Another Pawn for the MAGA King

President Abraham Lincoln, when he declared that “a house divided against itself cannot stand”, was warning against the dangers of hyperpartisanship that ultimately plunged the country into civil war.

Fast forward to 2022, and it appears that the Republican Party has finished building the house. The occupants? The MAGA Republican and the Moderate Republican.  And believe me, these factions are  keeping their distance.

The January 6th attack on the Capitol solidified support for the former president as the red line dividing the MAGA republicans and the “R.I.N.O.S” (Republican in Name Only) who have spoken out against the former president.  As polls increasingly point to Democratic gains in the midterm elections, the Republican Party will no longer be able to toe this line. Membership in the party will soon be based on one question: do you support the former president?

Ronny Jackson had to answer that question. The former physician to both former President Trump and Obama, won his bid for Texas’ 13th Congressional District in 2020, boosted by an endorsement from Trump. Since entering office, Jackson has been one of the most fervent supporters of former President Trump. And it’s not shocking why Trump endorsed Jackson. Jackson fits the bill for a MAGA Republican: faith-based, family-oriented, tough on crime, etc.

However, it is Jackson’s virtue-signaling support of veterans that demonstrates the dichotomy of the MAGA Republican. There is no question that Congressman Ronny Jackson is outspoken in his support for our nation's veterans.

As he should be. The only problem? Jackson is an empty suit when it comes to supporting veterans. 

A simple click on the veterans’ issues page of his campaign website is evidence of this.

There were two paragraphs on that tab. Barely. The tab lacked any notion of a coherent, specific plan to help our nation’s heroes.

Instead, he uses his words to prop himself up.

“As a retired U.S. Navy Rear Admiral with nearly three decades of military service I understand the commitment and sacrifices made by servicemen and servicewomen to serve our country. I am very in tune with their needs, and that of their families.” 

Translation: I have no plan.

Congressman Jackson’s thirty-year service in the Navy is heroic, and must be emphasized. However, Jackson is another MAGA Republican to trade away the virtues of public service for the virtues of popularity.

The 2022 Midterm Elections will test the durability of the MAGA Republican platform. Swing states, like Ohio and Pennsylvania, are the crux to gaining the majority in Congress. The Republican nominees in these respective states, J.D Vance (R-OH) and Mehmet Oz (R-PA), are caricatures of former President Trump, as they are willing to reiterate every conspiracy theory and lie that Trump has claimed throughout his presidency for the glory of a Senate seat.

Pennsylvania Republicans practically handed the Senate seat to John Fetterman and the Democrats by nominating “Dr. Oz.” Oz has run a terrible campaign and is completely out of touch with working class Pennsylvanians. He has a net worth of $500 million, and owns ten properties. As of August 2022, the average salary in Pennsylvania is about $53,391. It will be interesting to see Oz debate Fetterman, especially when the only point he makes is that he was endorsed by Donald Trump.

J.D. Vance was once a never-Trumper. Aside from calling Trump “reprehensible”, he claimed that Donald Trump could become “America’s Hitler” in a text message sent to his law school roommate. So what does J.D. Vance do? Base his entire campaign on Donald Trump. On major issues, Vance has managed to weave tenets of Trumpism into every debate, interview, and town hall he participates in.

We always say that a monarchical system of government is the antithesis of the United States, but the MAGA faction of the Republican party has treated Trump like a Monarch. They know that they cannot win a Republican election without selling their morals for Donald Trump. Call it greed, a lust for power. It’s truly disheartening.

What is the MAGA Republican? The MAGA politician is blindly loyal to President Trump. No questions asked. He tells them to jump, they ask how high.  And the truth is whatever President Trump decides. If President Trump declares that the 2020 election was rigged, then it was rigged, despite the overwhelming evidence arguing against this. If President Trump brushes off the dangers of COVID-19, the MAGA politician must do so.

Why was the United States hit harder by COVID than other countries? Science points to many things: a lack of medical equipment, weak regulations regarding mask-wearing, and an incoherent and oftentimes contradictory strategy from the federal government. Ask Trump that question and he’ll say it’s due to the massive testing campaign ushered by his administration. 

“We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China. It’s going to be fine”

• President Trump, January 22, 2020

More than one million Americans have died from COVID. 

In the MAGA Kingdom, truth is malleable. The moral compass is broken. Moral absolutism turns into Moral relativism. The Republican Party has an identity crisis. To win elections, the Republican Party must moderate its views and most importantly ditch Trump.

Hostile Institutions: The FBI and the Government’s War Against Its Citizens

On August 8, 2022, the FBI conducted a raid on former President Donald Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago with authorization from U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland. Ostensibly, the raid was authorized because of Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified material. Setting aside the matter of the FBI looking the other way while Hillary Clinton maintained an unauthorized private email server in her basement and had aides smash her used phones, Trump is well within his rights to possess the material in question under the Presidential Records Act of 1978. But lest apathetic observers content themselves with the short-sighted prospect that their primary choices in 2024 may be made easier, President Trump’s statement that “they’re after you” has held true of the FBI for decades and is more pertinent than ever before.

Formed in 1908 to deal with the growing threat of anarchists in the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was undoubtedly founded with the noble intention of bridging the gaps between state law enforcement agencies. However, as the FBI took an increasingly influential role in enforcement of Prohibition and the “war on crime,” it began to stretch its powers in questionable fashion. Under Director J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI engaged in the wiretapping of potential suspects, later being limited to bugging operations under the Communications Act of 1934. The Bureau took the opportunity in 1939 to compile a list of individuals who would be taken into custody in the event of a war. The FBI took action hours after the Attack on Pearl Harbor, arresting thousands over the course of a few weeks without warrants.

The FBI only became more brazen during the latter period of Hoover’s time as director. Under the Counter Intelligence Program, or COINTELPRO, designed to infiltrate, disrupt, and discredit political organizations that the FBI deemed to be problematic. FBI agents resorted to disinformation, harassment, blackmail, and even violence in order to achieve these ends. Perhaps the most notable target of the COINTELPRO operations was Martin Luther King Jr. King was subjected to surveillance by the FBI, who then proceeded to send King an anonymous letter encouraging him to take his own life, which was accompanied by audio recordings of King’s alleged sexual dalliances.

A pair of incidents in the 1990s stand out as the most egregious examples of the FBI’s willingness to shed the blood of people it deemed to be enemies of the government, regardless of their actual innocence. After failing to show up to court on a firearms charge because of scheduling confusion in 1992, Randy Weaver refused to surrender to federal authorities due to fears of a setup. After an encounter with U.S. Marshals in which Weaver’s son, Sammy, was killed by law enforcement and Weaver’s friend Kevin Harris killed Deputy Marshal William Degan — for which Harris was later acquitted on self-defense grounds — the FBI set rules of engagement that allowed them to essentially shoot on sight. On August 22, FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi shot Weaver as he was paying respects to his deceased son, then fired through the door of the cabin at Kevin Harris as Weaver fled to safety. Horiuchi struck and killed Weaver’s wife Vicki, who was standing behind the door with her baby in her arms. After surrendering days later, Weaver was acquitted of all charges except for missing his original court date and bail violation, for which he was released after sixteen months. The FBI was never called to account for its actions in the Weaver case.

One year later, after a botched ATF raid on the Mount Carmel compound over questionable firearms charges, the FBI began a 51 day siege of the Branch Davidians religious organization. During the siege, the FBI cut the power and water to the compound, blasted loud music and sounds at night, and ran over the vehicles of the Branch Davidians. On the final day of the siege, having grown impatient with the slow progress of negotiations, the FBI launched an assault with tear gas on the compound. The building burst into flames and burned to the ground, killing 76 people, including 25 children. The FBI admitted that the tear gas used in the assault was flammable, but has maintained that the Branch Davidians, and not the FBI, was responsible for the fire at the compound.

The American people are not exempt from similar treatment simply by virtue of the fact that they do not live on an isolated mountain range or in a religious compound in Waco. An organization that has overseen extensive espionage and the deaths of numerous innocent men, women, and children is unlikely to treat political enemies any differently than targets of its other operations, particularly considering the extremely partisan nature of the current administration. Indeed, parents who are concerned about the ideological indoctrination of the public school system have already been framed by the National School Boards Association as “domestic terrorists” in a letter to President Joe Biden, calling for FBI involvement. 

Rather than investigate concerned parents and the former President of the United States, it is time for the FBI to face scrutiny for its decades of malfeasance.

Ukraine is Putin's Peril

Whether the Ukrainians win or lose the war with Russia, the ultimate loser is Vladimir Putin. His blundered invasion of Ukraine, coupled with the incredible resistance of the Ukrainians themselves against the Russian invasion, has opened a once in a generation opportunity that I pray our president can take. There have been three main benefits of this war for the United States. 

The war completely knocks Russia off the board as a serious threat. The Ukrainians, with the weaponry that has been supplied to them, have been able to completely decimate the Russian army. This is a tremendous benefit for the United States because it allows us to completely focus on China as the primary geopolitical threat. China has lost a powerful ally, been cut off from the world, and set diplomatic ties with the Europeans back decades. In 2018 the United States sought with great difficulty to prevent Europe from buying China’s 5g Wi-Fi system. If that happens again we won’t have to do any begging. Europeans also will not be as open to peace with China as they were in the past, which will unite the west against China. It also halts China’s ambition towards Taiwan because they know if they move against Taiwan, the United States and all of the west will react in unison to defend it. And no matter what your opinion is on Xi Jinping, he is not foolhardy enough to think he can take the entire West on by himself. So not only has the war revealed that Russia’s military is even weaker than expected, but it has also produced significant consequences for China.

The war has refocused the political calculation of almost every nation and causes a massive realignment in loyalties. Before this war the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was essentially defunct and countries were happy to make agreements with Russia because they faced no downsides. Whether it was the Europeans buying Russian oil, NATO members not spending enough on defense, or some nations simply staying neutral, Russia had not been seen as a threat. Instead it was merely a trading partner. But now all of that has changed. Germany will now invest more than 2% of its gross domestic product (GDP) into the military which is a massive increase from the 1.5% it spent over the entire year. Europe also is cutting itself off from Russian natural gas and oil, realizing that it could be used as a weapon against them. Finally, previously neutral nations like Sweden, Switzerland, and the Netherlands are now joining both NATO and the European Union (EU). Meanwhile any nation that might have wanted to ally itself with Russia will now have to face the prospect of cutting themselves off from all of Europe and the United States. Presently, there is no incentive for any nation to align itself with Russia.

The west has been reunited under the American banner. Before the war the Europeans had largely been distancing themselves from the United States, and even other European states. As mentioned earlier NATO was basically defunct. The war in Ukraine reinvigorated the Europeans as they realized there are other threats in this war, and they cannot win without standing with the United States. This war has been a once in a generation foreign policy boon for the United States and her allies. Hopefully, President Biden does not mess it up, because another nation will take the lead, and we will be left behind if he does. 

We can finally defeat an enemy who we have been fighting for a century, since the Soviet Union was formed in 1922, and who has outlasted seventeen presidents, from Warren G. Harding to today with President Biden. If President Biden decides to actually take advantage of this moment we can not only finally defeat our longest-standing foe, but we can also reunite the west under a shared purpose, severely weaken China, and save millions of lives. But he cannot let this moment pass and he cannot let any other nation take the lead. He must take the advice of his predecessor, President Trump, and engage in America first foreign policy. Once he does so, America can finally defeat Russia.

Religious Disaffiliation in America

In October of 2021, The Wall Street Journal reported that "half of young people ages 13 to 25 surveyed said they don’t think that religious institutions care as much as they do about issues that matter deeply to them…Those issues include racial justice, gender equity, immigration rights, income inequality, and gun control." I want to discuss why these grievances are misguiding.

Let us take Catholicism, for example. In speaking with a Massachusetts Bishop, I learned that the input he received from the synod was that the Catholic Church needed to be more welcoming. I immediately thought of a parish in this Bishop's diocese in which the priest says a special intercession for gay and lesbian children each week. He is welcoming, yet I see very few, if any, young people attending masses there. This is not an intercession said at every parish, but then I thought, “People put a whole lot of time and effort into researching the best place to go to school, the best place to buy a car, the best place to go out to dinner, etc., so why can they not put the same amount of time and effort into finding a parish that suits them?” It seems that unlike getting a good deal on a car, going to church is not high on many peoples' priority lists. So perhaps the criticism the Church is receiving is coming from somewhat unreliable sources because the people giving the criticism are not invested in the faith.

Research presented by scholars at Public Religion Research Institute supports this hypothesis. Betsy Cooper, Daniel Cox, Rachel Lienesch, and Robert P. Jones, Ph.D. reported in their 2016 article "Exodus: Why Americans are Leaving Religion — and Why They're Unlikely to Come Back" that 72% of religiously unaffiliated Americans say "that in their day-to-day life, they do not spend much time thinking about God or religion." Of the religiously unaffiliated, there are two prominent groups that personally reject religion: rejectionists and apatheists ("unattached believers" make up a third group that will not be discussed here). Rejectionists, who make up 58% of the group, "say religion is not personally important in their lives and believe religion as a whole does more harm than good in society." Apatheists, "who make up 22% of the unaffiliated, say religion is not personally important to them, but believe it generally is more socially helpful than harmful." 83% of rejectionists and 76% of apatheists report that they "seldom or never attend formal religious services." I then pose the question that if 72% of the unaffiliated admit that they do not think about God on any regular basis, and if more than three-quarters of rejectionists and apatheists never or extremely infrequently attend religious services, then how are they to have informed views and, therefore, helpful answers to questions like "what is the Church doing wrong that is driving you away?" In my research, I was encouraged to hear that houses of worship are not actively driving away the unaffiliated by traumatizing them with bad experiences. On the contrary, "more than two-thirds (68%) of unaffiliated Americans say their last time attending a religious service, not including a wedding or funeral service, was primarily positive."

One of the first lessons I learned in a college English class is to not make statements about something I do not know. If I want to make the statement "throughout Shakespeare's works, he stresses the deceptiveness of outer beauty," I ought to have thoroughly read and analyzed all of his works, and not just have read a few sonnets for homework one night. I would say the same to the religiously unaffiliated: if you are going to make strong statements against a given religion, you ought to have done your homework. You ought to have deeply thought about the possibility of a God throughout your day-to-day life, even if you do not believe in Him. And if one is a rejectionist trying to claim that Catholicism has no positive impact on the individual nor on society, it would probably be wise to attend mass at many different parishes, go to Adoration, try to pray, etc. In short, give Catholicism a real try. If your views on Catholicism remain unchanged, then at least now your views can be better substantiated, and you will be a more informed conversationalist on the subject of religion. I assume that Catholics like myself who are wondering why so many modern people reject the Church would be very interested to hear a substantial explanation for the emptying of our pews.

When asked "Why do you not come to church?" many of the disaffiliated will point to one of the trademarked criticisms of the Catholic Church (likely because 86% of apatheists and 79% of rejectionists report not spending "much time in their daily life thinking about God or religion," and people do not like to admit they don't know). For example, many will say, "In this day and age, why can't women be priests?" Perhaps this bothers an individual, and she claims it is the reason why she does not attend mass on a weekly basis. But I seriously wonder: if women were suddenly able to become priests, would that individual begin attending mass again? Or, if Catholic Churches started displaying rainbow flags in response to the criticism that the Church is "unwelcoming," would droves of people be crowding into churches again? To begin to answer these questions, we can look to Episcopal or Methodist Churches. Many of them display rainbow flags, and many denominations, "including the Episcopal Church and the United Methodist Church, now allow women to be bishops and hold other top leadership positions." However, in 2019 the Pew Research Center still reported that "both Protestantism and Catholicism are experiencing losses of population share. Currently, 43% of U.S. adults identify with Protestantism, down from 51% in 2009. And one-in-five adults (20%) are Catholic, down from 23% in 2009." If these social issues are so prominent in the minds of Christians, why are they not attending Episcopal or Methodist services? My hypothesis is, again, that these issues are not the problem. So we should endeavor to find out what has drawn Americans away from religion. I think in this case we would be smarter to look at the people themselves rather than the religions they reject for the answers.

My research points to the progressively secularized upbringings of each subsequent generation. A National Review article by Daniel Cox entitled "Stop Blaming Young People for Leaving Religion" explains that "young people are showing the greatest movement away from religion." The next step has been to "focus primarily on the distinctive characteristics of Generation Z and Millennials — things such as their higher rates of educational attainment, their attitudes about sex and sexuality, or their widespread adoption of social media." But, these explanations were left unsubstantiated; "for instance, higher rates of formal education among young adults are unlikely to have contributed to the surge in secular identity given that most young people disaffiliate before they ever step foot on a college campus." These explanations neglect the "single most important predictor of adult religiosity: our religious experiences in childhood." Each successive generation, from Baby Boomers to Generation Z, has "grown up with less formative religious engagement than the one preceding it." 57% of Baby Boomers attended religious services weekly in their childhood, compared to 40% of Generation Z. 61% of Baby Boomers attended Sunday school growing up, while 42% of Generation Z did.  Cox makes the statement: "Young people are leaving a religion they were never particularly connected to in the first place. A 2016 study found that young people cited their family's lack of strong ties to religion as an important reason they no longer belong to a religious group, more so than politics, sex-abuse scandals, or a specific negative experience."

Another interesting fact was that most people disaffiliate before they turn 18. However, the religion of childhood, if one has a traditionally Catholic upbringing, often sounds something like: "my parents tell me to go to church on Sundays and pray before bed and before meals, so I do." Church on Sundays and regular prayers are things that are expected and part of regular living in these increasingly rare families. But when a young man grows into adulthood, I would imagine somewhere around 18, he can now take ownership of his faith more and claim it as his own. In other words, he may now go to church and pray because he chooses to, not because his parents are expecting it of him. Religion becomes less associated with obligation and more associated with a genuine love of God. But without the solid groundwork laid by childhood faith, many Americans are missing out on the spiritual richness of adulthood faith. And, "there is little evidence to suggest that Americans who have disaffiliated will ever return."

 After doing research, I have a much better idea of the real reason for the decline of faith in America, and once the source of a problem is identified, it is much less frustrating and futile finding a solution to it. However, it is very hard for the Church, or any other religious institution, to solve a problem that originates in secular homes. I want to offer my own opinion on possible ways of bringing people back to religion. I begin by thinking, “What in the modern world does hold nearly all people's attention?” Some definite possibilities are movies and shows. Jonathan Rothwell at The New York Times states, "Other than sleeping and working, Americans are more likely to watch television than engage in any other activity." He continues to cite "a new wave of social science research [that] shows that the quality of shows can influence us in important ways, shaping our thinking and political preferences…" That being said, some entertaining TV shows or movies could be written that appeal to a wide audience while also featuring a positive portrayal of religion. If I ever had a doubt about the power of shows to influence thinking or introduce new ways of living into peoples' minds, I remind myself of how the ideologies governing today's world have gotten into the minds of so many young people and adults alike: through media, movies, shows, popular books, celebrities, etc. Perhaps with the added option of a show in which there is a likable character going to Church and practicing his/her faith, young people (and adults) in secular households will be exposed to a way of living that is perhaps foreign to them. It would, for once in mainstream modern entertainment, show religion in a positive light, and get people thinking about it and perhaps consider trying it out themselves.

The Fauci Complex

The one-sided Holy Cross love story continues as President Rougeau announced over email that Anthony S. Fauci, M.D. ‘62, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), will have the Holy Cross Integrated Science Complex named in his honor this coming June. I find this decision to be incredibly premature, and I believe it sets a bad precedent for the future by essentially endorsing individuals before their careers have even been concluded. In the announcement email, President Rougeau also emphasized Holy Cross’s commitment to social justice, which accompanies a number of earlier commitments to anti-racism. Yet, Holy Cross has decided to name another place on campus after a white man, snubbing a notable black alumnus, Clarence Thomas. Fauci has produced questionable Covid-19 policies and is actively involved in certain controversies that are yet to be resolved. His record should be allowed to be scrutinized over time to properly demonstrate what his legacy shall be.

This announcement came far too early as Fauci is still a very active participant in affairs that many would consider partisan. His oversight of US government decision-making during the pandemic has resulted in many questionable decisions that lack substantial reasoning and have no consideration for other factors like mental health and quality of life. I covered this issue more extensively last semester in the Fenwick Review and would advise all those who are interested to read that article. 

Additionally, Fauci is still under substantial scrutiny concerning NIH funding of suspect research overseas, and the possibility of a cover-up is a critical concern at this moment in time. With news stories that look bad for the media's agenda being suppressed and labeled as fake news, most notably the Hunter Biden laptop story,  begs the question if certain right-wing anti-Fauci “conspiracies” are really conspiracies, or reality. If Fauci is untrustworthy, then the media cannot push its Covid agenda. Thus, Fauci’s image must be protected, and stories about Fauci that do not paint him in a good light are labeled as fake news.

One example of a controversy relating to the experiments Fauci’s NIAID has funded involves suspicious use of fetal tissue and its unconfirmed origins. Even though I believe there is still a lot to be explored with these controversies and that they should be taken with a grain of salt, they are concerning nonetheless and deserved to be explored. The first example is that Fauci’s NIAID reportedly gave $400,000 to the University of Pittsburgh to perform an experiment where human fetal skin is grafted on the rib cages of mice to measure the hair growth. Many claim that the skin for the experiment was taken from the scalps of aborted babies. This experiment represents just one of many potential blots on Fauci’s legacy that have yet to be fully examined.

Another example that has been presumably disproved by fact-checkers, yet doubt still remains due to the apparent untruthfulness that the media has displayed in the past, is that Fauci, through the NIAID, sent funding to a lab in Tunisia where inhumane experiments that would not be allowed in the United States were performed on Beagles. In these experiments, beagles’ heads were put in cages to which sand flies were introduced to eat the dogs’ heads. After a bipartisan letter requested answers it was claimed that the NIAID was falsely attributed as a funder of this experiment although skepticism remains. The point here is not that Fauci was complicit in these inhumane actions, but that Fauci is still an evolving figure, whose legacy has not been fully decided yet. Holy Cross should not make any rash decisions for the sake of being able to advertise the Fauci complex on campus tours.

Two larger issues also concern Fauci as a figure of admiration. The first issue is the use of gain-of-function research. During testimony on this subject, Fauci clearly and deliberately lied and misled congress members conducting oversight. The question of the NIAID's use of gain-of-function research was raised by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) in May of last year, where Fauci concretely asserted that “We did not fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.” Gain-of-function research is controversial because it is research that increases the transmissibility and/or virulence of a pathogen, generally involving its transmissibility towards humans, and could result in a virus that could be a pandemic-level threat if done improperly and dangerously. It was not till October 20th of last year that Fauci’s claims were disproved by a letter sent to Congress by the NIH, the parent organization of Fauci’s NIAID, which stated that gain-of-function research was funded and did occur in the Wuhan Institute of Virology by the NIAID. As of April of this year, Rand Paul has noted to the press that 11 yes or no questions related to gain-of-function research were given to Fauci in January that have still not been answered, pointing to a clear case of stonewalling of congressional oversight.

This first controversy segues into the lab leak theory; the second big controversy that will undoubtedly become more clear with time. The lab leak theory postulates that COVID-19 was in some way created in a lab and then somehow released into the public, resulting in the deaths of millions from COVID-19. The concern with Fauci is that his NIAID funded the gain-of-function research that took place on coronaviruses in bats at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and with a bat from Wuhan having been determined to be the origin of the virus, much concern is raised about the possibility of Fauci and the NIAID’s involvement in the creation of COVID-19. While I highly doubt that Fauci and the NIAID deliberately created that COVID-19 virus, the research done in Wuhan with the Chinese scientists under the authority of the Chinese Communist Party raises great concern. Seeing how Fauci lied about the NIAID’s involvement in gain-of-function research, the idea that Fauci may be lying about the origins of COVID-19 to protect himself is concerning and should be given greater scrutiny. Fauci’s legacy is still up in the air, and if internal emails or other evidence are revealed in the future that confirms suspicions about misconduct around experiments that Fauci’s NIAID funded, the College would be in a terrible position.

One might ask why this needed to be done. Did the science complex really even need a name in the first place? If Holy Cross is choosing to set a precedent for naming complexes after currently acting important figures, who have yet to finish their careers, then I request that President Rougeau name the complex consisting of O’Kane, Fenwick, Smith, and the Brooks Concert Hall the Thomas Complex, in order to honor United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Thomas is currently the longest-serving justice on our nation's highest court, having held his position for 30 years and is a Holy Cross Alumni class of 1971, and has had a long career of originalist and textualist interpretation of the constitution. Thomas has rejected the notion of legislating from the bench, unlike other activist judges who seek to make policy through their decisions, and through this has stood up for the rights enshrined in the constitution for three decades.

Through dedicating this building to Justice Thomas, Holy Cross can take a step to make good on its policy of “anti-racism” and social justice by dedicating an unnamed complex to an esteemed and accomplished black civil servant who could give black students on campus representation that a complex named after another white man cannot give. Naming the complex after Justice Thomas would then accompany Healy residence hall as the only other building on campus named after a black man, even though it is noted that Healy identified and passed as white during his lifetime. During his time at Holy Cross, Justice Thomas helped found the Black Student Union on campus and stood up against a racist Holy Cross administration during a walkout to protest unfair treatment. Despite my request, I would rather see that neither man is honored on campus just yet, as the two are still evolving figures, whose legacies can still be shaped dramatically.

All in all, Fauci is fundamentally a political figure at this point in time, just like Justice Thomas, and setting the precedent of naming buildings or complexes after still active figures is a premature action to take. By naming the entire science complex after Fauci, other names within the science complex are minimized, and by using his name, Holy Cross appears to endorse every action that Fauci undertakes, some of which have yet to take place. It is clear that Fauci has done significant work in his field, much of which he should be applauded for, but certain controversies have yet to be resolved, and certain information has yet to be revealed, particularly about the pandemic. In this way, Fauci is still a polarizing figure, and any dedication to him should be postponed until his full history and legacy are made apparent over time.

An Examination of Privilege

At the beginning of March, the chaplain’s office adapted a version of the Ignatian Examen prayer and placed a basket of copies in the chapel. In Jesuit volunteer Maddie Murphy’s rendition of the exercise, each aspect of prayer is directed toward one of today’s most disputed social justice issues – racism. Her hope is that we can use the Ignatian formula to fix the racism that she sees at the core of our society, starting at a spiritual and individual level.

The original Examen is an end-of-day reflection in five stages. First, one places oneself in God’s presence and gives thanks. Second, one says a prayer for grace to understand how God is acting in one’s life. Third, one recalls feelings and moments from the day. Fourth, one reflects on how one handled those moments and feelings. Finally, one makes a general plan that considers what one did well and what one did not do well for reference and improvement the following day. The exercise is concluded with a recitation of the Lord’s Prayer. Murphy reworks these stages so that they are directed towards the healing of our internalized racism and white privilege. She hopes that by revisiting our emotions during moments when we used our white privilege throughout the day, we can change our attitudes towards the sin of all sins and begin to eradicate it within us.

Murphy’s prayer imitates the Ignatian Examen in that it has five stages, but they are all directed towards making “white folk” into “racial allies.” First, where Ignatius calls us to become aware of God’s presence, Murphy invites us to remember the marginalized and recognize “Her” face in the faces of the oppressed. She also asks us to remember the “systems that seek to keep us from loving one another,” that is, the institutionalized racism in our country. Then, instead of saying a prayer for grace, Murphy invites us to reflect on the ways in which we used our white privilege that day. She raises questions like, did we open our ears to the people of color we encountered that day? Didwe make our workplaces as comfortable as possible for those of all cultures? Third, rather than reviewing our day and recalling specific moments and feelings we had, Murphy asks us to remember where we felt negative emotions like fear, anger, and hatred in “reflecting how we utilized our privilege today.”  If we have prejudices we are not aware of, or we remember a time when we felt “discomfort” (towards racism, I suppose), she recommends that we address this feeling and educate ourselves so that we can stand up for the oppressed next time a situation presents itself. In the fourth step of the prayer, where Ignatius tells us to reflect on our feelings from the day, she invites us to recall an opportunity we had to use our privilege to “make or take space” from people of color. She asks us to pray for certain virtues that will apparently help with this issue, like “courage, insight, humility, and self-awareness.” Finally, she essentially tells us to act now, and to look into the next step towards “white allyship,” which may mean joining an activist group or educating ourselves through reliable mediums like books and articles. This step replaces Ignatius’ instruction to look to tomorrow and think of ways to better align ourselves with God’s plan.

A crucial problem that arises when we change a prayer formulated by a great saint so that it fits some preferred ideology is that it quickly loses its spiritual focus. It shifts from its purpose, which is to recenter the hearts of those who pray it towards God. It presents the human person through a narrow lens and deprives the Examen of its introspective qualities. Murphy’s prayer is also quick to assert blame. It magnifies a sin it claims we already have, tells us to humble ourselves, and attempts to motivate us to fix it. Ignatius allows for freedom in self-correction and reflection. He sees human reason for what it is: a powerful God-given tool that we can use to identify our vices as well as our virtues. Upon reflection, we can know ourselves well enough that we can, with the grace of God, improve our lives. By contrast, Murphy’s prayer sounds more like a call to social action than a reflection for spiritual betterment: “Be prepared to translate this spiritual work into concrete, physical actions.”

Murphy’s emphasis also contributes to her prayer’s lack of spiritual nourishment. She occasionally tells us to note what we did well throughout the day, but she wants us to consider in particular what we did wrong. Ignatius, on the other hand, never tells us to focus solely on our faults. He understands that we have to recognize God’s grace in our lives and the virtue He gives us to live out His will.

The Ignatian prayer is universal. It is meant to be meditated upon by all people. When it is directed towards something like eradicating one’s alleged white privilege instead of ordering one’s actions towards God, it is deprived of its universal nature – ironically, making it so that white people are the only population that can pray it. Murphy’s fourth step points directly to this kind of faulty logic. She asks that we remember moments when we “make or take space from people of color.” This is incredibly patronizing. It necessitates using one’s white privilege: it gives power to the white man, suggesting that it is he who must pave the way for people of color.

So, when the Chaplain’s office placed a basket containing copies of Murphy’s prayer in the chapel, we might ask, cui bono? Who stands to gain by it? Murphy’s prayer is not inclusive. It is exclusive towards some members of the Church. It cannot be prayed universally. And universality is one of the key elements of a good prayer, because the ultimate end of prayer is unity and fellowship in Christ. As a Jesuit Catholic college, our students should be encouraged to love and welcome all people. But the College ought to lead by example.

A Talk by the Sisters of Life

On March 29 in the Rehm Library, the Students for Life and the Society of Saints Peter and Paul co-hosted a talk from the Sisters of Life called "Loved and Made to Love." The Sisters of Life, like other Catholic sisters, take vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience; however, they also take an additional vow to "protect and enhance the sacredness of every human life." Though abortion, like much else in our world today, has become a hotbed for angry political debates, the speaker, Sister Maria Regina, spoke about it with such genuine love and gentleness that I could not imagine even her most stark ideological opponent being able to respond angrily to her. Not once did she make a judgmental remark about women who have had abortions, nor about anyone who disagrees with her. Her message was that each person is made to give and receive love. She was able to speak on a contentious issue with a grace that has become very rare.

Sister Maria Regina began her speech by focusing on what it means to be loved and to receive love. In keeping with the Sisters' belief that "every person's life has deep meaning, purpose and worth," she reminded her listeners that God created each one of them, knowing and loving each thing about them. She cited fun traits that God knows and loves like an individual's sense of humor or freckles.

She then told a story about her niece who likes to wear flowing dresses and spin around saying, "Just look at me!" This invitation, Sister Maria suggested, voices the desire of every human heart, a desire that is fulfilled by God. He looks at each person just as parents look at their new born babies: with delight. He must then find ways to communicate this love to us. She shared an anecdote about a friend of the Sisters' who is a priest who was trying to extend a consoling and loving hand to a woman who was feeling down about herself. However, there was a language barrier that made communication more difficult. He made the sign of the cross over her, and from her warm reaction he felt his message was effectively communicated. Sister Maria recalled how the cross is a sign to each person that he is chosen, good, and blessed, and how the priest's efforts mirror those of God as he tries to effectively and creatively communicate to us that we are loved and that we are good.

Following these positive messages, she acknowledged the "mess in the world and in ourselves." Sister Maria recalled that something went wrong in the world, laughing that this statement is perhaps a gross understatement of reality, and that we must now live with real sin and suffering. She continued by saying that God's response to this badness in the world was to take it all upon himself on the cross. Sr. Maria asserted that the cross guarantees two things: that we are loved infinitely, and that we have the capacity to love infinitely.

Sr. Maria then discussed what it means to give love. She began by citing Vatican II: "man cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself." With this paradox in mind, she told a story from her pro-life ministry. Sr. Maria shared that a woman, "we will call her Jenna," was pregnant, and the father of the child as well as her family wanted her to get an abortion. Jenna had an abortion in the past and did not want to suffer through another one, and she came to the Sisters asking if there was another way out. She asked how she would know the Sisters would truly help, and she was put in touch with a woman they had helped before. This woman, who lived with the Sisters during her pregnancy, shared a message with her: "God chose you to be a mother to this child." This message stayed with Jenna, and she had her baby. She was so thankful to the Sisters and to the woman with whom she spoke that she asked to be the one who speaks to the next woman who comes in. Alicia, a 19 year-old whose family was encouraging an abortion, called and spoke to Jenna. Jenna said, "I've made both decisions, and there is not a day that goes by that I do not think about my first baby. You cannot make a decision based on what other people are telling you to do because they forget about it the next day, but you live with it for the rest of your life."

Sister Maria connected this story to the theme of "Loved and Made to Love" because it illustrates how a person can be touched by another's kindness and help, and then feel a desire to extend this same kindness to someone else. Sr. Maria shared a story from when she was in Poland speaking to a young man, and she asked him, “what was the most beautiful thing you have seen?” He responded that it was the mutual giving of the self that he witnessed between his parents when his father was diagnosed with cancer. His mom rearranged the house so it was easier and more comfortable for him to get around, she changed her cooking to fit his dietary needs, etc. He also noticed that his dad was fighting to stay alive more for her than for himself. Sr. Maria pointed out that what we learn from this story is that love does not shy away from the crosses of others: it means leaning in when things get hard. She then referenced Lord of the Rings (the cherry on top of a great talk), saying that Sam shows us this love by telling Frodo, "I can't carry [the ring] for you, but I can carry you." The general message is that we cannot carry the cross of another, but we can help them through it by being loving.

Although the flyers for this pro-life talk incited some skeptical remarks across campus, the talk itself communicated a message of love that was far from insidious or divisive. The message, of course, was directed to a largely Catholic audience; however the general message that one's life is endowed with intrinsic meaning, and that each person is loved and can love, can be applied to anyone's life. The message of the giving of oneself, especially as communicated by the story of the young Polish man’s parents, is another lesson that anyone can hear and be touched by. One last story that beautifully illustrates the giving of oneself is the story of Chiara Corbella Petrillo, frequently called "a saint for our times." She was a young Italian mother who suffered through the death of two of her babies, but still had a third. During her pregnancy, she was diagnosed with cancer. She refused treatment until her son was born because she did not want any harm to come to him. She delivered her son before succumbing to the cancer. She endured great suffering, but is reported as being joyful throughout the suffering because it was for the protection of her child. This story parallels that of the Polish boy because it shows people finding joy even amidst horrible suffering because of love and self sacrifice.  No matter how one feels about abortion, stories like these, and a speech like Sister Maria's, can hopefully be appreciated by anyone because they reveal moments of selfless love in our world.

Sic Transit Gloria Collegii Sancti Crucis

As Alexander V processed from St. Peter’s Basilica during his Papal Coronation, carried on his gestatorial chair, a man fell to his knees before him, holding a smoldering cloth, and reminded the new Holy Father, “sic transit gloria mundi (thus passes the glory of the world).” These words must have served as a chilling reminder to the new Pope, adorned with the Papal Tiara, seated on a rich throne, clothed in luxurious vestments, emerging from the opulently gilded Basilica, that these things, though certainly “glorious,” will pass – as would the new Pope himself. We are dust, remember, and to dust we shall return. So too everything around us will fall to dust.

The College of the Holy Cross, as I see it now, could use this reminder. And so, as I leave Mt. Saint James, I wish to give this to her. I do so, not out of spite and malice, but rather out of love. As Saint Augustine tells us in his Monastic Rule:

Do not consider yourselves unkind when you point out such faults. Quite the contrary, you are not without fault yourselves when you permit your brothers to perish because of your silence. Were you to point out their misdeeds, correction would at least be possible. If your brother had a bodily wound which he wished to conceal for fear of surgery, would not your silence be cruel and your disclosure merciful? 

Holy Cross, as my Alma Mater, has given me many of my greatest memories, my greatest friends, and my greatest share of wisdom. I will always be thankful to her and her faculty, who provided an incomparable opportunity of study, and I will always be thankful to her as the catalyst for my growth in faith and love of God. These are the great goods available at Holy Cross, through Holy Cross. These are the reasons so many of us love her and continue to love her. The fervent love of God and the wisdom of the ages have seeped into the very soil of Mt. Saint James. They will forever live here as long as Holy Cross does.

But, that does not mean our beloved college is without her faults. The College has made a drastic turn down the path of worldly glory, further obscuring these foundational and all important principals. In the pursuit of wealth, her endowment grows as does students’ tuition. Each year we are faced with an exorbitantly high bill for our education that creeps higher and higher, percentage by percentage. The Holy Cross website now lists the cost of attendance, tuition along with room and board and other fees, at $74,980. 

This growth, we are told, is necessary for the goods that the College provides. It is not because they want more money, but because students need more services. It is under the guise of student betterment that the College expands her bureaucracy, draining our bank accounts so that they might flood our emails with correspondence from 82 offices on campus. Only one of these  constitutes the entirety of the academic sector. The other 81 are distinct from the immediate function of the College as an educational institution. I’m not suggesting all these are unnecessary. We need an Admissions office and we need Public Safety. But, do we need both an Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and a distinct Office of Multicultural Education? With each of these offices come more Directors, Deans, and Assistant-Deans. With each of these offices come more programming and responsibilities to justify their existence as distinct departments. With each of these offices comes a greater financial burden to the students.

This financial burden runs counter to the College’s apparent dedication to Social Justice. We are inundated with the message of equity, with the condemnations of privilege, and with calls to service and charity. But, might I contend, what is more inequitable than an elite college driving up her already steep cost of attendance? What is more privileged than sitting on an endowment of $1.04 billion, which, I might add, has only increased since the beginning of the pandemic? And it has been no small increase, but a growth of $254 million from its $785.9 million as reported June 30, 2019. The endowment, more than anything, proves the great farce of the College’s supposed dedication to the underprivileged and impoverished. She twists the Catholic principles of Social Justice and embraces Critical Race Theory to condemn many of her students as perpetrators of privilege, while sitting upon vast sums of money to ensure her own stability into perpetuity. She must maintain this endowment to assure that she survives into the ages to come, as a singularly elite institution among the many in our world. She must reserve these stores of money to continue promulgating a message that aligns with the popular trends of the world, so as to glorify herself in its eyes. She, herself, must be seen “fighting” the injustices of the world, and she needs this money to make sure she’s always here, ready and able to do so.

In this quest for glory, the College has pitted herself against the Holy Catholic Church. Rather than seeing herself as a faithful daughter of the Church, her true mother, she has claimed a position of parallel authority. As a Catholic institution, the College of the Holy Cross holds a privileged position in being able to express and develop the varied and complex teachings of the Catholic Church. She can encourage debate and deepen the understanding of the faithful. There is room for discussion within the bounds of the Catholic Church. However, she has sold the long standing teachings and traditions of the Church for 30 pieces of silver, and instead embraced those beliefs which the World wants the Church to believe. She has antagonized and ignored Bishop McManus in his calls for basic adherence to the Church's teachings on gender, sexuality, and even life; a pride flag hangs from her Chaplains Office, and she has publicly condemned McManus for defending life at all stages. She did not stand by him as students started a petition to disinvite him from graduation. Further, through offices like the McFarland Center she presents a warped view of the Catholic Church as no more than a vehicle for charitable service, committed only to a watered down form of “kindness” and the promulgation of the shallow contemporary view of “diversity.” She fails to address the fact that at a Catholic College, no more than 300 students attend Mass on Sundays. 

It would be daunting to defend the Church and all she teaches in this day and age. No doubt, the College of the Holy Cross has ignored this privileged opportunity in search of acceptance among the world – in search of glory among the world. Indeed, she has sold the very core of her being and mission in order that the world might praise her as progressive. She seeks better statistics, better rankings, better objective quanta by which she might prove herself as important, as elite, as glorious.

But, what has she lost? She has lost the simple, intrinsic beauty that makes each individual a beloved child of God, in exchange for a corrupted view of the individual as an agglomeration of various “identities.” She has lost the quiet, internal joy that sprouts from a life lived in virtue and true contrition for our own sins and failings in exchange for a view of evil that directs us only outwards towards all-encompassing societal ills so that we can ignore our personal vices. She has lost the wealth of knowledge and wisdom passed on to us from generations gone by, in exchange for classes and faculty who seek to destroy and reshape all that has passed into their own creation. She has lost the true glory that comes from turning all things over to Christ, the eternal glory that never fades, in exchange for that worldly glory that will fade in the blink of an eye.

Indeed, despite the College’s purported dedication to her Jesuit identity, she has lost this identity’s cornerstone, which serves as the motto for the Society of Jesus itself: Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam, For the Greater Glory of God.

Though the time when Holy Cross, as all things in this world, must pass into dust has not yet come – the eye of her lifetime has not yet blinked – my time to pass from her grounds has arrived. I leave her with great sadness, both for those things here which I love and for my fears about her future. At the end of Walter Miller’s novel A Canticle for Leibowitz, a contingent of monks leave the earth, tasked with carrying on the Catholic Faith even as the earth meets a nuclear apocalypse. While atom bombs detonate in the distance:

The last monk, upon entering [the spaceship], paused in the lock. He stood in the open hatchway and took off his sandals. "Sic transit mundus," he murmured, looking back at the glow. He slapped the soles of his sandals together, beating the dirt out of them.

In this act, he follows the instruction of Christ missioning his Apostles to go out and spread the Good News in Matthew’s Gospel. Though He gives them the power to heal the sick and cast out demons, He also tells them, “if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town.” The monks leave earth, bringing the Faith and Church of Christ with them, for neither was received on earth; the world neglected God and so destroyed itself. In this twist on the phrase, sic transit gloria mundi, only the world (mundus) passes away, not its glory. The earth’s true glory – the Church of Christ – doesn’t pass, for She will live on in the cosmos through the witness of the monks.

As I leave Holy Cross, I know it’s my time to dust off my sandals. The Catholic Church, in her beauty and greatness, is not fully received here, nor are decent values. As the dust from the Apostle’s sandals would remind those who did not accept Christ of their mortality – that they are dust – and thus hasten them to accept Christ’s message, might this article serve as a similar reminder to Holy Cross. May this article, this dust off my feet, serve not as her condemnation, but fill her heart with repentance and remind her of her dependence on God. Might she remember she is mortal, that her glory will fade. Unless, and only unless, she directs all things Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam. And, might I remember to bring that which is truly glorious with me to the whole world.