The Saga of the Kenosha Kid

On the night of August 25, 2020, three men were part of a mob that was laying waste to Kenosha, Wisconsin. Within a period of ten minutes, these three men would, in two separate confrontations, chase down a 17 year old boy and attempt to do serious violence to him. Doubtlessly, they would have, had the young man not been armed with an AR-15. At the end of those ten minutes, two of the men were dead, while the third had been seriously wounded. In a sane world, the young man with the rifle would have been considered wholly justified  for defending himself and lauded as a hero for standing to protect his community. Instead, Kyle Rittenhouse became the focal point of a political firestorm, and the jury at his trial would decide, not only his guilt or innocence, but the legitimacy of self-defense itself and the keeping of social order.

Of course, it is impossible to discuss Kyle Rittenhouse without considering the context of the situation in which he found himself fighting for his life. The death of George Floyd saw a wave of protests, and eventually riots, sweep across the country. The riots would ultimately result in around $2 billion of property damage and at least 25 people dead. The same violence and anarchy would explode in Kenosha after the shooting of Jacob Blake. Blake, who had an outstanding warrant for third-degree sexual assault, attempted to flee police after being ineffectually tasered twice. When Blake took hold of a knife and turned toward one of the officers, he was repeatedly shot. Though Blake survived, the media quickly took hold of the story as another apparent example of police brutality, encouraging the mob which descended on Kenosha. Rioters burned several buildings, including a furniture store, the Danish Brotherhood Lodge, and several houses and apartments.

Along with the rioters and looters, Kyle Rittenhouse was also in Kenosha at the time. Rittenhouse, an Illinois resident, considered Kenosha his community; he lived only twenty minutes away and has many relatives who lived in town. Having worked as a lifeguard in Kenosha and participated in local police cadet and fire programs, Kyle felt called to assist his community in the midst of a relative lack of aid from both local and state authorities. After spending the day cleaning up graffiti, Kyle offered a local business owner assistance protecting his car lots, one of which had been damaged by rioters the night before. Armed with an AR-15 and his medical supplies, Kyle took up a position at one of the car lots, venturing out at intervals to administer aid to those who were injured and put out fires. It was during this time that Rittenhouse encountered Joseph Rosenbaum.

Joseph Rosenbaum already had an extensive criminal history before he took part in the mayhem in Kenosha. He was a level 3 sex offender, considered at high risk of re-offense, after having been convicted of the rape and molestation of five boys aged 9 to 11. Upon encountering Rittenhouse and another armed civilian, Rosenbaum threatened to kill them if he caught any of them alone. He further threatened another group defending the car lot that he would cut their hearts out. Rosenbaum actively participated in the destruction in Kenosha, starting fires and causing property damage at various points.

After being separated from his companion during one of his aid sorties, Rittenhouse was ordered to a different car lot to put out a fire. As he arrived at the lot, Rosenbaum charged at Rittenhouse from behind one of the cars and threw a plastic bag at him as another rioter fired a shot into the air. Cornered, with a man who had twice previously threatened to kill him bearing down, Rittenhouse opened fire, striking Rosenbaum four times, killing him. An autopsy showed burns on Rosenbaum’s hands, meaning that he had been gripping Rittenhouse’s rifle and attempting to take it from him. After calling his friend to inform him of the shooting, Rittenhouse fled toward police lines with a group of rioters howling for his death on his heels.

As he ran, Rittenhouse was struck in the head and fell to the ground. One of his pursuers jump-kicked him, and Rittenhouse fired at him twice, missing both times. Anthony Huber then struck Rittenhouse on the back of the head with a skateboard and attempted to take his rifle. Huber had been convicted of multiple counts of domestic abuse, once putting a knife to his brother’s stomach and threatening to burn his house down. Rittenhouse fired once, striking Huber in the heart and killing him. Rittenhouse was then approached by Gaige Grosskreutz, who had one expunged felony conviction and was carrying a Glock without a valid permit. After initially holding his hands up, Grosskreutz pointed his pistol at Rittenhouse, who shot Grosskreutz in the bicep upon seeing the pistol aimed at him. Rittenhouse then headed for police lines and, after being told to leave, went home and turned himself into Antioch Police in Illinois the next day.

What should have been classified as a cut and dry case of self-defense was quickly spun by the media into the latest episode of fearmongering over the spectre of white supremacy. Media outlets falsely alleged that Rittenhouse crossed state lines with the rifle (the rifle was actually purchased by a friend and never left the state of Wisconsin), that he was a vigilante who had shot a group of protesters in cold blood, and called him a “white supremacist terrorist.” Even then-presidential candidate Joe Biden parroted this phony narrative. In the meantime, Rittenhouse was held in jail for 87 days, a month of which he spent without running water, before he finally was bailed out by friendly donors. One such donor, a police officer from Virginia, was fired in retaliation for his donation.

After over a year of slanderous media coverage, Rittenhouse finally got his day in court, charged with seven crimes. Things quickly got off to a terrible start for the prosecution, led by Thomas Binger, when their star witness, Gaige Grosskreutz, admitted under oath to pointing his pistol at Rittenhouse before he was shot. Another witness testified that the prosecution had attempted to make him change his statement. Each witness the prosecution called only seemed to bolster Rittenhouse’s case. Rittenhouse himself took the stand, testifying that his only intention was to defend himself, while acknowledging that he had used deadly force. 

The best that Binger could muster on cross-examination was an attempt to impugn Rittenhouse’s taking advantage of the Fifth Amendment prior to the trial, which earned him a severe scolding from Judge Bruce Schroeder, and a bizarre attempt by A.D.A. Binger to correlate Rittenhouse’s playing Call of Duty with the incident. In their closing arguments, the prosecution revealed the true nature of the trial: a trial against self-defense itself. Binger argued that since Rittenhouse had brought the rifle with him for defense, he was no longer entitled to defend himself. Binger’s co-counsel doubled down on this preposterous argument by calling Rittenhouse a coward for not engaging a charging pedophile with his fists. Two of the charges were dismissed, including underage possession of a deadly weapon, as Rittenhouse’s rifle fell within the limits of a Wisconsin law allowing minors to carry a rifle. After four days of deliberation, Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges.

While justice was indeed done for Kyle Rittenhouse, it is frightening that the false narrative surrounding him carried as far as it did. A young man – by all counts an upstanding citizen – sought to protect his community from destruction inflicted by a collective of decidedly less than upstanding people. As a result, he was nearly locked away for the rest of his life after being forced to defend his life from imminent danger from multiple attackers. Had the jury decided differently, the verdict could have effectively given a license for destruction to the media-encouraged and politically supported left-wing mobs, barring citizens from defending their lives and property. 

As a final aside, to those who say that Kyle Rittenhouse should never have been on the scene in Kenosha, I could not agree more. If not for the dereliction of duty on the part of civil authorities who allowed Kenosha to burn, if not for the out of town rioters who sought to bring destruction to the city, Kyle Rittenhouse would never have entered the spotlight. But, because those circumstances did arise, Rittenhouse and his compatriots were forced to make a stand. Until authorities develop a sufficient backbone to stand against this new brand of violent disorder, and until the left firmly rejects political violence, it is likely that more individuals like Kyle Rittenhouse will be placed in similar predicaments.

Commit to Defend Taiwan

With the rise of an authoritarian and aggressive People’s Republic of China (PRC), the United States' role as a global hegemon is increasingly under threat. The greatest potential flash point of this new great power rivalry is the island nation of Taiwan, formally the Republic of China. How the US manages China’s aggression towards Taiwan is crucial, as it will not only determine the future of the US-China relationship, but may well decide the fate of the liberal world order that has prevailed since the end of World War II. Scholars and commentators have arrived at numerous answers, ranging from making a hard commitment to Taiwanese security, to increased support for Taiwan short of a full commitment, to the abandonment of the island. With the changing security environment and importance of Taiwan to US credibility and national security, altering US policy towards a commitment to the defense of the island – strategic clarity – is the best route forward.

Taiwan is essential to American security both regionally and globally. The island is at the center of the First Island Chain (a collection of islands from Japan and Taiwan through to the Philippines and Malaysia), making it difficult for the Chinese navy to operate unfettered in the Pacific Ocean. Most of China’s central-eastern seaboard does not have any deep water ports (while Taiwan’s coast does), which forces submarines to travel at the ocean’s surface until the water is deep enough beyond the First Island Chain. Taiwan also straddles major trade routes that pass through the East China Sea, allowing the island significant control over commerce. The strategic qualities of Taiwan make it of great interest to the United States, as its occupation by the PRC could pose significant security threats to the region and allow China easier access to the high seas. 

Taiwan is also important for its moral and political value. As a beacon of liberal, free enterprise democracy in East Asia, the island is a natural friend of the United States and is on the front lines of the battle against Chinese authoritarianism. The world is once again in a struggle between two opposing ideologies: a free market, liberal democratic system opposed to the Chinese model of a managed economy married to political authoritarianism. Keeping Taiwan a flourishing, independent democracy will be an important success in the eyes of the free world. The island’s tech-driven economy has also enabled it to be a leading producer of semiconductor technology. This is an asset for the United States – particularly with China competing to become the world’s preeminent technological power – and cooperation with the Taiwanese can help the American technology sector, particularly in the areas of AI and advanced computing technology. 

Currently, the United States has a policy of strategic ambiguity towards the island nation whereby the United States neither commits to defend Taiwan nor declares that it will not do so. The purpose of this is to prevent China from invading Taiwan and Taiwan from declaring independence. China, not knowing if the US will enter a conflict, will choose to avoid invasion for fear of intervention, and Taiwan, also unclear about whether the US will come to its aid, will not declare independence (which would risk war).

Strategic ambiguity, by its nature, means that it is unclear if the US will intervene in a future crisis involving Taiwan. Ambiguity only functions when China is deterred by the US military and when Taiwan feels that it would lose a war with China without US support. Today, however, when China is a peer adversary, ambiguity is worthless. China believes that it can impact the US’ decision of whether to intervene through massive military preparation: the more powerful the Chinese military, the less willing the US will be to come to Taiwan’s defense. Ambiguity only signals to the Chinese that they can influence the US’s calculus, which, by consequence, will embolden them to take risks that they otherwise would not take. Indeed, China launched the largest number of incursions into Taiwan’s Air Defense Identification Zone in October and November 2021 (196 and 159 incursions, respectively). For comparison, October and November 2021 saw a combined 68 incursions. Ambiguity also leads to the risk of miscalculation: if China thinks that it could prevent the US from entering a cross-Strait conflict by defeating Taiwan swiftly, it will be far more likely to make rash decisions about attacking the island. 

Further, even with the current policy of ambiguity, if the US does not come to Taiwan’s defense, it would be devastating for America’s credibility on the world stage. Allies in the region already expect the US to defend the island, and if it refused, it would raise serious doubts about whether the US is a reliable partner. This could spell disaster for the system of alliances and the liberal world order that the US has painstakingly built since World War II. If countries lose faith in the United States, they may choose instead to work with and appease China rather than risk punishment from the PRC because of their relationship with the US. 

The policy of strategic ambiguity must be implemented by an act of Congress creating a formal treaty between the US and Taiwan. Some have argued that a Presidential declaration or executive order would be sufficient. However, as Walter Lohman and Frank Jannuzzi assert, having the President issue an executive order declaring a commitment to the defense of Taiwan is a “dangerous half-measure” that, in terms of policy, does little to change the actual commitment to Taiwan. American honor would then be at stake, but that is not enough. Such a policy would be subject to the constant fluctuation of who occupies the Oval Office, which is no calming thought. America’s commitment to Taiwan must have the force of law behind it, for only then would the country’s support for Taiwan be truly unambiguous. 

There are indeed significant risks in taking this step, and they cannot be discounted. Any policy of strategic clarity must be preceded by an adequate buildup of American forces in the Indo-Pacific so as to make the threat credible. Recent US wargames indicated the potential for an American loss in a China-US conflict over Taiwan given the nation’s current military position – a position that would have to be rectified before a policy of strategic clarity could be pursued. This does not need to be a deployment of tens of thousands of troops —  it need only be enough to impose massive costs on a Chinese invasion effort. Long-range anti-ship missiles, a constant rotation of submarines, a strong fighter and bomber presence for targeted strikes — these would be sufficient to ensure that any invasion fleet would face steep odds while minimizing US forces’ contact with People’s Liberation Army (the Chinese military) anti-air and anti-ship defenses. US allies may be concerned about a potential American defense commitment to Taiwan, but if the US maintains a credible force in the region, that concern should be offset by reassurance.

There is concern in some quarters about a defense commitment enabling (or encouraging) Taiwan to pursue independence. While this would be true if the US made no efforts to address the concern, there are numerous other avenues that the US could take to exert pressure on the Taiwanese, both economic and diplomatic, that could deter them. The simplest policy option is for the US to make the commitment to defend Taiwan contingent upon the island not declaring independence.

The US should also combine a policy of strategic clarity with other means of support for the Taiwanese. Continued sales of arms to the island, particularly those that will inexpensively exploit Chinese weaknesses, are necessary. America should also craft tighter economic ties with the island and work to make its economy more independent of the PRC. Increased advocacy for Taiwan to the international community would also be welcome (like the invitation extended to Taiwan by US President Joe Biden to attend the upcoming Summit for Democracy), and the US should take steps to preserve the inter-state ties Taiwan has and encourage further ones. These moves will harm US-China relations, but if they come as a part of a larger rethinking of the US’s relationship with the PRC, that harm may simply be the price to pay for the preservation of both US global hegemony and that of the free, liberal world order.

A Response to The Spire: A Catholic Perspective

We would like to commend the writers of The Spire’s article “Why You Should Care About the Texas Heartbeat Act” published on December 3, 2021 for their interest in discussing abortion from a Catholic perspective. Certainly, the care they show for Catholic values and our Holy Cross identity is admirable. This is particularly shown in their deference to Catholic Social Teaching (CST): “we value the call to family and community, solidarity, the preferential option for the poor and the life and dignity of the human person.” However, they overlook the true gravity of the right to life and human dignity about which they speak. It must be understood that the right to life applies from “womb to tomb,” undergirding the preferential option for the poor, and all other CST principles. 

These seven principles of CST, born out of Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum, are: life and dignity of the human person, call to family, community and participation, rights and responsibilities, preferential option for the poor, the dignity of work and the rights of workers, solidarity, and care for God’s creation. These principles build and depend upon each other; the foundational principle is the right to life and the inherent dignity of every human person. This is why, “The preservation of life is the bounden duty of one and all (Rerum Novarum 44).” The other principles have no ground to stand on without this. Why would we care about feeding those who starve among us, if we don’t recognize their right to life? Why else would it matter if they perish? You can’t clothe, house, or feed a dead person. So then, how can we say we support a preferential option for the poor without first recognizing that those poor are valued and deserve life? The Catechism is very clear that “social justice can be obtained only in respecting the transcendent dignity of [the human person] (CCC 1929).”

The authors of the Spire article ask, “As men and women for others, should we not support those who are struggling in poverty?” The answer is yes! In fact, it is our duty. However, our call to provide a preferential option for the poor extends beyond just the mother to her unborn child as well; the unborn are the poorest among us. As Catholics, we know that “human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception (CCC 2270).” But, we don’t need to refer to the catechism for this. Basic science and common sense is enough. Take your parents for example. Are they any more human than you are because they’ve lived longer? Are your little siblings any less human? No, our humanity is not something that changes with age. So what about a child that is 2 months old? 1 month? 1 week? 1 day? 1 minute? 1 second? Is this child any less human from that second she was born to those months after? No. What about that same child, just seconds ago in the birth canal of her mother. Was she any less human then? How about a week before in her mother’s womb? Or a month ago? Or 2 months? Or 9 months? At what moment did this child go from any other being to a human person endowed with such great dignity? This child undergoes no significant change in the birth canal, other than a change in her location – less than a foot from the inside of her mother’s womb to being swaddled in her mother’s arms. What about her development? What biological change instantly grants her all those rights a human being has? There is no discreet moment except conception, when she receives a unique set of DNA from her mother and father. Indeed, this is the only problem we can see with the heartbeat laws in Texas and across this country: they define life at a heartbeat, which is just another arbitrary stage of biological development, holding no weight as to a person’s humanity. They are a step in the right direction, but we should not fool ourselves into thinking that they accurately define the beginning of human life.

If abortion isn’t the real solution, what are real solutions? Visitation House is one. This Worcester, MA organization provides a supportive home for pregnant women during their pregnancy and the first months after the birth of their child. Here, women are given the resources, respect, and love needed to care for themselves and their children. Organizations that supply food, housing, medical care, counseling, child care, and parenting support are all part of extending the preferential option for the poor to both mothers and unborn children. Let’s put our time, energy, effort, and resources into these organizations instead of organizations that murder children and claim to help. This is not to mention the lasting effects that abortion can have on the physical and mental health of women. It’s convenient to pay $500 to Planned Parenthood. It’s far more difficult to raise a child and support a mother. And yet, we must. 

We cannot neglect our duty to extend a preferential option to the poor because it’s inconvenient. Recognizing the dignity of both mother and child, we know that our Holy Cross value to be men and women for and with others does not conflict with our Catholic values that call us to respect life at all stages. Rather, we see that our Catholic faith provides us a great gift: we have more people, both mother and child, whom we can love and serve.This gift of life is born of God’s love for humanity. God’s love which is ir-rationable and irrational. In the Gospel of John, we hear how Jesus used five loaves of bread and two fish to feed 5,000 (John 6:1-14). After everyone was fed, there were still twelve baskets of bread leftover. All were satisfied and there was still an abundance. God does not ration his love, so neither should we. As we strive to imitate the ways of Christ as men and women for and with others, we can and must choose to love and nourish people of all ages, abilities, and intellects. We must choose to love both the born and the unborn – the women who are pregnant and their children.

A Response to The Spire: A Non-Catholic Perspective

Holy Cross’ mission states that the “College should lead all its members to make the best of their own talents, to work together, to be sensitive to one another, to serve others, and to seek justice within and beyond the Holy Cross community.”  As our friends at The Spire stated, we are indeed called to be men and women for and with others, and as a Christian institution, we are to value family, community, service, and life.  

Despite what the authors at The Spire said, Christians do not need to pick between supporting those in poverty and being advocates for life from the moment of conception until natural death.  As members of the Holy Cross community, we should always stand with others, and part of this is supporting women who find themselves pregnant under difficult circumstances.  This is part of our Christian mission, and we should always be sources of comfort to those who need it.  This, however, does not require us to be advocates of abortion.

First of all, simply supporting abortion in politics does nothing for those in need and definitely doesn’t make someone a man or woman for and with others.  If one truly cares for those who are less fortunate, that person would be pursuing community service that directly assists the underserved.  Volunteering for food banks, shelters, and English Language Learning (ELL) nonprofit organizations are just a few examples of how those who are passionate for service can serve those in need, and all of these do more than just adopting a pro-abortion stance on social media.

Policy-wise, there are also better alternatives for lifting those out of poverty or closing the black-white income gap than legal abortion.  After nearly 50 years of the forced legalization of abortion nationwide, there has been no concrete benefit to the poor and no concrete benefit to the prosperity of black Americans.  If abortion was such a factor in the equality and economic development of black Americans, we would have seen a closing of the wealth gap between white and black Americans since 1973, yet we have not.

Instead of resorting to promoting the deaths of children of the less fortunate and calling it a “human right,” we should pursue policy that actually allows people to pull themselves out of poverty.  Lifting regulations off of small businesses and startups, lowering taxes, funding and promoting education, and partnering with nonprofit service organizations are much more effective ways of helping those in need than advocating abortion’s legality.

Abortion is indeed a human rights issue.  However, the issue is not the banning of abortion, but rather abortion itself.  Abortion is the murder of a child who has no voice and no ability to defend him or herself.  The child is not given a voice in government, has no choice in his or her own fate, cannot arm him or herself, and cannot have his or her day in court.  

Abortion is not only a human rights issue, but also a social justice issue.  It is a social injustice that black babies are disproportionately the victims of abortion, and since Roe v Wade, 20 million black babies have been aborted.  That is 2 million more than the total black population in America in 1960 (18 million).  Black Americans make up 13.4% of the US population, yet they accounted for 36% of abortions in 2015 while white Americans accounted for 37% of abortions while being 77% of the US population.  25 black children are aborted for every 1,000 pregnancies, compared to 6.8 aborted white children for every 1,000 pregnancies.  

This is a tragedy.  Women, especially women of color, should not feel like the solution to unwanted pregnancy is abortion.  Instead of shaming young mothers, we, as Christians and as Americans, should always do what we can to support them in concrete ways so that they do not feel like their only option is to abort their child.  We need to build a society that is accepting of young mothers who find themselves pregnant under difficult circumstances.  Giving emotional, financial, and physical support is how we show love to those who are underserved – not advocating a policy that sacrifices so many innocent lives, especially black lives, and does not even perform the supposed function of pulling women of color out of poverty.  We must promote a culture of life and love – not death and despair. 

"What has American Politics done to the Catholic Church?" in Review

On November 16 in the Rehm Library, Holy Cross hosted an event called “What has American Politics done to the Catholic Church?” During the event, President Vincent Rougeau led a conversation with Ross Douthat, a conservative writer for the New York Times, and Matthew Sitman, a liberal editor of Commonweal Magazine. The conversation was advertised to touch on “the entanglements of politics and religion, advantages and drawbacks, and whether and how to decouple them.” It attracted many students and professors, nearly filling the library. 

After a brief introduction, each guest shared some opening comments and thoughts on the relationship between American politics and the Catholic Church. In these opening comments, Douthat and Sitman shared their best, most organized and fleshed-out points. Sitman spoke first. His main point was that United States politics is unmerciful, and this lack of mercy has made the Catholic Church's presence in the United States similarly unmerciful. He opined that there is an American inability to fully understand Pope Francis' message of mercy. He also said that neither party can fully capture the Catholic belief system. He then included some general remarks about politics, saying that someone's politics are indicative of their worldview, and what they think is "fundamentally at work behind the vale of tears." He also suggested that beyond politics, we share a common humanity that has become evident throughout the pandemic —  we are united in our shared human fragility. To conclude, he stated that he wanted to share a "message of mercy." 

Some of these points felt tangential, failing to point out specific, identifiable connections between American politics and the Catholic Church. However, Sitman's remarks were very interesting on a philosophical level, suggesting a shift in focus away from rigid party divisions and towards a more general focus on mercy. Amidst severe polarization, I received this message of mercy as an invitation to deal more kindly and respectfully with those of differing political views. 

Douthat then followed with his opening remarks. He began by amusing the audience with an anecdote about his first visit to Holy Cross—he was 20 years-old, drank too much, and went sledding, an experience he hoped to relive (at least partly) during his current visit to Holy Cross. He then shifted to a more serious discussion. He respectfully challenged Sitman's comment that neither party fully encompasses Catholic teaching. He called the implications of this idea a "laundry-list" way of looking at Catholicism and politics: a cliché in which the Democrats have Catholic healthcare policies while the Republicans have Catholic abortion policies. He then discussed how Catholicism is a "strong religious culture that divided against itself in the 1960s with the culture war." He explained that this "culture war" raised questions about women, sex, and the liturgy, questions that caused divisive debate within the Church. Catholics began to identify themselves more by their identities within this debate, rather than being identified as Catholics first—some were Pope John Paul II Catholics, others were Georgetown Catholics, and so on. Douthat opined that the Catholics were fighting over very important issues but in such a way that they began to lack a primary identity. He connected this idea of a divided identity among Catholics to the present day; now, people are defining themselves as Republican or Democrat first and Catholic second. He stated that the intense political culture in the United States has made it so that politics is stealing the attention and intensity that Americans should be putting into the life of the Church. He emphasized this idea with an image of the political parties as strong poles that pull people away from a weak center, the Catholic Church. He argued that the United States needs a strong Catholic center so that Catholics will be drawn together by the religion that unites them, rather than pulled apart by the politics that divide them. 

After hearing them both speak, it was evident that they had very different styles of speech and thought. While Sitman spoke with an inquisitorial tone as he focused on philosophy and humanity, Douthat spoke more as a political expert, focusing on the history of the United States and the Catholic Church as well as the Church's standing in the United States' current political climate.

After these opening remarks, President Rougeau entered the conversation. His first leading question had to do with the American Church as an outlier in the global church, asking whether American Catholics should think of themselves as outliers rather than models. Behind this question was the suggestion that the American Church is particularly flawed, and that Americans should resist nationalism by belittling their country on the global stage. Sitman agreed that the American Catholic Church should not be a model for anyone. He then raised the questions, “What could withstand polarization? Can anything withstand these trends in American life?” Douthat followed Sitman by posing a question of his own, “What is normative Catholicism?” He looked to Europe, where he claims Catholicism is "exhausted" and that the American Church is healthier. He then looked to the rapid Protestantization of Latin America and the conflicts in sub-Saharan Africa. He concluded by saying that "normative Catholicism" does not exist; therefore, the United States cannot be considered an outlier. 

President Rougeau then asked about the role of immigrant churches in the United States, stating that Americans marginalize immigrants while they should be learning from their devoutness. Douthat and Sitman each assented, recalling stories of their experiences with thriving immigrant churches. President Rougeau dwelled on the subject, trying to steer the conversation toward immigration on more than one occasion. While it is an interesting subject to discuss, neither Douthat nor Sitman had anything particularly interesting to say about it each time it was brought up. The repetition of the question came across as an effort by the president to direct the conversation in the way he wanted it to go rather than allowing it to flow naturally. The guests were evidently knowledgeable and ready to speak on various other topics, and the conversation felt somewhat stunted when President Rougeau pressed this issue.

President Rougeau then inquired about their thoughts on the Catholic Church's future in America asking, “Is it doomed?” Sitman gave hope, likening the weakened church to Christ whose "power was made perfect in weakness." However, Douthat challenged him, stating that Americans cannot pretend that the Church has no power— it retains much power and importance, but not so much power that it can still exercise the same authority that it did throughout history. 

Then, the conversation shifted. President Rougeau asked, “Since the Church is still connected to power, is it not setting a bad example for the people in the pews that bishops do not take a stand? For example, why did the bishops say nothing when the Capitol was stormed on January 6?” Sitman laughed and remarked that the conversation was edging close to controversial territory. Given their respective political parties, Douthat and Sitman have different views on what happened on January 6. Douthat assented that the event was bad, but he holds that it was an act perpetrated by a group of immature rabble-rousers rather than what Sitman and President Rougeau think it was: a serious act of insurgency. President Rougeau then recalled how in the past, bishops in the South denounced segregation, and he suggested that bishops’ reactions to January 6 should be similar. Douthat pushed back, saying that the denouncement of segregation had a legal basis while speaking out about January 6 would make the Church seem partisan. 

What was disappointing about the route this conversation took was that the leader of the conversation made his politics known. There are many questionable, anti-Catholic events and policies that could have been used as an example in American politics; therefore, it was unfortunate that only one event was cited, reflecting badly on only one political party. Douthat was there to represent the Catholic Republicans, and Sitman was there to represent the Catholic Democrats. That means that both parties were already sufficiently spoken for, and President Rougeau sharing his politics made the conversation unbalanced, having now two liberal voices outweighing the one conservative voice. As I imagined it, a third person, especially one in a leadership role, should rise above partisanship and act as an encourager of conversation, posing questions that would promote mutual respect between the parties but also lead interesting conversation and debate.

Despite this show of partisanship, I walked away from this event encouraged by Douthat and Sitman's ability to disagree and still have such a good rapport with one another. Sitman began by saying that Douthat is his "favorite enemy," and both chuckled when a point of contention came up. They hardly debated at all, in fact. It seems like they tried to stay away from going in depth concerning the points on which they disagreed, January 6 being an example. They only briefly described their disagreements instead of getting into a heated debate. Since they did not get distracted by debating topics on which they know they disagree, they had the time to each talk separately and, in the end, found many points on which they agreed. They were building on each other's points rather than tearing each other's arguments apart. Their relationship was very refreshing to see. They accepted their differences in thinking. Neither Douthat nor Sitman ever tried to persuade the other into thinking differently, nor did they treat each other dismissively or condescendingly because of their disagreements. I enjoyed watching them talk, and I hope we can act similarly on our own campus—accepting each other's different views but still being able to have good relationships with one another. One of the best messages I took away from this event was that we should identify ourselves as Catholics first and as politically partisan second. In this new form of self-identification, I suspect we as a student body will find that beyond our differences, we have something more important that we share.

Letter from the Editors, December 2021

Dear Reader,

Thank you for picking up this issue of The Fenwick Review. Life on campus has been somewhat slow lately; as school work piles up and daylight falls away, Holy Cross becomes somewhat less exciting. Is this for better or for worse? Well, we’ll leave that up to you.

In this edition however, we’ve done something we rarely do: respond directly to The Spire, the official student newspaper on campus. Why have we elected to do so, you ask? The topic The Review seems to gravitate to in each of our issues came up: abortion. We see the problem of abortion as a unique — indeed, the preeminent — evil of our contemporary world. This is why one of the few articles we would never publish is one supporting abortion. Because of this issue’s importance, we saw it necessary to provide two seperate perspectives in response. We must be especially mindful of abortion during this season of Advent, as we await the coming of our yet unborn Lord. Otherwise, we offer you a bevy of other articles, spanning from campus events to geopolitics.

As this will be our last issue of the semester, we want to take the opportunity now to wish you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! May this be a time of peace, joy, and love, centered around the birth of our Lord, Jesus Christ. We will keep you and your families in our prayers, and we ask that you keep all of our staff in yours.

Sincerely,

Andrew Buck & John Pietro, Co-Editors-in-Chief

Republicans, Stop the Stupidity

With Biden’s poll numbers in the tank and favorable electoral results in state and local races across the country this month, Republicans are on a trajectory to make significant gains in the midterm elections next year.  However, Biden’s unpopularity can be overshadowed by one thing: Republicans’ own stupidity.  Democrats have their fair share of bigoted comments and stupid behavior emanating from members of their party, but with a mainstream media looking for reasons to label conservatives as “racist,” “Islamophobic,” “homophobic,” etc., Republicans have very little room for stupid actions and comments.

Despite this, some Republicans, notably in the US House of Representatives, continue to make reckless and even hateful comments that are used by the Democratic Party and the media to slander all Republicans.  Rep. Paul Gosar’s (R-AZ) anime video depicting the killing of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Rep. Lauren Boebert’s (R-CO) Islamaphobic comments about Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) are just a few examples of these mindless actions that threaten others’ safety and add no value to the Republican Party or to the national political discourse.

This conduct fuels the hatred and division that plagues our country and can be used by criminals to justify violence against others, including members of Congress.  We saw this in the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), the summer 2020 riots, and the January 6th Riot.  The rhetoric of our political leaders have real human consequences.

If the cost of human life isn’t enough, idiotic actions from our representatives have political consequences as well.  Many Republican representatives are disgusted with Rep. Gosar, but the nature of the censure vote pushed by Democrats put them in a tough position.  As Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) pointed out, the vote to strip Rep. Gosar from his committee assignments did not follow House rules, which require an Ethics Committee investigation before such a vote is held.  In the same interview, she condemned the video and stated that had the vote been a simple condemnation and/or followed House rules, she — and many other Republicans — would have voted “yes.”  However, this logic does not echo in the voices of Democrats or the mainstream media, both of whom have an interest in painting all Republicans as evil bigots.

Additionally, it is a common political practice to tie moderate members of the opposing party to the most extreme members of that party.  This does not bode well for Republicans running in light red, purple, and blue districts.  Actions like Gosar and Boebert’s will undoubtedly be unfairly tied to Republican representatives who actively fight against racism and bigotry, like Rep. María Elvira Salazar (R-FL), Rep. Young Kim (R-CA), and Rep. Michelle Steel (R-CA).  While Republicans will have their fair share of political ammunition against Democrats in swing districts, Gosar and Boebert’s behavior creates unnecessary overhead for Republicans seeking to take back Congress next year.

So, what needs to be done?  Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) needs to rein in both the far-right (the likes of Gosar, Boebert, and Greene) as well as the squishy never-Trump wing (the likes of Cheney and Kinzinger) behind a shared conservative agenda.  This agenda should be one of responsible finances, smaller government, decentralization, parental choice in education, religious liberty, family values, and equality of opportunity — an agenda that speaks to Americans of all walks of life and gives them power over their own destinies.  This is what conservatives need to promote — not the bigotry of the most fringe members of Congress.

Letter From The Editors, November 2021

Dear Reader,

The Fenwick Review is chugging along. We hoped to release this issue a week earlier, and we had to amend the frequency at which we publish our newsletter (now once a month, down from biweekly). We have, however, received some wonderful feedback on both our previous edition and The Crusader’s Brief. We are also proud to announce that The Fenwick Review received the award for “Best Feature Writing” at this year’s Collegiate Network’s Editors’ Conference. This is against such competition as The Stanford Review, The Dartmouth Review, and Notre Dame’s Irish Rover. So, despite the hiccups, we are excited to get another issue in your hands and another newsletter in your inbox.

On Thursday, November 11, we were fortunate enough to host Richard Reinsch, founding editor of the online conservative journal Law and Liberty. His talk was entitled “The Truth about Religious Freedom.” We would like to thank Mr. Reinsch for coming to speak with us, the Holy Cross Office of Student Involvement for helping us coordinate this event, and especially our donors who made such an event financially feasible. 

Finally, we wish you all a blessed Thanksgiving! We hope to greet you again nearer to Christmas as our semester comes to a close. As always, enjoy your read, and thank you for picking up a copy of The Fenwick Review.

Sincerely,

Andrew Buck and John Pietro

Co-Editors-In-Chief