and our livelihoods totally to Christ. 

The life of Blessed Karl of Austria shows us that he was a man dedicated to living out his Christian vocation and his Catholic faith. In our lives, we should strive every day to do the same. If we follow the example of Blessed Karl, loving Jesus with all our mind, body, and soul, we will be able to deepen our love for our family, our nation, and our faith. It is my prayer that we all can follow his example, seek his intercession throughout our lives, and join him one day in heaven.

Laid Bare: The Reality of Pornography

Americans are generally wary of potential evils which could degrade the behavior, health, and thinking of their fellow citizens. This wariness is evidenced by the visceral responses of Americans to everything from communist infiltrators to narcotics. Yet, one threat has gone largely unaddressed, in spite of its near-universal accessibility, toxicity to the mind, direct ties to human trafficking, and detrimental effects on the family and public understanding of human sexuality. Rather, the evil of pornography has been praised and accepted in the news and by various public figures. However these individuals and organizations wish to frame it, few things are more abnormal, or pose a greater threat to the moral fabric of society, than pornography.

To understand pornography, it is necessary to understand its affects on the brain and body. Like most addictive drugs, pornography hijacks the brain’s reward system. When experiencing seemingly beneficial stimuli, neurotransmitters give feelings of pleasure, incentivizing engagement in the stimuli. Further engagement releases more neurotransmitters, fortifying particular neural pathways. Unfortunately, this reward system cannot distinguish between superficially and truly beneficial stimuli. When exposed to pornographic videos, the brain is tricked into believing that the person is engaging in intercourse, rather than watching videos of others doing the same. 

As the brain builds a stimulus tolerance, more stimuli is required to achieve the same amount of pleasure. Pornography provides an infinite amount of novelty as a result of the essentially endless supply of pornographic media available for free at the user’s fingertips. Also, since the novelty of pornography makes it a supernormal stimuli, which is shown to elicit a more intense response in humans and other animals than natural stimuli, pornography presents a more stimulating pleasure experience than real relationships.

As one might expect, this rewiring of the brain has disastrous consequences. Pornography leads to physical changes within the brain, with shrinkage of grey matter that is comparable to, or even greater than that associated with heroin use. On a psychological level, pornography usage produces low self-esteem, loss of energy and mood deterioration, and has been shown to weaken memory. Use of pornography even results in physical changes, such as erectile dysfunction. The rising use of pornography has correlated with a 600 to 3,000 percent increase in erectile dysfunction among young men, a phenomenon that most young men would otherwise not experience for another few decades of their lives. An entire generation of young men who are collectively impotent, placid, and losing grey matter by the day would be a crisis in and of itself. Yet, these immediate effects represent only part of the disastrous consequences associated with pornography.

The craving of novelty inevitably affects true relationships in devastating ways. For those who are in relationships with a pornography-consuming partner, they may see practices viewed by their significant other imposed in the bedroom — practices such as choking and spitting that would otherwise be rightfully considered degrading. Alternatively, the user may become bored and neglect their partner entirely, having built unreasonable expectations of sexual attractiveness and performance around their viewing habits. They then forsake human connection for artificial pleasure. Therefore, it should be no surprise that almost 56 percent of divorces involve pornography consumption, according to the research of therapist Dr. Jill Manning. 

While playing an active role in destroying families through divorce, pornography consumption is becoming alarmingly common among children. The average age of first exposure to pornography is eleven, with some being exposed even earlier. For many children, their first glimpse at sexual activity of any kind will be through the highly disordered lens of pornography. While most may be out of the reach of drugs, pornography is within reach of their keyboards, and the search engines are dealing.

The effects on those most intimately involved in the production of pornography — the actors and actresses — are equally grim. Actresses often come from backgrounds of sexual abuse, poor mental health, and financial instability that result in the pornography industry appearing as a glamorous alternative to their present state of affairs. While perhaps gaining some level of significant income initially, actresses are made to perform increasingly extreme material in order to continue receiving the same income. They are coerced into scenes in which they feel uncomfortable, or would otherwise never engage in.

Beyond exploitation, sexual trafficking and rape go hand-in-hand with pornography. One of the most glaring examples is the case of producers Michael Pratt and Matthew Wolfe, whose productions were widely circulated among pornographic websites. They lured unsuspecting women with promises of a modelling shoot, before coercing them into shooting pornographic videos, and sometimes sexually assaulting them. Unfortunately, this was not an isolated incident. According to Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, at least a plurality, if not a majority of the millions of videos on websites such as Pornhub are non-consensual, with videos depicting the confirmed rape of minors being monetized. Such was the extent of this content that the website was forced to remove almost half of its videos pending review. Onlyfans, held up by many as the paragon of individualized control concerning pornographic content, has also been linked by investigators to human trafficking, both as a way for traffickers to lure victims, and to profit from them.

The thoroughly terrible nature of pornography is only exacerbated by the attitudes of its proponents and producers. Al Goldstein, credited with normalizing hardcore pornography, stated that pornography was “a way of defiling Christian culture and, as it penetrates to the very heart of the American mainstream, its subversive character becomes more charged.” One might wonder how an industry with such consequences, wielded with the seeming intent of its producers to destroy the fabric of American culture, has been allowed to continue unhindered. Yet, this has not always been the case.

 For decades prior to a number of questionable decisions by a liberalized SCOTUS in the 1960s and 70s, pornography was considered obscenity, subject to regulation and outright bans. Obscenity, which is not protected under the First Amendment, is defined as material that is prurient, devoid of scientific, political, educational, or social value, and violates local community standards. It is clear that pornography is indeed prurient, as it promotes excess sexual interest by rewiring the brain. Further, it would be difficult to assert that it holds any value except appealing to carnal desire, and violates local community standards depicting degrading and deviant sexual activity. Clearly, it is time for the court to reexamine this issue.

Grim as it may be, for those who have been affected in some way or another by pornography, there is hope. Physically and psychologically, it has been shown that the brain will rewire itself normally in the absence of pornographic stimulus. There are a variety of resources available for those struggling with addiction and recovery, including coaching, blockers, and information about quitting that is widely available. For those who struggle, know that you are not alone. Pornography can be fought... and beaten.

Social Media and the Abortion Debate

On September 1st, 2021, Senate Bill 8 in the state of Texas went into effect. This bill created a set of parameters that was able to circumvent the language used in previous judicial decisions that allowed greater access to abortion. Since this bill was sent to the floor of the Texas Senate, and even more so after it became law, social media sites like Instagram and Twitter have run amuck with various arguments and points that are widely held but lack reason. I will be addressing a few of those here.

Instagram stories, from my experience, especially in the wake of George Floyd's death, have become a breeding ground for coarse opinions and flashy-looking infographics. The activist infographic is commonplace on Instagram, where its creators make several slides and write, usually in a bubbly font and pastel colors, slogans and ideas (sometimes with supporting evidence). If you are unfamiliar with what I am referring to, the Instagram account @impact is a good example of this type of content at the time of this writing. A quick search on Instagram under #abortionrights finds the following arguments that I will be addressing here.

“Men shouldn't be making laws about women’s bodies.” This argument is used to invalidate any male’s pro-life opinion by saying that since abortion and unwanted pregranacy is an issue that only affects women, men lack the empathy and relevancy to govern and legislate this issue. This is in the same vein as those who believe that only those of certain races or backgrounds can speak on certain issues because of their lived experience. This is wrong and, in this case, sexist. Rather than address the arguments of the opposition, they try to invalidate them as being incapable of having a productive thought. This argument also completely ignores the 45% of women who support some restrictions to abortion and 19% of women who support a total ban on aboriton according to data collected by Gallup in 2021. These numbers are strikingly similar to male opinions on the subject, meaning sex plays less of a role in abortion opinions than implied by this argument. If men took a step back from the abortion debate and let women handle it, the outcome would most likely not change.

“The pro-life movement is rooted in racism.” I have seen this argument presented in many different ways. The most compelling Instagram infographic used sources from NPR, Politico, and The Atlantic to make their case. It is predicated on the idea that evangelicals in the 1980s were angry about desegregation and only picked up the issue of abortion in order to gain more votes and galvanize support for their agenda. To show the lack of relevance of this argument, one must only look at the modern data. The CDC reports that in the United States, black women had the highest ratio of abortions out of any racial group with 335 abortions per 1,000 live births as opposed to white women with 110 per 1,000 live births. Black women get abortions at more than 3 times the rate of white women. If an individual or group were racist, why would they seek a policy that aims to disproportionately save the lives of black babies? If this was truly the intention, those supposed racists would be in favor of abortion since fewer black babies would be born, leading to a demographic shift, with the final result being fewer black individuals eventually turning 18 and using their right to vote. In modern times, the pro-life movement seeks to save people of all backgrounds, debunking these all too prevalent accusations of racism, stemming from the arbritary claim of a racist past rather than any claims about the present.

“Pro-lifers are only pro-life until it is out of the womb.” This argument is usually coupled with the accusation that those who are pro-life are really only “pro-birth”, seeing that those who are pro-life are also generally conservative and reject the concept of large government welfare programs. This idea infers that in order to not simply be pro-birth, one has to support large government assistance and in turn support the use of a greater tax burden to accomplish that. The reason why this is false is because there is more than one way to assist people in need. Those on the right of the political spectrum find the best way is not to fund bloated and bureaucratic government agencies that mismanage funds, but rather to give their money to religious groups and private charities. They find religious groups like their church more appealing as a destination for their money because they generally know to whom they are giving the money and can hold them accountable, with the faith that the money will go to a good cause due to a common set of values. Private charities are similar in that they can be held to greater accountability than a bureaucratic agency. If a charity acts in a manner that does not reflect what individuals believe the charity should be doing, those individuals can choose not to give them money. That cannot be said about the government, which is held accountable to government officials who are laden with other responsibilities as well as limited by lengthy procedure. To respond to the claim, many pro-lifers find that private means are better than public means in assisting those out of the womb. The difference is that conservatives want to use their own money to support causes of import, while those on the left want to take others' money and allocate it as they see fit.

“Pro-lifers only want to control women’s bodies.” This claim seeks to invalidate any argument as it simplifies the situation into pro-lifers arguing in bad faith. Anything that a pro-lifer says can be discarded because they do not believe what they are saying, or have ulterior motives. Rather than addressing the ideas put forth, this argument simply assumes the opposition is evil and not worthy of debate. To come to this conclusion, one has to assume that pro-lifers do not actually believe that unborn babies are alive, and therefore rather than protect life, wish to control others. Contrary to this, pro-lifers do genuinely believe in what they say, and are only seeking to protect innocent human life. This claim is lazy at best and conspiratorial at worst, implying that there are vast swaths of the population bent on controlling women by all agreeing to lie about the same thing. I would never assume that a large group of people that I disagree with politically were being disingenuous despite them having legitimate arguments that suggest otherwise, and neither should anyone else because it does not lead to productive conversation and will never convince anyone who is governed by reason. It only seeks to breed division. 

Finally “it is none of your business” or “if you are against abortion don’t have one.” To believe someone is being murdered next door is none of my business? The vast majority of those on the left as well as many on the right believe George Floyd was murdered, but is that any of your business? Are white straight cisgender men not allowed to march for Black Lives Matter because they are not affected by alleged systematic abuse and not a part of their intersectionality umbrella? No, of course not. People support causes because they believe it is the right thing to do. Martin Luther King Jr., a man widely revered and quoted in America by both left and right, famously said, “Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere.” Abortion is an injustice, just like those on the left assert that systematic racism — which they believe to be enshrined in most, if not all, institutions — is an injustice, and it is every person’s imperative to fight for justice, even if one thinks it does not affect them. Abortion is murder, and I and many others are not going to sit by and let it happen.

This article, of course, does not get the opportunity to address the real substantive questions on abortion, such as when does life begin, Catholicism’s view on abortion, or the nuances of cases surrounding rape, incest, or when the mother’s life is in danger. These questions have all been answered before either by previous writers for The Fenwick Review or by other commentators on the topic. Here, I only sought to address the many lazy and coarse opinions spouted on social media that I see take away from the real debate. Additionally, not all those who are for abortion accessibility believe these views, as no group is a monolith. These flashy statements should be retired, so that we as a society can engage in a civil discourse that leads to the truth, rather than shouting matches and political theatre governed by emotions and fanaticism.

Debacle

According to the Oxford Dictionary, a debacle is defined as “a sudden and ignominious failure; a fiasco.” Few events in history encapsulate this definition as well as the sudden and ignominious resurgence of the Taliban, their reconquest of Afghanistan, the haphazard American withdrawal which left hundreds of U.S. citizens and thousands of Afghan allies to the mercy of ruthless Islamists, and the senseless murder of thirteen brave American servicemen at the hands of a suicide bomber. Yet, the word “debacle” still does not fully illustrate the true picture of the inexcusable 20-year failure in Afghanistan. This failure, of course, does not belong to the brave members of the United States Armed Forces who fought, bled, saved lives, and gave theirs in battle. Rather, it is a failure directed from the highest echelons of the Washington bureaucracy that can almost be traced to the conflict’s very beginning.

In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, the United States oriented itself toward one common objective: find those responsible for the murder of 2,977 innocents on that day of infamy, and wipe them from the face of the Earth. After the Taliban refused to accept American requests for the extradition of Osama bin Laden and expulsion of al-Qaeda, Operation Enduring Freedom began on October 7, 2001. In a matter of months, the Taliban had been driven out of power, and al-Qaeda had been decimated. Disappointingly, in the aftermath of the Battle of Tora Bora, it became clear that bin Laden had slipped away and fled the country.

Despite having failed to meet its objective for the invasion, the United States would remain in Afghanistan for 20 years. Under UN Security Council Resolution 1386, the U.S. would join an International Security Assistance Force mandated to maintain security. The U.S. had thus been drawn in to assisting the creation of a new government in Kabul. This freshly created responsibility was further complicated by the launch of an insurgent campaign by the Taliban in 2003.

While undoubtedly a cliche, Afghanistan’s reputation as the “Graveyard of Empires” proved terribly accurate when it concerned the Taliban insurgency. The ISAF faced the task of eliminating an insurgent force from mountainous terrain, which blended in seamlessly with, and was often supported by, the civilian population. It certainly did not help matters that the Taliban continued to receive funding and training from the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI. Inexplicably, the U.S. contributed over $5 billion in aid to Pakistan as the country continued to support the very terrorists killing our troops.

Exacerbating these already dismal circumstances, questionable strategic decisions put American troops in untenable positions. Outpost Keating represents one of the most egregious examples of poor decision making from the top. In 2006, it was posited that the creation of outposts in the Kamdesh region would project the credibility of the new government and allow for provincial reconstruction efforts. Outpost Keating was one of these bases, and it quickly became an object of concern for being isolated, indefensible, and unsustainable. On October 3, 2009, the outpost was attacked by the Taliban on all sides. Clint Romesha, awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his heroism during the battle, likened it to fighting in a “fishbowl” or “paper cup.” Mere days after the battle - which cost eight American lives - the outpost was abandoned and bombed to rubble to prevent it from falling to the Taliban.

More egregious than its position, the outpost at Kamdesh also highlighted the incompetency of many members of the new Afghan military. Despite receiving $89 billion dollars in funding, the Afghan Army was wiped out by the Taliban within the space of a month. A cursory examination reveals why. 80 percent of recruits were illiterate, resulting in significant time being devoted to teaching literacy rather than combat. Corruption was also rife, with wages and resources allocated to the army being stolen by military officials. Aside from disappearing supplies, thousands of recruits were registered on paper who did not exist in reality. Worse still, members of the Afghan forces engaged in a wide variety of despicable criminal activity, including the practice of ‘boy play,’ the sexual abuse of young boys. American forces were told to turn a blind eye to this abuse, since it was a “culturally accepted practice.” Members of the Afghan forces would occasionally engage in “green on blue” attacks, which by 2020 had seen Afghan forces kill 148 coalition troops and wound 186. This was the force that coalition leaders expected to defend the country after withdrawal.

The Afghan government was not in a much better state of affairs. Apparently, 25% of the total Afghan GDP vanished through corruption in 2010. Billions of dollars in aid and donations simply vanished, undoubtedly lining the pockets of members of the fledgling government. This includes former President Ashraf Ghani, who apparently made off with $160 million as he abandoned his country to the Taliban. This exorbitant level of embezzlement was made possible by the speed and scale of funding given to the government, which prevented effective oversight to prevent the racket that developed.

Effectively, the United States had entered Afghanistan seeking justice, and found itself nursemaid to an incorrigibly corrupt government whose army was illiterate, underpaid, prone to friendly fire incidents, and whose officers were too busy stealing their soldiers’ wages and preying upon young boys to competently lead their men. Inevitably, there is little conceivable way that the United States could have extricated itself from such a situation without chaos ensuing. Even in this context, the ensuing withdrawal from the country proved nothing short of catastrophic.

The U.S. had a precedent for effective evacuation to look to. Preparations for evacuation had already been made prior to the Fall of Saigon in 1975, with the 8,000 American citizens and 200,000 at risk South Vietnamese identified prior to the evacuation, along with potential evacuation options. In a matter of days, the United States successfully evacuated its citizens, along with 138,869 South Vietnamese. However, this success would not see itself repeated in Afghanistan.

By contrast, while American intelligence pointed to a collapse of both the Afghan Army and government, the Biden administration dismissed the possibility of Afghanistan folding so quickly. On August 15, as President Ghani fled the country, the Taliban offered the U.S. control of Kabul, but Biden declined, allowing the Taliban to take control of the capitol. What ensued was nothing sort of catastrophic. Thousands rushed to the airport, pushing their way onto U.S. transport planes, some poor desperate souls holding onto the plane and falling to their deaths upon takeoff. The Taliban were given control of security checkpoints, likely contributing to the loss of thirteen servicemen. At present, hundreds of Americans and thousands of former interpreters remain trapped in Afghanistan, while tens of thousands of unvetted Afghans have been transported to the country.

To say that it is far too late to address the failure in Afghanistan would be an understatement. All that can be hoped for is to learn lessons for future foreign policy decisions; the United States should limit its involvement to its initial objective, and if this objective is not met, it should disengage. Unfortunately, considering the unchanging nature of the Washington bureaucracy, any hope that these lessons will be taken into account may well be wishful thinking.

The Most Holy Rosary

Since assuming my role as Co-Editor, I have had considerably less impetus to actually write articles, focusing, rather, on adjusting the layout of the issues or simply editing the work of our staff writers. The only piece I’ve written in over a year was the interview with our new President, which I conducted with my Co-Editor, John Pietro. But, I have been called out of that slump by a growing love of the Rosary. And it is towards such a love that I will exhort you during this month of the Rosary - not only for your spiritual benefit or my own (Our Lady promises to aid those who propagate her Rosary), but for the good of the whole Church.

Catholic tradition holds that the Rosary was bestowed upon St. Dominic by Our Lady in 1214 AD. Since then, it has become a staple of the order he founded, the Order of Preachers, commonly known as Dominicans. Popular devotion to the Rosary grew quickly, with particular help from the Christian victory over the Ottomans at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571. It is reported that every man in the Catholic League’s navy carried a Rosary with him into battle, which halted the Ottoman advance into Europe. Pope Saint Pius V pronounced October 7, the date of their triumph, as the Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary. Centuries later in 1884, Pope Blessed Leo XIII would distinguish the entirety of October for the same celebration. In 2002, the Rosary changed for the first time since its inception, when Pope Saint John Paul II instituted a new set of mysteries - the Luminous Mysteries - to stand alongside the Joyful, Sorrowful, and Glorious.

These sets of mysteries, journeys through the Gospels, form the centerpiece of the Rosary. As we count each “Hail Mary” we are called further and further into the life of Christ. For, the Rosary is not simply a nifty way to count out 50 “Hail Marys.” Rather, its main purpose is the contemplation of the life of our Lord. Pope Saint Paul VI makes it clear in his apostolic exhortation Marialis Cultus  that:

Without [the element of contemplation] the Rosary is a body without a soul, and its recitation is in danger of becoming a mechanical repetition of formulas and of going counter to the warning of Christ: “And in praying do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard for their many words” (Mt. 6:7). By its nature the recitation of the Rosary calls for a quiet rhythm and a lingering pace, helping the individual to meditate on the mysteries of the Lord’s life as seen through the eyes of her who was closest to the Lord (Marialis Cultus 47).

So, it is not the quantity of prayers which the Rosary leads us through that are the end of our prayer, but rather a means for contemplation. Too often the Rosary is scorned as stuffy, old-fashioned piety, meant for the stereotyped Catholic who recites prayer after prayer, never building a personal relationship with God. What Pope St. Pius suggests here is radically different — that it is through this repetition of prayer that we can properly meditate on the life of Christ and grow closer to Him. Indeed, this repetition expands our meditation over a course of time through its “quiet rhythm.” In this way, the Rosary re-presents the historical time in which Christ, through His Incarnation, dwelt and walked among us. And, through this re-presentation, we too can dwell historically with Christ, if only for a brief moment, though he lived among us two-thousand years ago.

Ironically, this time spent in praying the Rosary, the source and fullness of its beauty, also stands as its greatest hindrance. A fellow traveler of the titular Pilgrim in “The Way of a Pilgrim,” reveals how “we sinners are listless, are not willing to give even one small hour to God in thanksgiving, and barter the time of prayer.” This line immediately follows the short story of a monk who is saved from a disastrous accident by, “offering a prayer and remembering [his] rosary.” Despite the “special protection and the greatest graces to all those who shall recite the Rosary” Our Lady promises, we find excuse after excuse not to pray,  though it takes no more than 30 minutes. 

This aforementioned anecdote’s reference to a “rosary” is actually an idiom, meant for Western audiences, of what we might more accurately term a “prayer rope,” upon which is prayed the Jesus Prayer; “The Way of a Pilgrim” comes to us from the Orthodox Tradition. However, as Pope Saint John Paul II suggests, the Rosary, “corresponds in some way to the “prayer of the heart” or “Jesus prayer” which took root in the soil of the Christian East (Rosarium Virginis Mariae 5).” Such similarity illumines the Pope’s statements that, “If properly revitalized, the Rosary is an aid and certainly not a hindrance to ecumenism (Rosarium Virginis Mariae 4)!” The link between the Jesus Prayer and the Rosary reflects that of the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches; they are sister prayers and we are sister Churches. Not only do we share this similar tradition of prayer, but we share a great love of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whether under the title of “Our Lady of the Rosary,” or the “Theotokos.”

But, the Rosary’s ecumenical grace extends beyond this shared tradition. Though our Protestant brothers and sisters may disapprove of the Rosary as Mary worship,  Pope Saint Paul VI claims the contrary:

[T]he Rosary draws from the Gospel the presentation of the mysteries and its main formulas...In the harmonious succession of Hail Mary’s the Rosary puts before us once more a fundamental mystery of the Gospel — the Incarnation of the Word, contemplated at the decisive moment of the Annunciation to Mary. The Rosary is thus a Gospel prayer. (Marialis Cultus 44).

The Rosary hinges on scripture; it is inseparable from the life of Christ as recounted in the Bible. Understanding the Rosary as Biblical, we can encourage our Protestant brothers and sisters to join us in this contemplative practice, which draws us closer to Christ. We can assure them that, “although the repeated Hail Mary is addressed directly to Mary, it is to Jesus that the act of love is ultimately directed, with her and through her. (Rosarium Virginis Mariae 26)” The love of Christ is shared by all Christians, and as a means to grow in this divine virtue, may the Rosary, and the intercession of our Blessed Mother, guide the reconciliation of the Catholic Church with the Protestant Churches.

In light of this twofold grace - for ourselves and for our Church, I, myself a barterer of time, encourage you to devote yourself this month to our Blessed Mother through her Most Holy Rosary. We have been blessed at Holy Cross with a weekly Rosary, led by Dean Michelle Murray, Vice President for Student Affairs, on Tuesdays at 8:30am. Perhaps, you might strive to attend this each week. Or, you might form a group with several friends and push each other to pray daily, every-other day, or just weekly. I will extend my own offer to those of you on campus: I and a group of fellow students plan to pray the rosary daily through the month of October. If you would be interested in joining us, we will be praying Mondays-Wednesdays at 8:30pm, Thursdays at 9:00pm, Fridays at 3:30pm, Saturdays at 1:00pm, and Sundays at 12:30pm. We will meet in St. Joseph’s Chapel in the pews before the statue of Mary. I hope you will consider joining us, even just once this month. If you have never prayed the Rosary before, we’d be even more happy to see you! Regina Sacratissimi Rosarii, ora pro nobis.