Athanasius and the Incarnation: A Transformation of Man Through the Word Made Flesh

In less than a month, on 26 May, Christians will celebrate the Feast of the Ascension, marking the moment the incarnate Christ ascended into heaven, taking his seat at the right hand of the Father. It is, among other things, a time to reflect on the Incarnation of the Word, fully divine and fully human, and the role He played in salvation history. One of the greatest expositors of the theological narrative of the Incarnation was Saint Athanasius of Alexandria (298-373 A.D.) in On the Incarnation. It was through the Incarnation that Christ entered into human history in physical form, appearing to man in a perceptible manner, re-instilling knowledge of the one, true God that had been lost since the Fall. The Word’s becoming flesh was necessary to liberate man from the chains of sin and to return him to a state of immortality, recreated in the Image of God.

Athanasius’ description of the Incarnation had a very different purpose – and was of a divergent construction – than the metaphysical Christology that was the product of the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon. Whereas the Councils expounded upon – in the rich philosophical tradition of the Greeks – the coeternal existence of Christ and the Father and the divine and human natures of Christ respectively, Athanasius sought to fit the Incarnation into the wider Economy of Salvation (Anatolios 32-33). His was a theology that aimed at explicating the importance of the incarnation rather than working out the precise philosophy (which is equally important). It was a functional explanation that gave color and vibrancy to the Christological formulations of the Councils (Anatolios 33). For Athanasius, the miracle of the Incarnation is dynamic, continually evidenced through the actions of the faithful (Behr 93; Athanasius 50).

Christ came to save man from corruption and death, doing so to prevent the creature whom God created in His Image from collapsing into its original state. Central to Athanasius’ theology of the Incarnation is understanding creation as having arisen ex nihilo, out of nothing (Behr 92). This must be so, for God’s power is illimitable. If matter already existed, and Creation was merely a reordering of this matter, God would be tied to a finite resource, limited insofar as the eternal matter was limited. Athanasius uses the analogy of the carpenter: he is limited by the supply of wood; if there is no wood, the carpenter is useless (Athanasius 18-19).

The corollary to Creation coming from nothing but the Will of God is that Creation can lapse back into nothingness (Behr 91-92). This was the state of man after the Fall and before the Incarnation of Christ. God “bestowed a special grace” upon mankind, allowing man to “share in the reasonable being of the very Word Himself (Athanasius 20).” In this, man has the capacity to reason, he has free will to choose, as he did in the Fall. This free will is essential for Athanasius: man, created in God’s Image, has an innate desire to know God, his Creator. In making the choice to follow God, man is performing the Will of God: to enter into eternal communion with Him. In this sense, “God’s Will and the human will are inherently complimentary (Douglas 63).” Communion with God granted man, despite his inherent corruptibility, the capacity to “[escape] from the natural law [mortality] (Athanasius 22).” But man must contend with varying desires, including those of the flesh, the earthly wants that cloud his judgment and distract him from what is truly important (Douglas 63). Succumbing to his earthly desires – the Fall – man became corrupted and hence condemned to suffer under death, unable to comprehend God, distracted by sinful passions (Athanasius 21-22; Behr 86). With the Image of God being a central facet of man’s existence, the desire to know his Creator inherent but beyond his corrupted capacity, man turned to idolatry (Behr, 84). Corruption engendered a spiral of sin, leading to ever greater corruption, driving man towards destruction and a return to nothingness (Athanasius 24; 32).

Athanasius believes that God could not countenance such a result as the destruction of His greatest creation, that which He made in His Image. God faced what Athanasius calls “the divine dilemma,” whereby God would not simply lift the reign of death from man, for that would make God untruthful, but neither would He allow man, made in His Image, to perish into nothing (Athanasius 24-25). If God were to let man destroy himself, there would have been no purpose to his existence in the first place, indeed, Athanasius asserts, it would have been better if man had never existed at all (Athanasius 24-25). Further, allowing man to collapse into corruption would seem to limit God, who is of infinite goodness; yet God is illimitable. Athanasius is effectively reading “back into the framework of creation as a whole the pattern established by the Savior Jesus Christ in his work of salvation (Behr 89).” God, having made man in His Image at the time of creation, was tied to man by His love, necessitating, in essence, the saving of man. Necessitating does not mean constraining God, but rather, it is looking backwards and seeing that His love for man made saving man part of His plan for the world, for salvation. God cannot be constrained, so it is in this sense alone that it was ‘necessary.’

It was the divine dilemma that called for the incarnation of the Word, for it was the incarnate Word that could re-instill knowledge of God and save man from the reign of death. Man could not be relied upon to bring knowledge of God to men, for there would be nothing to provide credence to his preaching (Athanasius 34). Moreover, because all men were corrupted, there would be little hope that they would be capable of “convert[ing] the minds and souls of others (Athanasius 34).” Nor could God rely on Creation to teach man of His existence, for Creation had existed for as long as man and had failed to be sufficient (Athanasius 34). The Word would have to enter into the world, taking on the human body, for man had been seeking God in earthly things, in idols, and the only way to reach him was to “[meet his] senses, so to speak, half way (Athanasius 35).” By working the power of God through a human body, man could be convinced of the transcendence of God, and brought back to knowledge of Him (Athanasius 35).

The crux of Christianity, however, is the redemption from sin that was bestowed by the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection of the Word in the form of Christ. For man to be justified, he would first have to be freed from the rule of death that he incurred in the Fall, and then, no longer doomed to corruption, re-created in God’s Image to elevate him to the stature of God (Behr 97). Only the incarnate Word would be appropriate to save man from the reign of death, for the curse was placed upon man, necessitating that a human suffer (Athanasius 40). The union of the Word, the Lord of all, to a human body allowed for Him to fulfill the law, “[settling] man’s account with death, and free[ing] him from the primal transgression  (Athanasius 40).”

This union was an equal one, whereby neither the human body nor the Word overpowered or dominated the other. The body was truly His body, and truly a human body, for the body was born of woman and mortal, capable of suffering and death (Athanasius 40). Neither was the Word marred by His union with a human body, rather, Athanasius asserts, the Word “sanctified the body by being in it (Athanasius 37).” Further, the body was “free from every stain (Athanasius 27),” “prepared… in the virgin as a temple for Himself (Athanasius 26).” His union did not mean, however, that He, as Word, took on the nature of humanity as a replacement of His divinity (Athanasius 37), but rather that the two coexisted. Both had the independence consequent to their natures, the Word was not trapped by the body, for He was still “in all things, and outside all things, resting in the Father alone (Athanasius 36-37).” Because of this coexistence, the Word did indeed suffer in His human nature, enabling Him to be “sufficient exchange for us all (Athanasius 27),” but the Word qua Word remained incorrupt (Athanasius 40). The power of such an exchange, the end of the reign of death, carried over to all men because of His union with humanity, “[f]or the solidarity of mankind is such that, by virtue of the Word’s indwelling in a single human body, the corruption which goes with death has lost its power over all (Athanasius 27).” In becoming flesh, the Word “adopted [all humanity], and [instituted] a new humanity (Douglas 64).”

Further, it could have been no other than the Word to have dethroned death, for the Word created man in His Image, and hence only He could recreate that Image (Athanasius 33). Athanasius uses the analogy of the blighted painting: if a portrait is damaged, the only way to recreate it is to have the original subject return and be repainted. The damaged painting is man, the subject, God. No other Image but that of God would suffice (Athanasius 33).

Man, however, was not truly saved until the resurrection of Christ. Indeed, Christ had to die on the cross so that He could rise, as it was the Resurrection that “was to be the monument to His victory over death, the assurance to all that He had Himself conquered corruption and that their own bodies also would eventually be incorrupt (Athanasius 42).” Athanasius argues that man can empirically determine that Christ had indeed conquered death in His Resurrection simply by observing those of faith. The faithful “[hasten] to death, unafraid at the prospect of corruption… [or] descent into Hades… indeed with eager soul provoking it (Athanasius 50).” In lacking fear of death, those with faith are small monuments to Christ’s victory over death, just as His Resurrection was a great monument to the same (Athanasius 42; 50). Indeed, the faithful also indicate an important facet of man’s salvation through Christ: it was not an event relegated to the past, but rather of a continuing nature. The Word and man are in union, and the Word maintains His presence among men in the form of the Church, and the actions of the faithful who “put on the faith of the cross and live in creation (Behr 96).”

With the end of death, man was recreated in the Word’s Image, and his will re-centered. Man had become adopted by the Word in His becoming flesh, reentering communion with Him (Douglas 65). In this, the will of man is able to mirror the Will of the embodied Word. Christ’s human will was in complete harmony with His divine will (Douglas 64), which is the ideal, the “deepest desire,”of humanity (Douglas 63), but which was impossible in the corrupt state of man before the Incarnation. Through the Resurrection, man was given the ability to choose to follow Christ, to accept and satisfy his “deepest desire, [his] telos,”and enter “eternal communion with God (Douglas 65).”

Athanasius’ theology of the Incarnation was an attempt to create a coherent, functional explanation of how the Incarnation fits into salvation history. It is functional in that it avoids the philosophical complexity of the Councils, the products of which, such as the Nicene Creed, while descriptive and undoubtedly essential in a metaphysical and doctrinal sense, do not fully elucidate the importance of the Incarnation in salvation (Anatolios 33). The Incarnation was God’s response to the self-destruction of man after the Fall, the corruption that was leading man back into the nothingness from which the Word created him. The path to free man from the curse of death was through the Word – and it had to be the Word – becoming flesh. Only the Creator could recreate man in His Image and only the sacrifice of He who was in all men could save all men. Through the death and resurrection of the Word incarnate, man was liberated from corruption and given the capacity to once again be in eternal communion with the Lord. Men and women throughout history died in defense of the Creed not simply as words on a page, but in defense of the great truth of Creation and salvation that those very words signaled. Indeed, their willingness to die for Christ was (and still is), as Athanasius explained, proof of Christ’s victory over death.

Bibliography:

Anatolios, Khaled. “Athanasius’s Christology Today: The Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ in On the Incarnation.” In In the Shadow of the Incarnation, edited by Peter W. Martens, 29-49. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008.

Athanasius. On the Incarnation. Translated by A Religious of C.S.M.V. S.Th. Louisville, KY: GLH Publishing, 2018.

Behr, John. “Saint Athanasius on ‘Incarnation’.” In Incarnation: On the Scope and Depth of Christology, edited by Niels Henrik Gregersen, 79-98. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015.

Douglas, Mary. “God and Humanity Brought Together: The Incarnation as Gospel.” Evangelical Review of Theology 45, no. 1 (2021): 61-68.

You Don’t Say? Don’t Say Gay and the Sexualization of Children

The Parental Rights in Education Bill, signed into law by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis on March 28, has stirred significant controversy. Coined the “Don’t Say Gay Bill” by the left, the law restricts students from kindergarten to third grade from receiving instruction pertaining to sexuality and gender identity. While such a bill would be common sense, and arguably does not go far enough, the bill has attracted the ire of sex and gender theory advocates, who argue that it is harmful to restrict teaching on the subject. Of course, this row over school curriculum inevitably raises some serious questions. When did it become the duty of schools to teach children and adolescents about sexuality? What is the nature of the material schools are utilizing and promulgating to students? What are the origins of the sexual and gender theories currently being espoused?

Like the social evil of abortion, the current sexual education curriculum emerged from the work of Planned Parenthood. In 1964, Planned Parenthood’s medical director launched the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, which, in 1990, constructed a framework for a sexual education curriculum. This curriculum centered around a goal of “sexual health,” defined by the World Health Organization in 1975 as having fundamental principles of the “right to sexual information and the right to pleasure.” While this definition is not wholly inaccurate, it is certainly incomplete, lacking understanding of sex as a procreative and unitive act. Furthermore, it is clear that the insertion of sexual education into schools was an ideological goal of a non-governmental organization (NGO), rather than a popular demand by parents and students.

As for what this sexual education curriculum involves, many programs have featured material that is graphic in the extreme. For example, according to the New York Post, the Dalton School in New York promulgated material to first graders discussing masturbation. In another example, according to the Daily Progress, a Virginia high school showed a video to a freshman class giving explicit detail about how to properly perform certain sexual acts. Still elsewhere, according to the National Review, a Sacramento school held a “transition ceremony” for a kindergartener. These specific schools are indicative of a larger, disturbing approach aimed toward an ultra-explicit kind of sexual education and gender theory.

As if these matters were not sufficiently troubling, the origins of sexual and gender theory are arguably more insidious, finding their birth in the conclusions of Dr. John Money. Money was a psychologist from New Zealand who conceptualized gender identity, believing gender was a social construct rather than a biological determination. Money also made a study of sexual paraphilias, emerging as an apologist for pedophilia. However, Money may have been more than a simple defender of pedophilia. The true sordidness of Money and his theory became manifest during his involvement in the Reimer case.

After a botched circumcision left baby Bruce Reimer disfigured, his desperate parents turned to John Money for advice. Jumping at the opportunity to prove his ideas, Money recommended Bruce have gender reassignment surgery, be placed on hormones, and raised as a girl. According to Phil Gaetano of The Embryo Project Encyclopedia Money had Reimer and his twin brother “inspect one another’s genitals and engage in behavior resembling sexual intercourse.” The boys were photographed during these twisted experiments and berated by Money if they failed to cooperate. Money falsely claimed that the experiments proved his gender theory, opening the door to sex reassignment for children. Reimer never did identify as a girl, taking the name David and living as a man for the rest of his life. Tragically, both brothers took their lives, undoubtedly due to the psychological trauma inflicted by Money.

This is the true nature of the gender ideology being presented to children as young as five years old. This is nothing short of insanity, as up to 95% of prepubescent children who suffer from gender dysphoria ultimately grow out of their condition. On the other hand, encouraging the indoctrination of children through gender ideology only stands to coerce impressionable youngsters to make permanent, life-altering decisions that could leave them infertile or without body parts.

The destructive consequences of incorporating gender theory into education are also true of modern sexual education. Removal of parental control from teaching about this intimate matter has enabled a curriculum that portrays sex graphically and as ubiquitous, degrading a sacred and unifying act to a mere matter of physical pleasure. This debauched perspective has given rise to a variety of social disorders. STIs are at an all time high, according to the CDC. Hookup culture and promiscuity have created serious problems for pair bonding between partners and left generations of sexually-scarred women and men in its wake. Even more sinister, the exposure of children to this kind of graphic material and sexualization of children bears a strong potential to enable the acceptance of child sexual abuse, as child predators commonly expose their victims to pornographic materials in an effort to influence their victims and convince them that their molestation is normal.

In a country that prizes parental control, it seems unthinkable that such a significant matter as human sexuality is left to a slate of faceless, unaccountable educators. It is highly questionable that the promulgation of explicit material to children concerning any other significant matter, such as religion, would be considered acceptable or even debatable by the same people pushing for sex and gender education. The fact that restricting third graders, eight and nine-year-olds, and younger from this kind of dramatically graphic sexual material and fallacious gender theory has become so contentious represents a clear indicator of the state of our system of education, along with public morality. If anything, the Florida bill represents only a timid step back in the right direction that does not yet come close to addressing this social and educational rot. If sanity and sexual morality are to be restored, it will be necessary to completely overhaul the current system of sexual education. Then again, perhaps it is time schools relinquish this aspect of parental authority back to where it belongs: with parents.

Funding a Dictator: America and Egypt

The consistent aid being provided to Egypt over the last three presidencies show that Egypt is regarded as critical to US interests in the Middle East.  While Egypt, since President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s rise to power, has undermined human rights, it has played a large role in the US national interest in two key areas: Israel and counterterrorism.  Egypt’s relationship with Israel is of paramount importance to the US, with Israel being America’s closest Middle Eastern ally.  Plus, Egypt’s close proximity and history of conflict with Israel makes Egyptian-Israeli peace essential to Israeli security.  After the 1979 peace treaty, Egypt and Israel went into a cold peace, where tensions remained while military conflict was eliminated.  Because of this peace, Egypt was guaranteed military aid from the US, and this aid likely kept the two countries at peace.  After the fall of Morsi, however, Egypt and Israel started to collaborate on many fronts, including counterterrosim in Sinai, natural gas in the Mediterranean Sea, and negotiations with Hamas in Gaza (Sharp 3). This cooperation works toward both countries’ national interests and are mostly unsolicited by the US, so it is doubtful that US aid plays a major role in this newfound relationship between Egypt and Israel (Malinowski).  Had US aid been a player in this relationship, Israel and Egypt would have had this relationship since 1979; but, this relationship manifested after Sisi came to power, and especially increased after the 2020 Abraham Accords, showing that Sisi’s geopolitical strategy has more to do with this relationship than US aid (Sharp 4).

First of all, Egypt and Israel have begun to coordinate against terrorist violence in Sinai.  With Sisi’s opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood, increased terrorist attacks on both Egypt and Israel, and Israel’s continued conflict with Islamist groups in Gaza and the West Bank, the two countries have a shared interest in combatting terrorism in Sinai, a region of Egypt that composes Israel’s longest internationally-recognized border.  This interest is shown in Egyptian-Israeli cooperation in intelligence and military operations, with Egypt allowing Israeli airstrikes in Egyptian airspace and Israel allowing Egypt to militarize in the Sinai to fight insurgent groups (Miller 5). While this cooperation positively impacts American national interests in both Israeli security and in counterterrorism, this cooperation is mutually beneficial and unlikely to fall apart if the US withholds aid from Egypt.

On top of counterterrorism, Egypt has played a major role in facilitating negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian leaders in Gaza.  This was shown in May 2021, when violence broke out between Israel and Palestine.  Egypt, in an attempt to re-establish itself as regionally important, facilitated discussions between the two to come to a ceasefire.  Egypt holds leverage over Hamas since the Rafah border crossing is the only land crossing not controlled by Israel (Sharp 5).  Because of this leverage, Egypt maintains relations with Hamas while seeking to contain it within Gaza, and Egypt is in a place where it can help mediate between Israel and Hamas when conflict arises, like it did in 2021.  President Sisi’s role in negotiating a cease-fire and helping evacuate American citizens rendered praise from President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken  (Sharp 5).  This role for Egypt concerning Israeli security would likely also hold should American funds be withheld, since such a role helps raise Egypt’s standing in the region, solidifies a mutually beneficial partnership with Israel, and, due to Sisi’s abhorrance for Islamist parties (he overthrew an Islamist government and banned the Muslim Brotherhood in 2013), contains Hamas in Gaza (Times of Israel).

The third way Egypt and Israel have reached a self-sustaining relationship is in natural gas production.  In 2018, Israel and Egypt entered into a decade-long agreement worth $15 billion, where Israeli natural gas is exported to Egypt to be liquified and re-exported or used domestically (Sharp 7).  Additionally, Egypt and Israel, along with other Mediterranean countries, have united to compete against Turkey and Libya in the natural gas industry (Sharp 7-8).  This economic partnership clearly sustains itself independent of US aid, as the economic ties between Egypt and Israel help bolster both countries’ role in the region.

The second major US interest in which Egypt plays a role is counterterrorism.  The first time this affected US aid to Egypt was in 2015, when President Obama released formerly withheld Foreign Military Financing (FMF) aid to Egypt.  This was due to the rise in the Islamic State’s Sinai Province (IS-SP) and attacks against tourists and Copts in Egypt (Sharp 6). While the US has continued to grant aid to Egypt to fight terrorism, Egypt has contsantly undermined this battle because of its prisons, heavy-handed attacks, and unprepared military.  How Egypt runs its prisons undermines the fight against terrorism in Sinai because the government groups political prisoners with ISIS-affiliated and violent prisoners, uses torture even against peaceful dissidents, gives ISIS prisoners special priveleges, and does not provide sufficient medical care (Human Rights First 3-6).  Tom Malinowski states that President Sisi’s priority is not to counter terrorism, but to ensure that a 2011-like revolution never happens again, and this greatly affects how the Egyptian government handles its prison system (Malinowski).  Because the government continues to hold around 60,000 political prisoners, and these prisoners are subjected to long sentences without justification and brutal torture, animosity toward the Egyptian government exponentially grows, and because ISIS prisoners are mixed with non-ISIS prisoners, terrorists are able to radicalize formerly peaceful dissidents by using government abuses as a reason for violent insurrection (Human Rights First 9; Abrams).  According to Ben Rhodes, Egypt wants this radicalization to take place so that it can justify cracking down on its opposition (Human Rights First 7).  This shows that the issue is not only Egypt’s prison conditions, but also the Egyptian government’s prioritization of cracking down on dissents over eliminating violent extremism in Sinai. 

Another way Egypt undermines counterterrorism efforts is its heavy-handed and conventional approach to an unconventional enemy.  The heavy-handed approach, including crackdowns on civilian populations and state-sanctioned violence, turns the sympathies of the Sinai populace away from the Egyptian government and toward Jihadist groups (Abrams).  In addition, Egypt’s military is ill-prepared for fighting terrorism, as they have purchased weapons from France, Germany, and Russia that do not aid in fighting non-state actors like IS-SP (Abrams).  Furthermore, US FMF aid has been ineffective in providing Egypt the necessary tools to defeat IS-SP.  These tools are not weapons, as Egypt has more than enough weapons to win, but rather training and advice (Miller 3).  Egypt’s strategy for combatting terror in Sinai is ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst.  Instead of adopting the counterinsurgency tactics that were so successful in Iraq and Syria, Egypt continues to use overwhelming force against insurgents in residential communities (Miller 3).  This also works to alienate the people of Sinai, making it harder for Egypt to effectively defeat IS-SP.

Egypt’s role in relation both to Israel and to terrorism shows its importance in regional affairs despite the common claim that Egypt’s significance in the region is diminished.  The Israel-Egypt relationship is seemingly self-sufficient, but good relations between countries can deteriorate quickly, especially if a change in regime occurs.  Such a change in regime is entirely possible, as the 2011 and 2013 revolutions happened very quickly and without warning, and Egypt remains both economically and politically unstable (Dunne).  Further, Egypt is still reliant on the US for counterterrorism, though the strategy is flawed ( Miller 3).  Thus, the US should not cut or eliminate aid to Egypt, but the conditions placed on  aid should be increased so that the US can better ensure it is serving direct American interests and is not seen as an entitlement by President Sisi (Malinowski).

Many argue that aid should be cut or eliminated based on Egypt’s poor human rights record (Whitson 2; Human Rights First 7; Human Rights Watch 2-3).  While human rights is undeniably important, attempts to get President Sisi to budge on human rights have failed time and time again.  Therefore, the conditions for aid should be, at least initially, targeted toward direct American interests, such as maintaining a positive relationship with Israel and fighting terrorism, rather than unrealistic demands that will go unanswered.  If the US conditions aid on achievable goals, this will increase trust between the American and Egyptian governments so that human rights conversations down the road can be more fruitful.  There are some instances where human rights are of immediate American interest, such as the treatment of political prisoners (Human Rights First 8-12), the unjustified incarceration of American citizens (Katersky & Finnegan 2-3; Malinowski; Abrams),  and the restrictive non-governmental organization (NGO) law (Sharp 10; Malinowski).  These are directly related to American national interests, since the treatment of political prisoners breeds violent extremism (Human Rights First 1), unjustified incarceration of Americans violates our national sovereignty and hurts American efforts to aid Egypt (Malinowski), and the NGO law restricts not only American humanitarian efforts, but also Egyptian NGOs from serving the Egyptian people (Sharp 10; Malinowski).  These three issues are the human rights issues the US government should emphasize the most, since they most directly relate to the national interest and are relatively reasonable compared to conditions that will likely never be met in the near future, like a requirement that democratic institutions be strengthened (Sharp 35-36).

There is some evidence that targeted conditions can work.  First of all, President Trump’s withholding of $65.7 million until Egypt scaled back its relationship with North Korea and released 43 NGO workers proves that Egypt is willing to negotiate when met with cuts in military aid (BBC Report; Miller 5).  The main difference between this successful action and the lack of success that is seen in all three administrations is that these demands did not directly come into conflict with Egypt’s national interest or Sisi’s personal interest.  President Obama’s conditions in 2013 were unrealistic since it required a complete change in regime, which the administration realized in 2015 when faced with terrorist threats in Sinai (Sharp 35-36).  Also, while President Biden’s withholding of $130 million was unsuccessful as well, and the demands were reasonable, this was undermined by the $2.5 billion arms deal to Egypt, which even though it was not purchased with FMF funds, was a case of the US providing weapons without any regard for American interests being promoted; furthermore, President Biden’s actions were undermined by the release of the remaining $170 million (Times of Israel Report).   Therefore, if the United States is consistent in its conditional stance toward Egypt, targeted in its approach, and applies reasonable benchmarks, there would be more success in meeting American goals in its relationship with Egypt.

In addition, the message that Egypt is entitled to American aid hurts the US’s leverage and allows Egypt not to take American wishes seriously (Malinowski).  So, the president’s waiver ability should be revoked, at least temporarily until Egypt improves.  This would ensure that presidents are unable to override the Congressional restrictions on Egyptian behavior and undermine the US’s bargaining power over Egypt (Human Rights First 7).  Once the US’s bargaining power is re-established, presidential waivers might be able to be reinstated based on the progress Egypt attains.  However, this waiver has been used by all presidents in the name of national security to give aid unconditionally to Egypt, so this power must be taken away so that Egypt does not continue to receive an unconditional entitlement from the US government.

Furthermore, both nations have emphasized the value of a “trade, not aid” relationship in terms of economic aid (Sharp 37), so there is no reason why a “trade, not aid” relationship should not be adopted in terms of military aid as well.  As stated above, Egypt does play a significant role in two areas of American interest, but in order to merit American aid, the Egyptian government must work toward, not against, American interests.  Therefore, in exchange for aid, Egypt must meet certain requirements so that American aid is used to promote shared American and Egyptian interests rather than allowing Egypt to pursue policies at the expense of the national security of the United States and its allies.  

Overall, the FMF aid provided to Egypt should be considerably altered.  First of all, all aid should be conditioned on different points.  Rather than grouping all of the US’s desires into one multi-part condition, the US should individually link items for improvement to specific amounts of money.  With this, all aid should be conditional to increase pressure on Egypt and to send a message that American aid is not an entitlement, but must be earned (Malinowski).  The $1.3 billion total would stay the same, but all of it should be conditional on meeting specific demands, with the percentage of aid that could be withheld being proportional to the importance to American national interests and on the necessity of the aid.  30% should be conditional on progress in its fight against terrorism with a requirement that Egypt heed American training and adopt the successful strategies used in Iraq and Syria, 30% should be conditional on prison reform, 15% should be conditional on the release of American citizens from Egyptian prisons, 15% should be conditional on the maintenance of a peaceful relationship with Israel, and 10% should be conditional on the repeal of NGO laws that adversely affect American economic and humanitarian aid. 

Egypt cannot damage American interests beyond what it already has.  Ruining its relationship with Israel would be self-sacrificing (Miller 5; Whitson 6-7; Abrams), and Egypt’s unsuccessful efforts to combat terrorism and prison conditions cannot be made much worse (Human Rights First 1; Abrams).  Thus, if Egypt were to not acquiesce to American conditions on aid, Egypt’s interest would be hurt more than the US’s (Miller 5; Whitson 7). While Egypt has turned to Germany, France, and Russia in the past to purchase weapons, the US’s FMF aid allows Egypt to buy high-tech weapons with American money rather than its own (basically free weapons), and Egypt (Sharp 33), through its relationship with the US, gets access to foreign markets (Miller 5).  This means that Egypt needs the US much more than the US needs Egypt, and the US should promote this attitude.  Another reason the US should not concern itself with Egypt’s relations with other countries in terms of weapons purchases is that Egypt constantly uses both Russia and the US as political tools to get more from both of them, and America’s free high-quality weapons and access to the global market make the US indispensable to Egypt (Miller 5).

Letter from the Editors, May 2022

Dear Reader,

Thank you for picking up the final Fenwick Review issue of the academic year. We are both immensely grateful for all your support throughout the year and we hope to have provided you engrossing and enriching reading. As our time as Co-Editors comes to an end, we are happy to introduce Anthony Cash and Evan Poellinger as our successors here at the Review. We are confident they will carry on the good work we’ve been able to accomplish this year.

As we look back over the year, we can’t help but consider how “quiet” things have been for us. We haven’t had the sparks of conflict that arose from events like the Benny Liew article or when Heather MacDonald came to campus. We never strive to create controversy, yet we also do not purposely avoid addressing contentious issues or from providing a perspective that differs from the apparent popular consensus.

Take this as you will, but we hope it sets the stage for a future of the Review free from the bog of its mistaken appearance as a firebrand publication. We hope this will challenge readers to engage more earnestly with our articles, not simply dismissing them as “hateful.” Again, this is not to say we have or that we plan to water down our message or our values. But, this does anticipate an appealing future for our publication.

We hope to see issues of The Fenwick Review adorning campus for decades to come, and we hope likewise for the mailboxes of all our donors. Thank you again to everyone who has supported us.

Sincerely, 

Andrew Buck ‘22 & John Pietro ‘22 Co-Editors-in-Chief

We Must Save Hyde (and Weldon too)

President Biden’s new budget proposal once again takes aim at the child in the womb, this time by omitting the language of the Hyde Amendment.  A bipartisan legislative provision that has been included in every appropriations bill since 1976, the Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funding for abortion, except to save the life of the mother or if the pregnancy is the result of incest or rape. 

In addition to Hyde, the Biden administration has also removed the Weldon Amendment from the budget proposal. Since 2005, the Weldon Amendment has protected physicians, healthcare providers, and hospitals from undue discrimination by federal agencies and state and local governments, guaranteeing that all healthcare professionals or entities do not have to “provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.” Without the Weldon Amendment, state governments would have the green light to prejudice and coerce healthcare professionals for their moral or religious objections to abortion. In 2020, the Trump Administration withheld roughly $200 million in California Medicaid Funds due to the state’s unlawful attempt to ignore the provisions of the Weldon Amendment.

Over the past 45 years, the Hyde Amendment has saved over 2.5 million lives. For all of those years, Planned Parenthood, which profits from performing abortions and the sale of abortifacients, has been pushing for its removal from the annual appropriations bill. Instead of offering solutions to such current problems as inflation, border control, energy, and Russian and Chinese aggression, Democrats want to force Americans to subsidize abortion, disregarding the deeply held moral concerns of many citizens.

While millions of Americans were forced to forego and delay important operations and procedures during the worst days of the COVID-19 pandemic, abortion clinics in many states remained opened despite strict lockdown and social distancing regulations. While churches, schools, and nonprofits had their doors forcibly shut, unable to provide services to the most vulnerable, Planned Parenthood was allowed to continue to perform abortion procedures.

As polls have repeatedly shown, a strong majority of Americans back the Hyde Amendment. A recent Marist College poll reported that as of January, 2022, 54% of Americans oppose taxpayer funding of abortion. The same poll also reported that 71% of Americans support some kind of legal limits on abortion. This poll confirms the results of other relatively recent polls. A Politico and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health poll reported in 2016 that 58% of Americans opposed allowing Medicaid funding to be used for abortion services. Yet, Congressional Democrats continue to ignore the statistics and willfully peddle pro-abortion talking points.

In July of 2020, Congressman Jim McGovern, whose district accounts for most of Worcester County, tried to stoke fear by claiming that the Hyde Amendment discriminates against women of color and those with low-incomes. Congressman McGovern, who professes himself to be a Catholic and who attributes many of his policies to the Church’s charity and efforts to serve the poor, has a 100% rating from the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. Surely the Congressman must see that by his support for abortion, a sin which cries out to Heaven for retributive justice, he has turned his back on the Church. 

On March 30, 2022, Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley, known for her association with “The Squad,” a group of ultra-progressive and socialist Democrats in the House of Representatives, claimed that the Hyde Amendment was “racist and discriminatory.” If the amendment reduces the number of African-American babies that are aborted, how can this outcome be deemed racist? Standing against abortion for the defense of the defenseless unborn baby in the womb is an act of charity.

Women should not be pressured, with government support, into having abortions because they face difficult situations. Planned Parenthood, and other abortion providers, want the Hyde and Weldon Amendments removed in order to ramp up abortion marketing significantly. Underprivileged women need resources, support, and aid, including the ready availability of adoption services where appropriate, not more resources aimed at terminating their pregnancy.

Abortion, as Mother Teresa said, is “the greatest destroyer of peace because it destroys two lives.” Instead of expanding government’s financing of abortion at time when the average American is struggling, Congress should reallocate the limited government funding currently going to abortion providers and advocates to pregnancy centers that actually aid women through their crisis pregnancies, and beyond.

President Biden’s budget is yet another perfidious attack on the unborn, a trend which has been consistent throughout his entire political career. Every American who is moved by attacks on the defenseless should mobilize now, and strive to save Hyde. Now that leaked documents from the Supreme Court indicate the imminent overturn of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the fight against abortion, one of the great evils of our time, has only just begun.

Letter from the Editors, March 2022

Dear Reader,

Thank you for picking up a copy of The Fenwick Review. We realize we are inaugurating the year a little late, so we appreciate your patience. We are sure you will find this issue is well worth the wait.

Indeed, in addition to a collection of great articles as usual, we are happy to announce the beginning of a new section to our publication: The Review Reviews! As the title suggests, this new section will include reviews by our writers of any variety of media, whether books, movies, music, and perhaps even art installations. We cannot wait to see how this project develops and changes. We also hope that it provides you with at least a few suggestions to add to your reading, watching, or listening lists (which we are sure are not already worryingly long). As always with The Review, we gear these reviews towards a conservative audience, but this might also provide some insights to our liberal readers about how conservatives engage with media. So, it should be a boon for all.

There are other plans in the works as well, though at the forefront of our minds is the expansion of our alumni network. At The Fenwick Review, our success is due in a large part to our donors, many of whom are Holy Cross alumni. While we develop concrete strategies, we encourage you all to spread our name and our mission to other alumni you think would be interested in our writing. We have come to realize there are many conservative alumni and parents who don not know who we are. Hopefully, with your help, we can show them that our common values are still present on Mount St. James.

We wish you all well and truly hope you will profit from reading this edition of The Fenwick Review. Until next time.

Sincerely,

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

The Fight for Freedom

*This article was written on 27 February 2022. Some references may be out of date, but the article itself is still relevant.

Americans frivolously throw around the word ‘freedom,’ all too often without a true sense of what it means. Freedom is a fragile phenomenon, and one that, for the great majority of human history, has not existed. Modern Americans do not know what it is like to have their freedoms truly threatened, to stand on the brink of tyranny and oppression, and we are unbelievably lucky for that. But our experience is an exception to the rule, and the valiant struggle of the Ukrainian people in the face of Russian brutality exemplifies just how precious freedom is. 

In 2014, the Ukrainian people took to the streets, braving sniper fire and savage police repression, to oust the pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych. The Maidan Revolution, or the Revolution of Dignity, was a seminal moment in the country’s history, turning it decidedly in a pro-Western direction. After the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea, as well as the Russian-sponsored proxy conflict in the Donbas region, there was a rejuvenation of the Ukrainian national identity. The people of Ukraine wanted the freedoms, the prosperity, and the protection that the West – primarily the EU and NATO – offered, and they rejected the autocratic regime of their neighbor to the East. Populations all over Ukraine, including in majority Russian-speaking areas, have come to identify far more with Ukraine over the past eight years of the low-level war with Russia. They see what has happened in the rebel territories of Donetsk and Luhansk: repression, economic stagnation, and militarization. Ukrainians do not want that, and the valiant resistance that they have put up against the Russian juggernaut provides no better evidence of this.

During the first phase of the Russian invasion, a Ukrainian marine,Vitaly Skakun Volodymyrovych, made the ultimate sacrifice for his country in order to blunt the Russian advance. Deployed on the border of Russian-occupied Crimea, he gave his life in order to destroy the Henichesk bridge. Knowing he would be unable to exit the blast zone in time, Volodymyrovych decided to complete his mission rather than escape with his life. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky subsequently announced that the marine would posthumously receive the honor of Hero of Ukraine. Similar cases of heroism abound. Thousands of Ukrainian civilians in Kyiv – men and women who days ago were strolling down the city’s boulevards – have taken up weapons to defend their homeland. These ordinary citizens, alongside the tens of thousands of professional soldiers, have been willing to face down one of the world’s most powerful militaries. It is truly a case of David and Goliath. Even so, much like David, the Ukrainians are fighting for what is truly right and just. Ukrainians have come to understand what freedom tastes like; they have determined, in the words of Patrick Henry, that life is not so dear nor peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. 

The question confronting the West now is, just how much does freedom matter to us? An interstate peace that has more or less reigned in Europe since 1945 – the breakup of Yugoslavia being more of a civil war than an interstate conflict – is now shattered. Not since the Nazis marched accross the continent have forces of this size clashed or a war of conquest on this scale occurred there. Take a moment to consider the scale that the invasion of Ukraine entailed: well over 400,000 troops engaged across three quarters of Ukraine’s 4350 mile border, with every major city in Ukraine targeted by airstrikes, and Russian forces fighting in the streets of towns and cities across the country — including the capital. If this can happen on the border of the European Union, on the most developed continent on earth, Westerners would do well to realize it may not stop there. China is watching how the West responds with the utmost care. The people of Taiwan may soon see the same kind of ferocity that Ukraine is now enduring. 

The West had ample opportunities to bolster Ukraine’s defense before the Russians invaded. Russian troops began their buildup in earnest in November 2021, and it was watched by the world for months. The US, UK, and select other Western nations provided weaponry, but it was woefully inadequate to the need. Russia has undergone a massive military modernization since the mid-2000s, investing tens of billions of dollars to procure and upgrade equipment. It has highly advanced air, naval, and ground forces, along with sophisticated cyber and electronic warfare capabilities. Ukraine, by contrast, has a robust army, but virtually no navy or air force to speak of, and its air defenses are widely known to be insufficient. The West could have sent advanced air defense equipment, ground vehicles, anti-ship missiles, and more anti-tank weaponry. Much of this equipment sits in storage in American military facilities, and it could have been flown out on relatively short notice. Western countries, starting on 25 February, completely changed their response. Countries from Germany to Sweden to Australia have agreed to supply Ukraine with a substantial quantity of desperately needed weaponry. This deserves much praise, but it should have been done earlier.

The initial reticence on the part of the West to back up its words of support for Ukraine with effective, truly substantive action reflects both a fundamental misunderstanding of its challenges and a fracturing of its ideological commitment to the Free World Order. Russia and China do not care about a rules-based international order. The only reason they ever work within it is because they are constrained in doing so. It is the Free World that constrains them to it, a Free World that is well-armed and resolute. When those boundaries disintegrate, the world returns to the violent place it has been for most of its history. Brutal dictatorships, like the criminals that lurk in the most dangerous cities, listen to nothing but force. When the West does not have the will or the material force to back up its diplomacy, diplomacy becomes worthless. And when diplomacy becomes worthless, there is no inhibition to violence.

While the West dithered and bickered over the proper response, Russia was dealt a free hand to execute its brutal invasion. If the West cannot stand up for a fellow democracy in Europe, will it stand up for Taiwan? Where is the line to be drawn? Will it only defend those treaty commitments that already exist, such as NATO? If that is the case, Western peoples must be willing to suffer the consequences of a new world order dominated by the Chinese and the Russians. A new order where violence is but another tool in the pursuit of national interests. In the modern world, countries do not have the option of walling themselves off from the rest of humanity; when evil is allowed to run rampant thousands of miles away, it will eventually reach your doorstep. 

The people of Ukraine understand something that the overwhelming majority of Westerners do not: that freedom is tenuous, that it is precious, and that it is worth dying for. Do not take freedom for granted. Do not take your life, with all of its comforts and luxuries, for granted. These things sit on a razor's edge. Recognize that it is because of the West and the Free World Order that capital cities in the rest of Europe do not have to face missiles and armored columns. That Eastern Europe is largely free from the grip of tyranny. That Taipei and Seoul are home to free and prosperous people. These gifts are not free. The Ukrainian people know this, and they are sacrificing their lives because of that. Keep them in your prayers, and may the peace of Christ come to rest upon Ukraine. слава україні!

COVID and Coercion

The College of the Holy Cross recently made the announcement that it would begin the process of rolling back mask mandates in spaces across campus on February 28th – a process which the administration already retroactively delayed indefinitely as of February 45th, due to a spike in cases. They claimed that they were only able to make this move because 90% of the student population had received their booster shot. Indeed, students received frequent emails encouraging them to report their booster status, with the message that “the only thing preventing us from removing masking is the students who have not uploaded their booster.” However, after the new masking policy was announced, the booster requirement began to be enforced with the threat of un-enrollment for students who didn’t comply. Why did the administration stress the need for a 90% booster rate, despite the City of Worcester voting to roll back their mandates starting February 18th? And why did the outcome from not being boosted so quickly shift from not being able to receive the privilege of not wearing masks to effective expulsion from the college? 

It seems, simply put, that these measures are a means to mask and soften the administration’s own behavior by pitting students against each other adversarially as a means to mitigate the ire they attract from students. I’m not suggesting that there is some grand conspiracy from above to turn students against each other; however, the lack of accountability and transparency on the part of the administration at the expense of the student body does contradict their continuous effort to develop “community.” Indeed, these tactics are a means of coercion – deliberately manipulating the optics of policy to make them more appealing and limit pushback. But, why am I complaining? Shouldn’t I just be happy that mask mandates are falling away? Yes, I am happy. Perhaps, I’m too cynical regarding the function of the administration, and maybe I’m reading too far into the minutiae of these policies and into the wording of emails. But, if a Liberal Arts education has taught me anything, it’s that we are called to scrutinize everything we read, especially from those in positions of power. 

To begin revealing these coercive measures, I will begin with the debacle regarding the basketball courts in the Jo. On January 26th, students received an email announcing a five day closure of these courts as a response to certain students playing on the courts while not wearing masks. It went so far as to say that this noncompliance with the mask mandate was “egregius” (quite a severe word for wanting to be able to breathe easily while exercising). The email also included a warning about students not wearing masks on other exercise equipment. While these students were technically breaking the rules, it’s hard to think they were doing anything “egregiously” wrong. The Jo is a wide open, well-ventilated space, where students are constantly moving. There’s little more risk of transmission there than carrying out the same activity outside. But, even if the behavior was that bad, why did this entail the closing of the courts? It’s not like some students playing on the courts without masks infused the courts and the air above them with COVID particles. Like a parent punishing their child by taking away their phone or putting them in time out, they wanted to punish us, so they took away something we enjoyed. Worse, though, was the use of this punishment to blame students and turn us against each other. The email announcing the closing of the courts places the blame on students: “Students in noncompliance jeopardize their access to The Jo.” It is us, the students, who might ruin the experience for everyone else, not the administration's arbitrary punishment.

Why do I bring this up? It is a relatively small administrative intervention, despite the worrying implications. Well, there is a suspicious similarity between this punishment and the College’s arbirtary 90% booster quota. Remember the wording from the email stating the imposed requirements for removing mask mandates on campus: “The only thing preventing us from removing masking, is the students who have not uploaded their booster.” Besides the description of “students” as “the thing,” which is suggestively (though hopefully accidental) dehumanizing of students, it also directly places blame for the continuation of masking onto those students who haven’t complied. So, for students who want masks gone, who else can they be mad at than the students who haven’t been boosted or haven’t reported their booster? Perhaps the college should have been more honest and said “The only thing preventing us from removing masking is that we arbitrarily set a 90% booster compliance rate, and we have to wait until that is met. And no, we can’t go one iota lower.”

The arbitrary nature of the 90% required booster rate becomes all the more apparent as the college has decided to indefinitely delay the roll back of mask mandates. We reached the goal that was supposed to grant us this privilege but, apparently, the booster rate doesn’t really matter whatsoever, only the number of cases on campus. It is this arbitrary nature that suggests more coercive inventions. In the email notifying students of this delay, the wording for the justification is much the same as for the closure of the gymnasium courts, “we have experienced a sustained spike in our positivity rate due to two student clusters, one where a policy was violated.” Students are to blame. Students are again the adversary to removing masks on campus.

Further revealing the arbitrary and coercive nature of this booster threshold, the college has changed the consequences for not being boosted.  Before, not being boosted was an impediment to removing masks, now beginning February 25th, not being boosted will result in your unenrollment from Holy Cross. In the former of these policies, the booster was the key to a privilege: we needed students to report their booster to be able to remove masking on campus. As described previously, this policy positioned students who hadn’t complied as an impediment to their fellow students from achieving that privilege. Now, the same requirement, to receive the booster, is a matter of attending the college or not. So, the push to achieve a 90% booster rate in order to remove masking was entirely pointless. It created a situation where students were uselessly pitted against each other in order to achieve a goal, when in reality, the college was planning to threaten students with being kicked out anyways. Why not enforce the un-enrollment procedure (which is an ethical can of worms I will not even begin to open here) from the beginning? One might argue that setting the masking compliance quota was a way to encourage students to report their booster shot. But, surely, threatening un-enrollment would have been more than effective to achieve a 90% booster rate, at which point the college could have begun to roll back masking without creating a false competition between students. But, that would have made the college the big, bad guy; they would have seemed harsh and demanding. Rather, the college temporarily made students the adversary to encourage a majority of students to comply with the booster mandate, while positioning themselves as the beneficent gateway to a mask-free campus. It was they who wanted to remove masks, if other students would just get boosted! Then, only after most students complied, the college positioned itself adversarially to the remaining 10% of students who weren’t boosted. 

I in no way mean to suggest that our mostly calm, mostly peaceful, and mostly affable campus is the site of a full blown class war, but I do think it’s important to notice and reveal the more worrying procedures of the college. So yes, I am overjoyed that mask mandates are falling away, and I thank the administration for making the right decision and moving forward with this matter. However, they have claimed and enforced new authority over students – the ability to enforce masking and boosting – through coercive means. I hope that the administration will fully own its policies and their ramifications in the future. Further, I hope, in the goal of building community on campus, they will be more careful in their own wording towards and treatment of students.