A Tribute to Pope Benedict XVI

Disclaimer: An earlier version of this article incorrectly attributed one of Pope Benedict’s quotes to his book The Spirit of the Liturgy, however this quote actually originated from his book God and the World: a Conversation with Peter Seewald. This article has been updated to reflect this correction.

On December 31st, 2022, at the age of 95, Joseph Ratzinger, better known to the world as pope Benedict XVI, and later as Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, reached the last hour of his earthly life. Letting out his last breath, he reportedly said the words “Signore, ti amo” (“Lord, I love you”) before passing into eternal life with the Father. Like any man occupying the heights of power, he was not without controversy. He was loved by many and hated by many others. Still, in light of this, I view his life worthy of remembrance and recognition.

Prior to ascending to the papacy, Ratzinger had made a name for himself as an ardent defender of Catholic orthodoxy. Weathering the tempest in the Catholic Church in the late 20th century, Ratzinger had served as prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (CDF) between 1982 and 2005. He defended the faith by reaffirming Church teachings in numerous declarations and documents. During his tenure as prefect, Pope St. John Paul II selected Ratzinger to oversee the formation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This great corpus helps to articulate the orthodox Catholic faith in concrete terms for everyone to understand.   

He was more than a theologian though; he was also a pastor who sought to make God’s love evident to everyone. In one of his first homilies as pope, Benedict proclaimed without hesitation, “Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.” His first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est (God is Love), expounded the Christian notion of love and showed how the Church can be an instrument of God’s love in the world through charity. In his second encyclical, Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth), which touched on contemporary social issues, Benedict reiterated that God’s love must be paired with God’s Truth. He wrote in the encyclical’s introduction “To defend the truth, to articulate it with humility and conviction, and to bear witness to it in life are therefore exacting and indispensable forms of charity.” For Benedict, defending Truth was showing love. 

Benedict’s life was also deeply liturgical. Somewhat paradoxically, he was born on Holy Saturday, the day we Catholics commemorate Christ dead in the tomb, and he died during the Christmas season, while we celebrate the birth of Christ. He sought to bring the beauty of the Church’s liturgy to everyone. As pope, his Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum declared that all priests of the Latin Rite had the right to say the Traditional Latin Mass, according to the 1962 missal of pope John XXIII, which he declared had never been abrogated. In an interview published in his book God and the World: A Conversation with Peter Seewald he lamented that “Anyone who nowadays advocates the continuing existence of this liturgy [the Traditional Mass] or takes part in it is treated like a leper; all tolerance ends here.” Benedict simply wanted to let those who loved the old liturgy know that they had a place in the Church. 

I think it appropriate that the Holy Cross community remembers Benedict XVI as a fellow crusader. For what was he if not a crusader for truth and love? The life, writings, and deeds of Pope Benedict give witness to the incarnation and the love God gave the world through his Son, Jesus Christ.

The Little Prince of Great Peace

“For a child has been born for us, a son given to us; authority rests upon his shoulders; and he is named Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” -Isaiah 9:6

Every convert to Catholicism had a few things that took a while to fully make sense. For me, one of these was devotion to the Child Jesus. The image, common to the cradle Catholic (and sometimes in a cradle himself), was completely foreign to me outside of the Christmas Season. As I wrestled with, and surrendered to, Marian veneration, the Papacy, and transubstantiation, I continued to dismiss the yearlong devotion to the Christ Child as a Catholic quirk, a vestige of the Middle Ages.

Consider the Child of Prague. You will find Him on grandmothers’ mantles, in basement chapel corners, and among the porcelain dolls at Goodwill. A figure of the Child Jesus in full regalia, often wearing a crown larger than his own head. His popularity raises the question: why? Why pray to the child Jesus when you could simply pray to the adult one? No one supposes that Jesus sits at the Right Hand of the Father in toddler form. Is this depiction not also historically inaccurate? Christ was surely venerated as a king from birth, but the notion that He crawled around Egypt dressed as the king of hearts is dubious at best. What, then, does the Child of Prague, and devotion to the Child Jesus more broadly, have to offer modern Catholics?

The Child Jesus surely reminds us of Christ’s humanity, and the innocent appearance of a child demands innocence from us, but this devotion also reveals social truths. When we dress the Child Jesus like a monarch, we remind ourselves that the driving force of a rightly ordered society is service to the weak. Christ tells Saint Paul that “power is made perfect in weakness” (2 Corinthians 12:9). This is why He identifies Himself with the socially weak, the poor, in Matthew 25, and why Saint Paul says He took “the form of a slave” when He became man. It is no coincidence that He took this form as a child first. Children are the weakest among us. Throughout the Old Testament, God and the Hebrew authors lament the practice of child sacrifice as the particularly defiling sin of the gentile nations. In our own nation, we have killed over 63 million children in the womb since 1973. Then and now, this sin defiles entire societies because it is a complete inversion of what society is for. It is the victimization of the weaker to serve the stronger.. When Christ is born, He is vulnerable to this danger immediately, as shown when King Herod orders His death. The social message of the Child Jesus, then, is clear. If we want to build a nation that serves Christ, it must serve the weak.

The Prophet Isaiah’s “peaceful kingdom” is the model of this. He writes, “The wolf shall live with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the kid, the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them… The nursing child shall play over the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put its hand on the adder’s den.” (Isaiah 11:6, 8). The peace between the weak and strong animals in this kingdom is perfected by the presence of the child. He, the weakest, need not fear danger, because the animals’ power is directed to his service. This is the essence of social peace, hence the peacemakers are called “children of God” (Matthew 5:9). When we let the Christ Child lead us, He leads us to this peace.

The Child Jesus also demands responsibility and virtue by reminding us of our role in creation more broadly. The Catholic agrees with the environmentalist (and the Catholic environmentalist rejoices at the fact) that we create the world our children receive. In Genesis, God tasks Adam, the master and steward of creation, with tilling and keeping the ground and naming the animals. In doing so, Adam participates in God’s creative act; he helps create the world that Eve, and all generations after, will receive. All human work fits into this formula. Like Adam, we receive the world from above, we shape it, then we give it to those below. It is our responsibility to shape the world in a way pleasing to God. This principle is at the heart of Catholic Social Teaching, as it is the origin of human power and responsibility. It is what Saint Paul means when he writes, “those authorities that exist have been instituted by God (Romans 13:2), and what Jesus means when He says to Pilate, “you would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above” (John 19:11).

As this principle applies to the islands of trash that our children will inherit, and the social order they will be born into, it also applies to the world, or worldview, of each individual child. A child who does not know right from wrong, or truth from falsehood, receives the world as we give it to him. No one can escape this responsibility. Children are like sponges. All you do around a child will create his world. If you sin, his world is sinful. If you lie, his world is false. Sin and falsehood will become to the child like water to a fish. The child, then, serves the unique, Christlike role of receiving our world. In light of this, the figure of the Christ Child is ironically eschatological. In the end, when Christ receives the world that we have helped to create, He will be filling this “childish” role. Therefore, in “Alpha and Omega” fashion, the Child Jesus serves as a potent reminder of not only the Incarnation, but also the Second Coming. He reminds us that we are, in fact, creating the world we inhabit, physically and socially, and that we will be held accountable for how we have done so.

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.