The Unraveling of Catholic Marriage

For better or for worse, dating and marriage in the United States has been transformed since the early twentieth century, especially from the sixties onward. Statistically speaking, 46 percent of marriages ended in divorce just this past year. Many scholars say this trend is indicative of a shift in the cultural meaning of marriage. Whereas Americans once experienced it in institutional terms, as a business or contractual partnership, marriage has become more personal – a status acquired to achieve romantic and familial happiness. Gone are the days when love, even elementary affection, were considered secondary and frivolous aspects of a union. While this is certainly a good thing, modernity has made the search for unadulterated love is an uphill battle. 

Although it is debated whether the regression of the institution of marriage is positive or negative, we can consider the high rate of divorce and evaluate the moral consequences of its deconstruction from a Christian standpoint. People desirous of ending their marriages, for whatever reasons, may be subject to disapproval among their religious community. In particular, the Catholic faith does not promote divorce or casually condone the dissolution of a marriage.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms that “Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery” (CCC 2384). The Catechism continues, calling divorce a “plague on society.” 

Although the Catechism’s remarks are very interesting on a philosophical level, the points lengthily discussed feel detached, failing to point out specific, firsthand experiences of many Catholic families. I propose a shift in focus away from rigid moral mentality and towards a more general focus on clemency and grace. Among severe polarization in society, especially in terms of politics and spirituality, the Catholic Church should send a message of mercy as an invitation for Catholics to adopt an attitude of compassion towards those with differing circumstances. 

As such, I believe that divorce can occasionally have a moral place in modernity. Here’s a true anecdote as a means to provide further contemplation. A close family friend – let’s call her Brielle – got married at age thirty-two. The man professed to be religious and supportive of her family and career goals but eventually turned out to be deceptive, dipsomaniac, and abusive. Brielle is currently going through an agonizing divorce. She and her two children are suffering emotionally, financially, and spiritually during this difficult time, even though divorce seems to be the best and morally decent option for their ultimate well-being and physical safety. 

Brielle is not alone. Although Catholics experience divorce less than non-religious people, they still see it in their lives and families. Almost everyone reading this article has been impacted by divorce, either personally or indirectly through a loved one. In fact, a quarter of Catholic adults had a divorce, and nine percent remarried. And according to Georgetown University’s Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, Catholic marriages have declined approximately sixty-nine percent over the last fifty years, despite the Catholic population growing to twenty-one million in 2022. Therefore, it is beyond question that the sacrament of holy matrimony is in freefall. 

It is most certain that the Catholic Church could prevent the regression of Catholic marriage, at least in some part. The premarital counseling offered by the Faith, known as Pre-Cana, is woefully deficient. At least in Brielle’s case, there was no discussion of the warning signs of domestic abuse, many of which existed before her marriage. Further, there was no discussion of what would make a marriage valid or invalid. In fact, her Pre-Cana experience was centered around comically irrelevant and uselessly abstract lessons. Granted, when an engaged and in love couple prepares for their forthcoming marriage, they are not considering what makes their marriage viable for annulment. However, many things can occur during a marriage that may never be anticipated. For instance, now that Brielle is preparing for a divorce and eventual annulment, she has a much clearer understanding of the Catholic definition of marriage than she ever did as part of her marital preparation with her parish priest. That is to say that not all Catholic premarital counseling is identical to Brielle’s experience, but I believe there must be a consistent and comprehensive curriculum. Every Catholic diocese should think about how they can be a part of the effort to reduce divorce by discussing impediments to marriage success.  

All in all, Catholics are called to a higher standard of marriage than members of secular culture. Tertullian, the Father of Latin Theology, wrote it best: “How beautiful is the marriage of two Christians, two who are one in hope, one in desire, one in the way of life they follow, one in the religion they practice… Nothing divides them, either in flesh or spirit… Side by side they visit God’s Church and partake of God’s Banquet; side by side they face difficulties and persecution, share their consolations… To such as these He gives His peace.” It is only within marriage that sexual love and formalized commitment can contribute to the divine goodness of the couple, the eventual formation of a family unit, and the common good. We must rejoice in this fact and embrace Jesus’ insistence on the beatific elevation and sanctity of holy matrimony. 

Nevertheless, while the Church’s unbroken teaching on marriage protects the family and the order of creation, it is necessary to consider the various extenuating circumstances that may lead to divorce. Overt violence and parental psychopathology can crumble a family unit and be pervasively disastrous to both the couple and their children. When a marriage is destroyed by abuse, addiction, and psychological wounds, even the supposed lifeblood of humanity – that is, the healing attributes of matrimony – can lead to a pervasively toxic conjugal union. 

Therefore, the Catholic Church has a special obligation to teach and defend these often unfamiliar and rejected truths about the intricacy of marriage. What’s more, they must do their best to identify potentially harmful warning signs and prevent unsuited unions in the first place. As Catholics, we each have a distinct responsibility to combat the broader cultural crisis of dating and adopt a more traditional and intentional approach towards dating and marriage, so we can love more fully and completely. Our God is a God of relationship. Therefore, it is essential that the Church prepares young people for marriage success and educates them on how to live the faith through marital union. As Saint John Paul II once expressed, “the person who does not decide to love forever will find it very difficult to really love for even one day.” This profound affirmation holds especially true in today’s increasingly complex dating and marriage landscape.

Have Kids! Sincerely, Texas

Our society is not friendly to big families, a fact we owe to many causes. Perhaps the leading cause is the triumph of “sexual liberation.” It encourages sexual promiscuity, and, through birth control and abortion, it seeks to eliminate any consequences. It is hostile to chastity and fidelity. It glamorizes career and the accumulation of wealth over parental sacrifice. Children are perceived as inconvenient, slobbery and whiny contributors to the destruction of our environment. If a woman chooses to stay at home with her children, she is thought to be moving backward and resisting the rights that American women of the past fought so hard to gain. Our economy also plays a large part in discouraging the expansion of families. Inflation is a factor, but the cost of an average house in the United States has nearly doubled in the last ten years, skyrocketing from $292,200 in 2012 to $543,600 in 2022. Between 2021 and 2022, it increased by $79,400. It is unsurprising that, according to the United States Census Bureau, the fertility rate of young women has declined by 43% between 1990 and 2019 for 20-24-year-olds.

In our democratic republic, legislation is often swayed by the majority opinion. The cultural atmosphere has a deep influence on law. The reverse is also true. Our laws, whose foundation stands to ensure Americans’ rights to life and liberty, can have powerful effects on public opinion. Legalization trends towards normalization. We can see an example of this in Catholic attitudes toward abortion over the decades. Since the passing of Roe v. Wade in 1973, an increasing number of Catholics approve of legal abortion: 56% as of July 2022. In the 1950s, when legislators moved to loosen abortion laws, Pope Pius XII reiterated the Catholic position  that “neither the life of the mother nor that of the child can be subjected to direct suppression. In the one case as in the other, there can be but one obligation: to make every effort to save the lives of both, of the mother and the child.” At the time, few Catholics opposed him. Despite the unchanging and staunch position of the Church, most Catholics nowadays fall among the 62% of American adults who approve of abortion. That most Catholics now reject the Church’s doctrine on abortion suggests a definite cultural influence. One could conclude that the de facto legality of abortion brought about by Roe v. Wade encouraged this tremendous shift.

In the same way that laws can have discouraging effects on society, they can also have positive effects. An example of this is Texas’ Bill 88(R) HB 2889 by Rep. Bryan Slaton, which reduces property tax for families. However, Texans who are eligible for this reduction must meet a few sensible qualifications: the family receiving these benefits must consist of a married couple, specifically a mother and father, and they must have at least one “natural child” (that is, a biological child of both parents), an adopted child of both spouses, or an adopted child of one spouse. And, if the final circumstance happens to be true, that child must have been adopted after the couple’s wedding day, and he or she must be the natural or adopted child of the other spouse. In this case, the other spouse must have been a widow or widower before the couple was married. Also, neither the mother nor the father can ever have been divorced. The reduction starts at 10% for a married couple, man and woman, neither of whom has been divorced, and it increases to 40% for families with four children. If the family has ten or more children, all property tax is eradicated. Plus, the bill is perpetual – when the children grow up, or if one of the spouses dies, the tax cut remains. If passed, benefits would begin on January 1, 2024.

In an interview with East Texas News, Rep. Slaton commented, “the first goal is to promote a healthy family.” When asked why the bill has so many qualifications (e.g. that “natural born children” must be born of both spouses after marriage), he replied that the bill encourages an ideal. He himself does not qualify for the bill, and he understands that not everyone will. “We want people, when they think about what they’re gonna do in the future with their family, we want them to look at what is best: and it’s best for people to get married, stay married, and have children - lots of children.” Slaton said that he understands the need for the funding of government programs for single parents and broken homes, but he hopes to encourage an approach that avoids these scenarios entirely.

Our economy makes it almost impossible for families to thrive. At least Texas acknowledges the mortgages, insurance, education, and hundreds of other financial factors holding couples back from having kids, and makes an effort to soften the blow with a reduction of property tax. The family is the foundation of the United States. If our legislators do not support the foundation of our country, it is sure to crumble.

SCOTUS’s New Heavyhitters

The two newest members of the Supreme Court of the United States — Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson — have been turning heads over their intense questions in oral argument and the recent departures from the judicial right and judicial left, respectively.  The two new justices have been  predominant during the latest session of oral arguments, striking to the core of their ideological opponents’ arguments.  Furthermore, both Barrett and Jackson have departed from the traditional judicial right and left in recent cases, showing an independence from their respective ideological camps.

Justices Barrett and Jackson engaged in noteworthy lines of questioning in Biden v. Nebraska (2023). Both challenged the petitioners’ and respondents’ arguments both on Missouri’s standing and interests in MOHELA and the merits of the separation of powers case on President Biden’s student loan forgiveness programs.  Both Barrett and Jackson seemed cautious in Missouri’s standing in the case, questioning to what extent MOHELA is tied financially with the Missouri government.  On the merits of the case, Justice Barrett seemed more supportive of the separation of powers questions, while Justice Jackson suggested that separation of powers requires the Court to not decide political questions without a party coming to them with standing.

Another recent case that attracted attention to both justices is the relatively minor case Bittner v. United States (2022), where Justice Jackson joined Republican-appointed Justices Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh in the majority holding that if a person breaks the law by failing to report offshore accounts, the number of violations are the number of erroneous reports.  Justice Barrett wrote the dissenting opinion joined by Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, and Kagan, arguing that the number of violations are the number of accounts the individual fails to report correctly.  In this case, Bittner’s fines were $50,000 with the majority’s decision, but the fines would be $2.72 million had the Court sided with the Government.  

This case was noted in the press as an unusual 5-4 breakdown, but it is more notable for the insight it can give into Justice Jackson’s judicial philosophy.  As reported by slate.com, Jackson joining Gorsuch’s majority opinion in its entirety may show a libertarianism in Justice Jackson’s judicial values that could predict how she will rule on future cases.  

Oral arguments in other cases have shown how brilliant both these women are.  Recent hot-button cases Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina (2022) and 303 Creative v. Elenis (2022) showcase the brilliance of both Justice Barrett and Justice Jackson through their questions in oral arguments.

In Students for Fair Admissions, Justice Jackson’s main concern with the petitioners’ argument is the effect of admissions committees taking everything into consideration except race, where an applicant’s race is so vital to their experience that he writes about it and the committee cannot take that story into consideration.  However, in response to Justice Barrett’s question, the petitioners argued that such an essay would be able to be taken into consideration since it’s about the student’s experiences, not simply a checkbox for race alone deciding his admission.  Justice Barrett was also concerned with the implications on religion and religious’ institutions’ interest in boosting the admissions of their own adherents in their universities.

303 Creative is notable for its possible extension of the narrow Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) ruling.  The big implication of this case is how a ruling in petitioner Lorie Smith’s favor would affect discrimination laws across the country.  All justices, but Justice Jackson in particular, challenged the petitioners on what constitutes a “public accommodation” subject to the antidiscrimination law and what acts display a “message” subject to First Amendment protection.  She focused specifically on a hypothetical where a photographer refuses to take 1950s themed pictures of a black family with Santa Claus because the message he wants to send is an authentic 1950s theme that excludes black families.

While Justice Barrett challenged the petitioners on the scope of the decision, she focused on how Smith’s refusal to make gay wedding websites was not because of the identity of the customers but because of her refusal to make any website displaying a message contrary to her religious beliefs.  For instance, petitioners argued that Smith would refuse to make a marriage website for a heterosexual couple that were divorced and that she provides services for LGBT clients, such as creating business websites and designing logos.  This, in the petitioners’ view, shows that Smith is not discriminating against gay people, but rather refuses to design anything that would show support to a cause inconsistent with her religious beliefs.

Only time will tell how influential Justice Barrett and Justice Jackson will be on the Court, but if early signs are indicative of the future, Barrett and Jackson may replace former Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer as the brilliant leaders of their respective judicial camps.  Or, perhaps these justices will surprise pundits and politicians and work against the grain, revolutionizing the Court for generations to come.

Letter From the Editors, February 2023

Dear Reader,

Thank you for picking up the newest edition of The Fenwick Review! As we embark on the new 2023 Spring semester, there are several exciting updates for our publication.

First of all, The Fenwick Review hopes to bring two exciting new speakers to campus this semester: one from a local man who is tackling the Opioid Epidemic and another from a renowned journalist. We hope that these two speakers will foster civilized dialogue around two issues that have affected so many of us.

Secondly, our newsletter (The Crusader’s Brief) is up and running, releasing to our subscribers, alumni, and donors monthly. If you wish to sign up, please scan the QR code on Page 2. This newsletter contains short articles, a Campus Crazies section, and more! 

While there are many changes this semester, one thing never changes: our commitment to time-tried principles and constructive and inclusive dialogue. From the political antics of the Holy Cross Administration , to a pop culture promoting Satanism, we seek to challenge the dominant narrative on campus and abroad. We hope that you approach each article with an open mind, willing to be challenged by the ideas presented in each one. 

God bless,

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

Justice's Signature Ballad: A Short Story

The sun had started to dawn in the East. Its youthful rays spread across the wide swath of the barren plains and dusty dunes. The streams of light baked the ground underfoot into fine silica that seemed to flow every which way, with the gentle breeze of the winds. Out of the sands, sun-baked stones seemed to pierce from underneath the surface creating the rugged terrain laid bare before the world. The wasteland of dust seemed endless in its appearance from one horizon to another. The ground gave off emanations of heat only visible in the distance. In the scorched landscape, only the dust and hard rock existed; alone in a soundless world of their own. For this wasteland of evermore expansion, with its looming sun and its everlasting gaze; will continue long after the feuds of man and their ambitions have faded into the dust. 

Out of the confines of the dust arose a lone rider on the back of a weary mare. The solitary man steered the mare nonchalantly forward, staring off into the expanse, looking for something. The rays of the sun seemed to sear the man’s skin a deep red, but this did not bother his search. He scanned the horizon constantly; vigilant of anything that would justify his venture into this wasteland, while his frail mare lugged him continually forward. The wind scooped up pockets of loose silica and tossed the dust up into the man’s face. He could feel it, those loose particles floating around him and landing softly upon the skin. A humbling of the spirit, a return of man to the place for which he once sprung. The breeze carried a coarse grit that would scrap man of his worldly vestiges, and at once reveal what eternally lay at his heart. Those deep tendrils of that original sin pierce deep into the once pure heart, leaving only a fallible deluded creature spawned in sin to surely one day die. The revelatory nature of man’s eternal destiny; the unconscious march toward his birthplace that follows all men. An ever-present cradle and grave preordained in man’s destiny. 

The mark of his authority lay upon his hip, along with his Colt Single Action revolver that hung in his holster on his dominant side. The mark, carried by many a man in his profession, had taken him across the territories in pursuit of those boundless individuals yet tamed by the ever-present march of civilization. The weapon: a ubiquitous tool for those wandering the territories. Though, the bore of this revolver had not seen more than a hundred slugs go down its narrow passage, nor did the weapon's finish see any real wear. Almost untested, the forged metal lines had not seen the true possibility of wear that comes with an experienced ranger. 

The eternal wanderer himself reeked a foul odor of dried sweat from the arduous journey. His greasy hair maintained a matted condition with several knots, and the beard upon his face had grown wild. His linen clothes had darkened from the sweat and dust. Gone were the pomp and proper, and in its place, man had revealed himself to the emptiness of the open plane. The baseness of man on display. 

He had descended into the empty planes on the promise of profit. A bounty of somewhat high acclaim and every more worldly currency. He had appeared out of the desert, what felt like years ago at this point, to be greeted by a sign inscribed with the title “Goodsprings.” A modest plot of land with a few interspersed rickety wooden shacks. The pine siding on each of the buildings had started peeling itself off the frames of the houses, as the shafts of the nail shanks had slowly been eroded by rust. The dust had coated the windows in a thin film; obscuring the interior of each building from the rider as he passed. 

The hollow echo of silence bounded across the township. He roamed in silence until he came upon the town’s steeple and heard the faint murmuring of hymns. He stood at the base of the steps of the white Chapel. He did not dare to step inside the pure building, for he feared he would be struck down by some ethereal force for his tainted heart. 

As he waited for the session to end, he took long drags on a rustic cigarette he had just lit. The smoke bellowed out, and ash slowly bled from the tip while leaning against a baluster at the bottom of the stairs. The hymns stopped, the doors opened, and a flood poured out from the conclave. The passing people side-eyed him but did not bother to speak to the foreign one. As they shuffled out, the wanderer proceeded to call out to the amorphous blob, asking for the town's sheriff. A disheveled wrinkled old timer separated from the mass to meet face-to-face with the wanderer. 

“What can I do for you?” he croaked with slight apprehension. 

“Have you seen this Man?” He held out a folded poster with a lightly sketched picture of a man. The sketch of another wanderer, just as devoid as the last. The ghostly image of a face, skin clinging to the bone, of eyes sunken into the skull. A gaunt illustration of somewhat questionable validity, to only yield the basest of assumptions from these exaggerated features. 

“I ain’t ever seen a man like this,” he had stopped for a second. “A few nights ago though, someone whipped the shit out of old Austin over a hand of blackjack. He rode off into the night before anyone had the balls to try to catch him.”

“Do you know which way he went?” the loner bellowed out under the taste of smoke.

The old timer waved for the blunt youth to follow. As the two walked slowly across town, he leveraged a question into the silence, “What’s your name?”

“What does it matter?” he blurted out with a slight smile. 

“I guess it doesn’t matter much, but it would make things go easier…let's stop at my house for a drink; you look thirsty.” They had stopped in front of a two-story shack with a precarious hanging balcony. The lacquer paint had eroded, exposing the veins of the wooden siding. The sheriff ran behind the building to a lowly well with the loner’s leather water bladder. He had returned with two filled bladders, along with a hunk of hard tack. He broke the giant piece of hard tack in half and handed him one piece along with his water bladder. 

“Thank you…I’m sorry. I guess when you're on the road forever, you forget the normalities. The name is Judas.” He grasped the leather bladder with one weathered hand and poured the cloudy water onto his face. A baptism in hospitality, for which the dust of the desert evermore wiped from man, but never fully erased. The looming event hung above his head, every present and never forgotten. The dust awaits all, born out of the first sin, and he could not forget his place concerning the needed action of justice and the end where true judgment is cast. 

“It’s all right, living in this world makes a person think twice about everything. I mean who the hell left you with a name like Judas?” He smiled at the thought, as they both chewed on their pieces of hardtack.

“I think my parents believed I was destined for infamy or some sort of fame,” he chuckled as the aged man smiled. The sheriff waited a second then responded, “What did this fella do anyway.”

“John Martin? He tried robbing a bank back in Oklahoma, but things didn’t go to plan. He ended up shooting dead two bank tellers when they got in his way. He walked away with nothing.”

“Christ, something is wrong with people,” the sheriff remarked honestly. The statement hung in the air for the time being. They sat for a few minutes taking swigs from their leather water bladders when a young deputy approached and exchanged a few quiet words with the sheriff. The sheriff proceeded to point the loner back on a road into the desert, and with that, he departed into the scorched wasteland.

Over time, the remembrance of water heightened thirst and the continual wandering become a purposeless stumble. As the heart gave way to doubt, Judas spotted a solitary shack over the horizon. The denigrated shack was made from scraps of spare lumber and faced outward to the downtrodden road. It leaned slightly with the warp of the wooden frame as the wood’s moisture had been deprived by the desert. The sunken windows, covered in a residual layer of dust, made a lifeless structure of the solitary building.

Judas plodded down the road to the front of the shack and dismounted his mare by the narrow path up to the house. Once he had dismounted, he peered down into a shallow ditch by the entrance to the path. There lay two lifeless bodies in the cradle of each other's arms; one of an older man wearing coveralls with a white undershirt and the other, a young brunette woman in a cloth dress. A bullet for each of them; that was their prize for living. The loner could not feel anything; only the hardening of his heart, for which he could only look on in slight disturbance at the display. They died in each other’s arms, only to be consumed by the dust. 

He trod closer to the house as the dust-filled door was thrown open and a familiar bald man walked out. The sketch of the pale, white man was somewhat accurate as Judas had started to observe his many distinctive features. The eyes reflected a hollowness, a feature that Judas could not take his own eyes away from. A human without reservation, like a dog with rabies. 

“Watcha want boy?” he grumbled under his unkempt beard. He wore his revolver openly on the front of his torso for convenient reach, but he did not seem phased by the randomness of the encounter.

“Are you John Martin?” Judas spoke as the man inched his hand closer to his weapon. With danger present, Judas moved his hand onto the handle of his revolver but he did not draw. “ I want to bring you in alive.” He added into the silence of the confrontation, as they stared at each other over the drumming of the heart. 

“Ain’t going. Why keep on living if you can’t do what you want,” he mumbled slightly. For a moment, there were two poised against each other, and then there was one. Two shots rang out from both guns, but only one shot rang true. Judas, seeing that his adversary lay upon the wooden boards, shakingly lowered his weapon and reholstered it. He stumbled over to the corpse to find a piece of lead lodged below his right eye socket, devastating the structure of his face. After seeing his creation, Judas could not but sit on the steps to the doorway. Nausea slowly crept into his knees and his arms continually sat heavily upon his knees. He could only sit and think about what he left home for. He finally lifted himself to drag the body of the villain to his horse. As Judas strapped him to the butt of his horse, he peered into the ditch once more. He knew then why he left home. Once more, he retreated back into the desert as his nerves slowly began to settle and his eyes became a little dimmer. 

The End

Multi-Faith "Prayer": Hijacking Faith for Politics

On January 24, 2023, the Chaplain’s Office resumed its annual Multi-Faith Prayer Service to represent the many faith traditions on and around campus.  Many were excited for this tradition to resume, particularly those like me who practice religions different from Holy Cross’s Catholicism.  What many envisioned as an opportunity for people of all faiths to come together in individual and collective prayer unfortunately turned out to be quite different than one would expect of a “prayer service.”  There were some good things about the service, but overall, it hijacked the expectations of students to preach a partisan message and belittled the traditions of many students on campus.  

The most problematic element of this “service” was the fact that very little emphasis was placed on prayer, reflection, or religious unity. It was instead focused on the heated political debate on climate change.  Each speaker, the most extreme of which was Holy Cross President Vincent Rougeau, insinuated that each of their faiths required action by everyone to pursue partisan solutions to climate change without regard to the costs or feasibility of their proposed solutions.  Rather than preaching a uniting message to bind us together as a community, these speakers, especially President Rougeau, decided to present a message that divides Americans along partisan lines and present it as a supposedly unifying message.

The issue of climate change is far from a unifying issue.  The political debates around climate change range from those who literally believe air conditioning should be banned (clearly, they’ve never been to the South) to those who outright deny that climate change happens (which is factually inaccurate).  However, most people fall somewhere in the middle and differ mainly on how to balance short-term necessities like a functioning economy and cheap, reliable energy with long-term goals such as energy diversification and carbon neutrality.  These differences usually fall along partisan lines between Republican and Democrat, distinctions that should be absent from our faith communities.

Despite the divisive nature of the policy debate on climate, President Rougeau decided to equate being a person of faith and joining Eco-Action, an organization that constantly (admittedly not always) pushes a partisan agenda on climate without putting the ‘Democrat’ label on it.  President Rougeau falsely claimed that all major religious organizations prioritize the specific climate policies promoted by the Left, stating that this is an issue that unites us.  While many religions believe that it is man’s responsibility to be good stewards of the earth, that principle does not lead all people of faith to the same climate policy conclusions as President Rougeau and the Democratic Party.  Furthermore, President Rougeau implied that those who do not share his views on climate change policy are selfish and irresponsible. 

Another issue of the service is that it denigrated the Christian faith.  While it represented Islamic, Buddhist, Jewish, and Hindu faiths by inviting faith leaders to read their scripture (and expound on environmental issues from their perspective), there was no such representation of Christians.  While all other faiths read their scripture or equivalent, there was no Christian text read (besides the shared Old Testament text of Christians and Jews).  The only Christian representation was in the form of a song that does not even mention God or Jesus, while Islam’s Allah and Hinduism’s various deities were not only named, but glorified.  Instead, the “Christian” song was dedicated to “Mother Earth,” a deity unknown to Christian doctrines.  The Hindu minister talked about and glorified her goddess, the Muslim minister read from the Quran and glorified Allah, yet Jesus Christ was never even named.  On top of this, the other faiths were represented by ministers of their faiths while Christianity (in which there are several faith traditions) had a college president — not a priest, preacher, or pastor.  

After the service, we enjoyed a very nice meal, to the Chaplain Office’s credit.  During the meal, I spoke to some of my Catholic colleagues on what they felt about the service.  One junior told me that the podium from which the speakers presented their scriptures and messages is only to be used for reading the Bible in their tradition.  She explained that “not even announcements or the priest’s message can be read from that podium.”  The fact that Islamic and Hindu deities were exalted from that same podium (false gods in a Christian context) and that each speaker used it to promote a partisan agenda were extremely offensive to the Catholic students I interviewed.  One sophomore told me that the service was highly unorganized, and students did not even know they had a role in the service until a few minutes before the event began.

Overall, this event was disappointing, as I was hoping to unite with those of different faiths to pray for each other.  Instead, the event seemed like a McFarland Center talk on politics with a creepy bell between each speaker.  As Alexis de Tocqueville advises, clergy should stay out of politics, as once a political movement inevitably fades, so will the religion that bound itself to that political movement.  Faith communities should transcend partisan differences and seek to reach souls, not push a partisan agenda in the name of faith.  Next year, I hope the Multi-Faith Prayer Service stays true to its name and that the Honorable President does not hijack faith for his political agenda.

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.