Hell-ywood: The Role of Entertainment in Social Erosion

On February 5, 2023, singer and songwriter Sam Smith decided to take the mask off the entertainment industry by dressing up as Satan and performing alongside dancers wielding BDSM gear as props with red lights and flames to match. The performance quickly drew ire from individuals who derided it as “Satanic” and reminiscent of the “End of Days.” Others took note of the song’s praise of Balenciaga, the now notorious fashion brand which drew fire for an ad campaign featuring children holding teddy bears dressed in sexualized clothing and bondage gear. While Smith may have breached a boundary by outing the entity which many in entertainment truly serve — while degrading already abysmal standards of entertainment in the process — the unfortunate truth is that the entertainment industry has been undermining social integrity in America almost since its inception.

Such was the subversive nature of modern entertainment that one of the first actions taken by concerned entertainment insiders and members of the public was to attempt the setting of internal and external guidelines for the industry. Driven by a number of high profile scandals, the Motion Picture Code was put into effect in 1930 in order to more effectively regulate the content of motion pictures. The code, drafted by Jesuit Fr. Daniel Lord and Catholic layman Martin Quigley, contained a general set of guidelines prohibiting depictions of explicit sexuality and social deviance, while encouraging the depiction of correct morals and respect for law and order. In addition to the enforcement of the code, the National Legion of Decency — a Catholic organization dedicated to identifying and protesting morally questionable pictures — encouraged moviegoers to avoid pictures which it deemed inappropriate. While neither the Motion Picture Code nor the Legion of Decency were entirely perfect in their assessment of motion picture morality, they provided a critical moral bulwark in the realm of popular entertainment.

With the disappearance of the National Legion of Decency and the elimination of the Motion Picture Code, film and television have been left to push the boundaries of moral decency with near-impunity. Restrictions of on-screen intimacy and immoral conduct have given way to nudity and sex scenes that are borderline pornographic in nature. Furthermore, criminal conduct is glamorized, and serial killers like Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer have become icons of recent true crime films and television series.

Meanwhile, the music industry has undergone an equal level of moral and compositional degradation. A 2008 study conducted by Heriot-Watt University found that popular music has become less melodically complex over time, which has translated into diminished creativity by listeners. Meanwhile, pop lyrics have become as ribald as they are stale, with Cardi B’s “WAP” and Miley Cyrus’ “We Can’t Stop” graphically encouraging promiscuity and other base behaviors. Sixty years ago, Elvis Presley drew a storm of controversy for his allegedly provocative onstage hip swiveling and footwork. At present, Megan Thee Stallion performed in a skin-tight bodysuit and put on an extended twerking display on national television without so much as an eyebrow raised in the public sphere.

The degradation of social mores onscreen and on the air is proving to have very real consequences for American society. Perhaps the best known example of the impact of entertainment on American moral perceptions is the “Will and Grace Effect.” The eponymous show was one of the first to portray homosexuals in a prominent role, an intentional choice by its writers who were seeking to normalize homosexuality among the American public. The show was massively successful in this regard, with American support for gay marriage dramatically increasing during the show’s runtime, with then-Vice President Joe Biden stating that he was one of the show’s many pro-gay converts.

It may be tempting for individuals on the right to dismiss the corruption and social rot in the entertainment industry as par for the course, or merely a matter of parental control over screens. Yet, the ubiquity of both debased shows and music renders such a dismissal hollow. Unless the entertainment industry undergoes a true transformation, exposure to morally degrading content is an inevitability, and social and moral deviancy will continue to become normalized. Of course, a return to the Motion Picture Code is near impossible, as the entrenchment of cultural degradation has been so profound in Hollywood that a re-adoption of the code would almost certainly never come to fruition. The solution, therefore, must come from the consumer. Conservatives should endeavor to view more media propagated by like-minded actors, musicians, and companies, while simultaneously reducing their consumption of media from groups that oppose their moral interests. In lieu of an overarching Legion of Decency, Catholics and conservatives can work together on a smaller scale with individuals from their communities to coordinate their efforts toward changing entertainment. By taking these initial steps, conservatives can begin the process of reforming the entertainment industry.

The Dangers of TikTok

In April 2020, a few of my friends finally convinced me to download TikTok. It is characteristic of me to be woefully behind on social trends — an example being that I did not download Instagram until my junior year of high school. Since I was already so disconnected from my friends due to the COVID-induced lockdowns at the time, I relented and downloaded the app — and what a mistake that was! I instantly found myself being bombarded with videos of all kinds: recipes, dance trends, comedy shorts, and many other types of content. One addicting thing about TikTok is the strategically-catered variety of content it offers. The app’s algorithm learns what you like scarily quickly and subsequently recommends similar videos in order to keep you interested. I, along with many other Americans who downloaded the app during the Pandemic, became TikTok addicts. Eventually, however, the whirlwind that was TikTok became too much for me, and I deleted the app over a year ago. At first, it was difficult to not have the option to distract myself from the day’s activities by going on TikTok since I had grown so accustomed to it. However, at this point in my life, I have now become so alienated from the world of TikTok that I forget it exists unless someone mentions it to me. So that begs the question: “Why am I writing this article?”

In mid-December, 2022, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) introduced a bipartisan bill that would ban TikTok from operating in the United States, citing serious concerns about TikTok’s ties to China. Even though TikTok itself operates within the U.S., its parent company, ByteDance, is required by Chinese law to make data from TikTok available to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Therefore, many American lawmakers are fearful that the private information of American citizens is being abused by the CCP due to TikTok’s ties to ByteDance. Additionally, Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) introduced and helped pass a ban on TikTok on government devices. This bill was unanimously passed in the Senate, but still needs to pass the House of Representatives. However, the fact that it was unanimously passed in the Senate is telling; why would lawmakers so vehemently want to ban TikTok on government devices but not provide the same type of security to regular citizens? 

To be clear, banning TikTok is not a new endeavor. Some may remember that, back in 2020, the Trump administration also sought to ban TikTok in the United States. President Trump actually signed an executive order that banned TikTok from the app store that mentioned the concerns about TikTok’s apparent lack of privacy and the CCP connection. The executive order was immediately challenged for a multitude of reasons, one being that people were willing to give ByteDance and the CCP the benefit of the doubt. This assertion ignores the fact that the data belonging to regular American citizens were not private at all. One may actually find explicit evidence of this in TikTok’s own terms of service, which reads in part, “We automatically collect certain information from you when you use the Platform, including internet or other network activity information such as your IP address, geolocation-related data, unique device identifiers, browsing and search history (including content you have viewed in the Platform), and Cookies.” Despite this concerning admission of questionable privacy ethics, the Biden administration reversed the ban on TikTok in June 2021, with President Biden saying that he would resolve the problem in a “different way.” However, he has not taken any action on the issue during the course of his presidency, which is why Congress is taking the problem into their own hands. 

On top of the concerns about privacy, TikTok is dangerous for mental health reasons. A study was published in mid-December 2022 that exposed how TikTok intentionally recommends content that supports self-harm and eating disorders to young viewers. In the study, researchers set up fake TikTok accounts where they posed as 13-year-old users interested in content about body image and mental health. Within 2.6 minutes after joining the app, TikTok’s algorithm recommended them suicidal content, and eating disorder content was recommended within just 8 minutes. Additionally, over the course of this study, researchers found 56 TikTok hashtags hosting eating disorder videos that collectively had over 13.2 billion views. The CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, Imran Ahmed, said, “TikTok is able to recognize user vulnerability and seeks to exploit it. It’s part of what makes TikTok’s algorithms so insidious; the app is constantly testing the psychology of our children and adapting to keep them online.”

Ultimately, it is undeniable that TikTok encourages degeneracy and is bad for the mental health of our citizens, but that is not reason enough to ban an app. However, it is paramount for the Federal government to get involved in the issue due to the national security threat that the app poses to us as citizens and to the United States as a country. Therefore, if you do not have a New Year’s resolution yet, here is a challenge: if you have TikTok, delete it as soon as possible, and if you do not have it, never fall to its temptations.

A License to Kill

There has been a growing movement pushing for the legalization and societal acceptance of assisted suicide that does not restrict itself to national boundaries. This phenomenon of euthanasia based on consent degrades human dignity by making life’s value wholly subjective. There is no logical limit to assisted suicide when it is allowed, as has been seen in practice in several countries. There is only one answer to this sinister threat that is tearing apart our respect for human existence, to radically value and defend all human life unconditionally.

The most prominent example of this growing culture of death can be seen in Canada. In 2015, the Canadian Supreme Court overturned legal precedent by declaring that there exists a human right to assisted suicide in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Following this ruling, physician-assisted suicide was legalized for patients (or victims) with terminal diagnoses through the Medical Assistance in Dying program (MAiD). Soon after, this law was expanded to include all Canadians with a “grievous and irremediable medical condition.” The next step in this logical progression has occurred but is temporarily delayed due to popular outcry. Originally intended for 2023 but coming into effect next year, it will make mentally ill people with no other medical conditions be assisted in committing suicide, essentially creating suicide on demand.

This torrent of laws legitimizing and allowing euthanasia in Canada has destroyed, harmed, and threatened the lives of many Canadians. Every day twenty-seven Canadians commit suicide with the approval and support of a physician. One example of the effect of these new laws is the case of Alan Nichols. Nichols was placed on suicide watch at his local hospital by concerned relatives, but while in the hospital he was assisted by physicians in his own suicide by citing “hearing loss” after refusing to wear his cochlear implant. Randy Obenauer, a seventy-four-year-old man, apparently would cry while cleaning his catheter. After his friends tried to obtain assistance for him, authorities asked if he was interested in the MAiD program instead. Several veterans seeking assistance from the Canadian Veteran Affairs program were offered MAiD as an alternative to psychological and medical help. Canadian society has become unfortunately very comfortable with suicide, but it does not end with Canada.

Many countries in Europe have legalized assisted suicide. Germany has gone the farthest, with a 2020 German Supreme Court case establishing that every autonomous individual had the right to suicide and governmental assistance in that suicide. Otherwise, in Germany’s view, the fundamental human right to choose would be deprived from its citizenry. In the United States, eleven states allow physician-assisted suicide. Oregon has been the pioneering state in this regard, recently making it legal even for out-of-state residents to obtain suicide services. The Massachusetts legislature currently has a bill legalizing assisted suicide that Governor Maura Healey seems inclined to sign if passed. As grim as this story is, many will question why the state should force someone to live, especially those who are terminally ill.

Many people support the legalization of euthanasia for those who are terminally ill, with recent polling at 72% in favor in the United States. But this justification for suicide is flawed and damaging to human dignity. The value of human life is not dependent on a medical diagnosis. Someone who is diagnosed with a terminal illness is not somehow less deserving of rights than someone who is healthy. The objective delineation between the terminally ill and the healthy is in the end arbitrary, as the human condition is ultimately terminal. Rather, the reason many sympathize with the terminally ill is the pain, both emotionally and physically, caused by such a devastating medical condition.

Extreme pain, emotionally and physically, can make life seem undesirable and too much of a burden for those afflicted with it. It becomes a struggle to do even the most basic tasks, and the chronic suffering can wear people down. Even the strongest amongst us would struggle with conditions such as depression or cancer. But once again, pain does not diminish the value of human life. Just because one loses the will to live, does not mean that living is unimportant. To prove this, I must ask an uncomfortable question that too many reading this are unfortunately familiar with. If your friend, who was in great suffering, came to you and confessed they were suicidal or actively intended to commit suicide, what would you do? Most people would try to comfort and support their friend in every way they can and do their best to ensure their friend gets help. Almost nobody would attempt to assist their friend in this horrible act. Some may consider that friend unable to consent properly due to their mental anguish, but how is their anguish significantly different from that experienced by the terminally ill? A lack of hope and belief in life is what drives people to this dark path, and we should do everything we can to prevent them from falling down it.

Regardless of religious belief or lack thereof, we all know deep inside that life is a gift to be preserved. We know this in the same way that we know the rays of a dawning sun are beautiful and the sounds of a bird singing are musical. It has become easy to forget this simple fact while living in the modern world. We can seem so small and insignificant when compared to the billions of humans that cover this planet. Our identity is often devalued to just our GPA and what we contribute to GDP. Our lives can seem to become just hours of unremitting work and endless scrolling through social media. But life continues, and we must continue to live it as long as we are allowed to. There is a battle to be fought for human life without exception in the halls of power, behind podiums, and on television. But first, it has to be fought within each of ourselves and our relationship with others. Our current crisis of euthanasia is only enabled by a society that has grown callous to the amazing mystery and beauty of human existence. We must remember and believe in this universal truth, that life is worth living.

Letter From the Editors, November 2022

Dear Reader,

Thank you for picking up the newest edition of The Fenwick Review!  This semester has so far been filled with controversy as uproar across campus erupted over social media posts from our publication’s Instagram account.  While we never apologize for raising questions of political and cultural relevance, it is never our aim to make others feel unwelcome or unsafe on campus.  Rather, we aim to provoke free and open dialogue concerning such issues, often challenging the popular narrative, and it is within our right and responsibility to do so.

In lieu of the controversy surrounding the Review’s social media posts, a theme has emerged for this edition: dialogue.  This theme was not pre-planned, but happened to be a connecting thread of all our pieces that manifests both our publication’s mission and the Holy Cross mission.  With this dialogue comes a responsibility to respect one another enough to set aside pre-judgments and recognize that all of us have souls that are valued by our Creator — souls He wishes to be saved. 

Therefore, we invite Crusaders of all kinds to engage with our articles, whether you agree with them or not, and encourage you all to have peaceful and respectful conversations with your friends, families, and colleagues concerning the issues we raise in this edition of The Fenwick Review.

God bless,

Evan Poellinger & Anthony Cash, Co-Editors-in-Chief

The Hypocrisy of Affirmative Action

On Halloween day, President Rougeau sent an email to the employees, Jesuits, and students of the College of the Holy Cross with the subject header, Today’s Supreme Court Hearings on Affirmative Action. In it, he discussed his administration’s reaction to the two ongoing Supreme Court cases challenging affirmative action: Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard University. President Rougeau stated that in August the college had joined fifty-six other Catholic institutions of higher education to sign an amicus brief in support of affirmative action. He defended affirmative action, saying that the importance it puts on race fulfills the desire for diversity at colleges and universities. However, President Rougeau and higher education as a whole are mistaken for their faith in race-based admissions. Affirmative action is not only discriminatory, but also only provides a thin façade of the diversity that universities desire.

The discriminatory nature of affirmative action becomes clear when considering its effects Asian Americans. Asian American applicants have to score much higher on the national standardized tests than students of other ethnicities. In the Supreme Court case Student for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, evidence was presented suggesting that without the existence of a race-based admissions regime, Asian American enrollment at Harvard could increase by fifty percent. But this discrimination is not new; the United States has a long and checkered past with Asian Americans. The Chinese Exclusion Act was the first immigration ban based on race in the United States. Following the Spanish-American War, the Philippines was conquered, with its population being described by government officials as uncivilized and unclean. During the Second World War, Japanese Americans were forced into internment camps by the FDR administration. As seen in the historical record, affirmative action is merely another instance of violations of the equal protection guaranteed to Asian Americans by the Fourteenth Amendment. This is a cost many administrators and bureaucrats are willing to make Asian Americans pay.

Many academics, including President Rougeau, who are supportive of race-based admissions argue that this program is necessary for increasing diversity at universities. To be fair to these proponents, there is much to value about diversity. It allows for greater tolerance and understanding across the nation, as citizens of varied beliefs and worldviews connect and discuss for a better tomorrow. Growing from interacting with peers who are different from oneself is a valuable experience. These dynamics lead to a competition of ideas in which the most robust stand, strengthening our nation. But diversity for diversity’s sake, especially racially-focused diversity, is severely flawed and limiting.

Centering attention on race as a measure for diversity is foolish and fruitless. Professor Roland G. Fryer Jr of the Economics Department at Harvard wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post that scathingly describes the limitation of racial college admissions: “Seventy-one percent of Harvard’s Black and Hispanic students come from wealthy backgrounds.” He continues to explain that despite African immigrants and their children only consisting of ten percent of the Black population in the US, they make up forty-one percent of Black students in the Ivy League. This evidence shows the arbitrary nature of these racial definitions crafted by government bureaucrats decades ago. The fact that Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Indians, and many others are grouped together as “Asians” according to the federal government is nonsensical, even ignoring the myriad of ethnic identities underneath national identities in Asia. Perhaps even more egregious, those Americans who originate or are descended from countries in the geographical regions of North Africa and the Middle East are all considered “White” by the government, despite the gulf in the histories and treatment of those immigrants and ones from the continent of Europe. True diversity, the diversity that is valuable to higher education and the formation of well-rounded citizens, cannot be derived from the artificial divisions of people into ethnic groups.

The only diversity that matters is a diversity of thought. Diversity of race, upbringing, and class are only important to the quality of a university’s education inasmuch as they influence the thought of an individual. The progressive march of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion offices across campuses that exist under the regime of affirmative action has not encouraged a broadening of thought that leads to a fruitful exchange of ideas. Rather, a plague of cancel culture has swept across the colleges and universities of the United States, and onto the rest of the Western world. The National Association of Scholars counted two hundred fifty-five academic cancellations. Even liberal publications have acknowledged this issue, with The Guardian reporting that sixty-one percent of English students in 2022 wanted to “ensure that all students are protected from discrimination rather than allow unlimited free speech”, a steep increase from thirty-seven percent in 2016. Academia’s obsession with race has led to a perversion of its understanding of diversity, harming itself and society as a whole.

Ultimately, affirmative action is a discriminatory race program that violates the Fourteenth Amendment and harms universities. Contrary to what is stated in the opinion of President Rougeau and the amicus brief signed by the College of the Holy Cross, affirmative action is fundamentally flawed and dangerous to the continuation of the liberal arts tradition. The arbitrariness with which it divides the student body is not only unjust but poisonous to the goals of Catholic higher education. A serious reconsideration of values and policies is necessary regarding affirmative action at Holy Cross and campuses across the nation.  As Governor Ron DeSantis said, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

A Catholic's Duty

I am Catholic. I grew up in an Irish Catholic family in an Irish Catholic town. I am strong in my faith and am grateful for the meaning that it gives my life and the lives of those around me. My Catholic faith builds a foundation which allows me to love others and God, to seek opportunities to become a better person, and to help others find their own paths to salvation.

In recent times I have found myself vacillating between the opinions of parties regarding many questions in politics, social issues, and individual freedoms and obligations. The confusion that often stems from what I know to be true as is told in the Bible and in church teachings, as is told by the opinions of fellow lay people, and as has been made clear to me through intuition, experience, and reflection. 

Most issues in our world have become so polarized that any remark of opinion leads to the alienation of individuals involved, and so those left who seek opportunities to express their views either do so for attention, feelings of power, or money. Of course, there are some dedicated people who state their opinions as a virtue of ability; they believe that their involvement in political discourse is altruistically derived and isn’t only bred from their satisfaction in getting their opponents “rekt” or “owned”.

Much of modern American politics has become nothing more than boastful gossip, judgment unto others taken from the lofty soapbox of infinite information which we now hold in our hands. Even at Holy Cross, resentment has been bred from arrogant judgments; I have personally witnessed such vehement hatred coming from those who associate with both parties that I am hesitant to write an article about politics for this column, as it may turn my peers against me. But as Christ said “Do not judge, so that you may not be judged,” we too must seek objectivity in our actions and opinions lest we stray from His will. “For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.  Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?” (Matthew 7:1-7:3)

How does this apply? you may ask. How can politics function without proper judgment and trial? While it’s true that only through thorough reasoning and debate can we develop sound, objective, and principled arguments, that’s not to say that what’s acceptable in political debate is appropriate elsewhere. Freedom of speech doesn’t protect us from others’ freedom to regard us, so don’t think that it’s your freedom of speech being challenged when grandma asks you to stop talking about it and enjoy your thanksgiving dinner (even if your uncle across the able is so disillusioned in your eyes that it hurts to shut up).

The same goes for social media platforms. Corporations don’t care about what you have to say or whether it is misaligned with their values and beliefs. They’re in it for the money, and so companies will silence whomever they believe to be contrary with the majority of users so as to make them “feel better,” more entitled and more complacent in their little online lives, and thus loyal to their provider.

A problem facing our world today is that we don’t have an appropriate forum on which to project our views. Behind a screen, users don’t have the same social penalty that they do when interacting with others in person. This coupled with the ease of access to information that supports their views (and, subsequently, the ease to disregard information which challenges them) polarizes users in virtual echo chambers, littered with misinformation and hate.

And so in the reflection of our justified judgmentalism, how do we find ourselves in the throes of a system where healthy debate becomes slander, where arrogance and entitlement becomes virtue? I have neither the wisdom nor word count to solve these issues in this article, yet I hope that you as the reader consider the consequences of the means by which you use slander, provocation, or casting of judgment onto those with whom you disagree in the name of righteousness, especially involving individuals who are vulnerable.

Returning to our Catholic and Jesuit identity, it is our duty as Christ’s disciples to uphold our covenant, and above all as we know which is the Greatest Commandment: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind,” and that which is equally important: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Mark 12:29-31)

And as it was made clear that “to love one’s neighbor as oneself,’... is much more important than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices,” (Mark 12:33) we must understand that no defense of an issue of political matter is higher an offering to God than our expression of love for and with others. As Catholics, we are called to love each other before we express how we think that another’s actions are immoral. Because in doing so we are not acting according to God’s will to love our neighbor, and it makes it kind of difficult to love someone if they’re attacking your beliefs and values right off the bat, no matter the other person’s intentions.

So then as a Catholic, I believe that no teaching in our catechism should be an excuse for us to not love our neighbor as ourselves. Just as we no longer hold ourselves obligated to ancient ceremonial law, we should understand that the priority of Christ’s coming was to provide us each with an opportunity to find salvation through the love we have for each other and for God. We must use our gift of love as an instrument of unity and understanding before we can use it to enlighten others. As the world deals with its bleak issues of suffering, war, and hatred, we as Catholics must hold ourselves to be the peacemakers, loving and accepting each other for who we are despite all else.

A Testimony of the Extraordinary

“What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.  It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.” - Pope Benedict XVI 

On February 17th, 2022, I experienced my first Traditional Latin Mass (TLM), sometimes called the extraordinary form. This was not on any special feast day nor was it a majestic Sunday high Mass, it was a simple Thursday low Mass at 6 pm at The Shrine and Parish of the Holy Innocents in New York City. 

I opened the doors of the church and was hit with the intense smell of incense as I proceeded into the dimly lit church. I was immediately struck with the sensation that this was something different, profound, and holy. I performed a deep bow towards the altar and immediately noticed how crowded the church was, full with people from all backgrounds and of all ages. 

The priest came before the altar and began reciting the preparatory prayer at the foot of the altar; I had no idea the Mass had started. All I could hear was the faint whispers of the priest amidst the otherwise silent church, the perfect space for meditative and contemplative prayer. I kept my eyes fixated on the priest and the altar, watching every movement. As the Mass continued I was totally lost for I had no missal or guide to help me through the Mass, but this ultimately mattered little. Comprehension of the readings, though incredibly important, was only secondary to what was of primary importance. What was primarily important was the adoration of our Lord; the recognition that I am a created being and God is the creator who is omnipotent, omniscient, and all good and glorious. 

When it came time for the consecration, I knelt in awe staring at the consecrated host, whispering “my lord, my God” as I had heard was the custom at the TLM. When it was time to go up to the communion rail I knelt and received on the tongue for the first time, another profound act of adoration that I did not know until now. After the reading of the last gospel, the Mass had ended and all I could feel was this spirit of awe at what I had witnessed. For the first time in my life I felt the total theocentricity of the liturgy, I felt in awe at the sacrifice I had just witnessed, and I felt compelled to return to this Mass. 

Two Sundays later, I ventured back to Holy Innocents to experience my first high Mass, this time equipped with a daily missal, comprehension was no longer a concern. The experience was even more divine, from the beautiful Gregorian chant to the use of incense. I knew I needed to find a parish near me that offered the Traditional Mass. A short Google search led me to discover St. Mary’s parish in Norwalk CT, about a 40 minute drive from my house. Over the summer, when my Sunday mornings finally freed up, I drove down to St. Mary’s to present myself at their majestic 10 am solemn high Mass. After a few weeks I felt I had achieved a peaceful stability in my spiritual life thanks to the spiritual nourishment of the TLM. I even began to attend weekday low Masses when I could. 

There is no more glorious way to start Sunday morning than hearing the cantor sing “asperges me (thou shalt sprinkle me)” to which the choir joins in chanting “Domine, hyssopo et mundabor; lavabis me et super nivem dealbabor… (with hyssop, O Lord, and I shall be cleansed; Thou shalt wash me, and I shall be made whiter than snow)” as the priest, adorning his cope, sprinkles holy water on you and the other congregants. The TLM acquires its significance because it is ancient, distinct, and awe-inspiring. Its divine simplicity is unlike anything else we encounter in the world because the Mass is not entirely of this world; it is the meeting of heaven and earth.  

The use of the Latin language in the liturgy, to borrow a term from Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, creates a “sonic iconostasis.” This reminds everyone that we have entered into a sacred space, a space set apart for God. The TLM is an invitation to more seriously encounter the sacred and to step out of the world for a moment and into the love of God. 

At the TLM there is no mistake for why you are there. You are not there just to sing hymns, socialize after Mass, or even to learn a biblical lesson, although these are all desirable and admirable. You are there to witness the unbloodied sacrifice of our Lord at Calvary. Nothing on earth is more important than that sacrifice, nothing on earth will ever be more important than that sacrifice.

As I mentioned earlier, the TLM concludes with the Last Gospel, John 1:1-14: “In the beginning was the word…and the word became flesh.” It has been noted that the recitation of John’s prologue beautifully harmonizes the two parts of the Mass: the Mass of the Catechumens, in which we encounter Christ through the words of scripture, and the Mass of the Faithful, where we encounter Christ in the flesh via the Eucharist. I am forever grateful for the TLM for fueling my spiritual journey as a Catholic by bringing me closer to the sacrifice of Christ, our King, our Redeemer, and our Savior. Ite, missa est (go forth, it has been sent).

Letting That Sink In: Elon Musk and Free Speech on Social Media

On October 26, 2022, SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk walked into Twitter headquarters in San Francisco carrying a sink basin, posting a video of his dramatic entrance with the caption. “Let that sink in!” One day and one particularly egregious dad-joke later, Musk officially became the owner of Twitter. Before the day was over, CEO Parag Agrawal, CFO Ned Segal, and policy chief Vejaya Gadde were all sent packing, and on October 31, Musk dissolved Twitter’s board of directors, making him Twitter’s only director. While heads are already exploding on the left side of the aisle over Musk’s takeover and terminations, a good house cleaning at Twitter may be precisely the change that the right has needed with regard to social media.

Social media has generally been notorious for censorship, but Twitter stands near the peak of ideological restrictiveness. Prominent conservative accounts have been either temporarily suspended or permanently banned from the site for transgressing Twitter’s nebulous and often biased conduct policy. Notable accounts banned include Jordan B. Peterson, Project Veritas founder and journalist James O’Keefe, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, and, most infamously, President Donald Trump. More egregious still, Twitter censored key stories pertaining to the authenticity of Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop and the questionable efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine and lockdown measures.

Lest anyone come to the conclusion that the bans were not driven by an ideological impetus, Twitter staff ranging from executives to low-level workers have openly expressed a dramatically left-wing worldview. In 2010, future Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal brazenly tweeted “If they are not gonna make a distinction between Muslims and extremists, then why should I distinguish between white people and racists.” Former Twitter CEO and co-founder Jack Dorsey established in an interview that conservative employees at Twitter often did not feel comfortable expressing their opinions publicly in the office. With a CEO devoted to identity politics and an echo chamber environment favorable only to left-wing ideas, is it any wonder that the Twitterati became the principal arm of leftist ideological enforcement on social media?

It is increasingly apparent that left-wing stranglehold on the social media landscape is a threat to freedom of expression and presents the prospect of interfering with the American system of government itself. On October 31, the Department of Homeland Security was forced to release a cache of documents revealing an elaborate scheme by the agency to expand its control over social media platforms. Among DHS’ priorities were finding ways to restrict and eliminate what the department termed “misinformation,” which has come to be defined as a catch-all for any sort of opinion or disinformation which conflicts with the mainstream narrative. DHS took a particularly strong stance on alleged misinformation pertaining to the pandemic, withdrawal from Afghanistan, “racial justice,” and the 2020 election, and, during the latter event, used its reach to flag numerous posts it found to be problematic in order to demand their removal. The leaks present a bleak picture of social media’s future, a future in which the government is empowered by partisan companies to dictate what is acceptable within online discourse.

Musk’s acquisition of Twitter presents the possibility of a fresh start for social media as a medium. While Musk does have a prior track record of supporting Democratic candidates, he is a businessman first and foremost, and a platform with a reputation for censorship makes for bad business. In addition, Musk has not been shy about expressing his support for freedom of speech, going so far as to call himself a “free speech absolutist.” Accordingly, it is safe to expect that Musk will throw his support behind the downtrodden and maligned right-wing voices on Twitter and begin the process of dissolving Twitter’s excessive restrictions.

Of course, Musk faces an uphill battle should he choose to undertake this endeavor. Shortly after Musk’s acquisition of Twitter, the notoriously partisan and censorship-friendly Anti-Defamation League first sought to coerce Musk into working with them in order to find new ways of curtailing free speech on Twitter. When this failed to materialize, the ADL went on the offensive against Musk, demanding that advertisers boycott the website and castigated Musk for what they perceived to be a failure of leadership.

Still, all is not lost. On November 10, two prominent Twitter executives left the company over differences with Musk. One of those executives was Yoel Roth, the senior director of trust and safety, who was heavily in favor of incorporating additional restrictions on the platform and has a history of left-wing partisanship, even going so far as to refer to Trump supporters as “Nazis.” With Roth gone, it would seem that Twitter has lost one of its most vociferous speech arbiters. While Twitter has not yet emerged as a bastion of free expression, under Musk’s unorthodox leadership, it seems the worst of the site’s censorship rats are fleeing the ship.