Book Review: The Organic Development of the Liturgy

For those who do not consider themselves liturgy geeks, I will start by defining some terms. The term ‘Liturgy’ refers to the official public services of the Church. This encompasses the Mass, the Breviary, and the seven sacraments. A ‘rite’ refers to an ecclesiastical tradition in which the Liturgy is celebrated, that is, the form and content of the Liturgy, specific to a geographic location or particular Church. In short, a rite refers to a Liturgical Tradition. There are many rites of the Church, one of which is the Latin rite, which houses the Roman Rite. The book in review, The Organic Development of the Liturgy by Dom Alcuin Reid O.S.B., examines the history of the Roman Rite from antiquity to the eve of the Second Vatican Council and its underlying developmental principles, the most important of which he calls “the principle of organic development.” Through this examination, Reid establishes the principle of organic development as a universally adhered-to principle and as both implicitly and explicitly authoritative by the Tradition it upholds. In this book review, I hope to explicate Reid’s scholarship to a larger audience.

The book’s preface was written by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (who later became Pope Benedict XVI). It is a remarkable reflection on Reid’s book, emphasizing both its importance in modern liturgical scholarship as well as highlighting how Reid’s scholarship acts as a twofold rejection of two prominent, and dangerous, liturgical positions: one which would seek constant reform that divorces itself from the liturgical Tradition and one which would reject any liturgical reform or renewal entirely. Both, as you will see when reading Reid’s book, are antithetical to the principles of Catholic liturgical development. Ratzinger also touches on the subject of authority, something Reid later expounds upon. Given how well-written it is, even if you don't read the rest of the book, I urge everyone to read Ratzinger’s preface. 

In regard to the book’s format, it consists of three chapters which are further divided into sub-topics which are usually ordered chronologically. The first chapter covers the history of the Roman Rite and the various reforms, some of which were short-lived and others of which became part of the immemorial rite, from antiquity until the late nineteenth century. In chapter two, Reid recounts the birth of the Liturgical Movement and the liturgical reforms until 1948, this chapter covers a period of approximately 50 years. Chapter three, the longest chapter, focuses on the liturgical reforms between 1948 and 1962 and the Liturgical Movement at this time. 

Chapter one elucidates how the Church has always understood herself as having an objective liturgical Tradition that is capable of development. It is clear, from Reid’s recounting of early liturgical history, in late antiquity and the early middle ages the bare bones of the Roman Rite were born, something capable of development, but a Tradition nonetheless, that is, something handed down. Importantly when covering the Tridentine reforms, Reid emphasizes how they were utterly Traditional and were initiated to ensure doctrinal orthodoxy and to correct liturgical abuse. Reid establishes that there is a clear continuity between the Gregorian Sacramentary and other early liturgical books and the Tridentine reforms. Chapter one, though the shortest of all the chapters, is significant because it establishes the understanding of the organic development principle present in the Church and demonstrates how due reverence was always shown towards liturgical Tradition during reforms. Reform was never arbitrary, and always utterly traditional. 

Chapters two and three profile a variety of people either in the Liturgical Movement or related to the Liturgical Movement including Pope St. Pius X, Lambert Beauduin, Pius Parsch, Romano Guardini, Josef Jungmann S.J., and others as well as covering numerous liturgical conferences, most of which occurred in the 1950s. Chiefly, Reid seeks to clarify the origins and purpose of the Liturgical Movement. He asserts, rightfully, that the Movement’s foundational goal was to increase liturgical piety among the laity, that is, to make praying the Liturgy a part of their lives. Through his examination of the Movement’s early members and their writings, Reid rebukes the notion that ritual reform, total vernacularization of the Mass, or changes to the rite itself were the aims of the Liturgical Movement. When covering the reforms of the 1950s, Reid judges the various reforms by the standard of the principle of organic development including the 1955 Holy Week reforms, 1955 rubric simplifications, and other reforms of the Pian Commission. Ultimately, Reid examines these reforms and the principles operative during this period. He strongly rebukes principles such as antiquarianism, which was also rejected as a principle for liturgical reform by Pius XII’s Mediator Dei. 

In the preface, Ratzinger writes “The pope is not an absolute monarch whose will is law; rather, he is the guardian of the authentic Tradition…That is why, with respect to Liturgy, he has the task of a gardener, not that of a technician who builds new machines and throws the old ones on the junk-pile” (pp.10-11). Reid notes that the breviary reforms of Pope St. Pius X mark the start of a new era; one marked by an excessive use of papal power with regards to the Church’s liturgy. While admitting that the pastorally motivated rearrangement of the breviary respected the Church’s liturgical Tradition and did not constitute an innovation or novelty, Reid posits this action as the beginning of the ultramontane view of authority over the Liturgy. Pius XII’s encyclical Mediator Dei would likewise double down on this view of papal authority of the Liturgy. In Reid's opinion, such liberal use of papal authority over Liturgy should be warned against, and such a view of papal authority over liturgical matters was not seen in the Church prior to the 20th century. 

Chiefy, Reid’s work demonstrates that liturgical archaeologism, or antiquarianism, and pastoral expediency are not sufficient principles of liturgical reform and fail to respect the organic development of the Liturgy. When Tradition is not given its due reverence and reforms are done hastily, violence is done to the objective liturgical Tradition that has developed in the Church for over a millennium. 

I think it was fitting for Reid to end his book just on the eve of Vatican Council II. He concludes by writing “The task of a thorough assessment of whether this law [the law of organic development] was respected in the reforms enacted following the Second Vatican Council and of whether it is respected by proponents of ‘the organic progression of the Liturgy’ remains. Such an assessment cannot but be based upon this law, reflecting the truth that ‘liturgies are not made, they grow in the devotion of the centuries’” (p.311). It has been nearly 60 years since the conclusion of the Council and it is up to us to examine the liturgical legacy of Vatican II. This book offers a solid foundation of knowledge to begin such tasks and Reid’s scholarship is sine qua non for research into Catholic liturgical studies. 

Bibliography 

Reid, Alcuin. The Organic Development of the Liturgy. Farnborough: St. Michael’s Abbey Press, 2004. 

Webpage image sourced from: https://fraternitypublications.com/product/the-organic-development-of-the-liturgy/

Comparing Collects: The Feast Day of St. Pius V

In the traditional rite, when the feast day of pope St. Pius V is celebrated on May 5th you will hear the priest pray, in Latin, the collect for the day. The collect is a prayer appointed to each day’s Mass and follows either the Gloria or the Kyrie. The prayer for this feast day in particular underwent much revision during the liturgical reform of the 1960s leading to an essentially new collect. The new collect is now said in the vernacular whenever this feast day arrives. This change offers a glimpse into the liturgical reform as a whole. Therefore, I wish to compare the collect of the old rite to that of the new rite and see what these differences might communicate to us about our faith. 

One might rightly wonder why the collect changed at all. Well, Matthew Hazell, a Catholic liturgical scholar and contributor to the blog, New Liturgical Movement, writes in his article “All the Elements of the Roman Rite”? Mythbusting, Part II” that  “a mere 13% (165) of the 1,273 prayers of the usus antiquior [1962 Missal/traditional Latin Mass] found their way unchanged into the reformed Missal of Paul VI [1970 Missal/new Mass].” That is to say, it is not unusual for an oration (prayer) to have either been omitted, centonised, or edited in preparation for the New Missal following Vatican II. 

To begin, it's important to note the specific contents of each collect. The traditional collect reads, according to this English translation of the 1962 Missale Romanum: 

God, Who didst vouchsafe to choose blessed Pius Thy chief bishop for the crushing of the enemies of Thy Church and the restoration of divine worship, make us to be defended by his watchful care and so to adhere to Thy service that, all the contrivances of our enemies being overcome, we may rejoice in everlasting peace. Through our Lord Jesus Christ…

The line “Crushing of the enemies of Thy Church” likely refers to his time as an inquisitor of the faith where he helped to combat and suppress heresy and defend doctrinal orthodoxy from dissent during the religiously tumultuous 16th century Europe. It likely also refers to how, during his papacy, St. Pius V formed the Holy League to combat Ottoman expansion into Europe. The Ottomans were eventually pushed back at the Battle of Lepanto, prior to which Pius V had encouraged all of the Church’s faithful to pray the Rosary for victory. Although the collect might initially come off as bellicose, towards the end, the prayer makes clear that it is a petition for “everlasting peace.” The reference to “the restoration of divine worship” refers to St. Pius V’s restoration and renewal of Rome’s liturgical books following the Council of Trent. The prayer recognizes the importance and success of the Tridentine liturgical reforms. 

Some might object that prayers that celebrate “crushing of the enemies of Thy Church” run contrary to the gospel, especially Matthew 5: 44 where Christ tells us to “Love your enemies.” But in the Catholic Tradition, love does not exclude punishment or defense; love (dilectio, imperative: diligite) is not synonymous with support or indifference. When we are thankful for St. Pius V’s “crushing of the enemies of Thy Church” it is with the understanding that this was not malicious or evil. “Love your enemies” compels us neither to force our loved ones to suffer at the hand of the enemy nor to abandon the city of God. It compels us neither to surrender Constantinople to the armies of Ottomans nor Europe to fascistic despots in the 1940s. Remember also the means by which Pope St. Pius V crushed his enemies. He crushed them through steadfast adherence to Catholic orthodoxy, through praying the rosary, and through his saintly Petrine ministry, all of which aimed toward peace. Therefore, I view the collect as both morally and liturgically sound.

The New Missal replaces the old prayer with a new shorter one. The 1970 Missale Romanum collect for the feast day of Pope St. Pius V reads as follows: 

O God, who in your providence raised up Pope Saint Pius the Fifth in your Church that the faith might be safeguarded and more fitting worship be offered to you, grant, through his intercession, that we may participate in your mysteries with lively faith and fruitful charity. Through our Lord Jesus Christ…

The new collect expunges the words “crushing enemies of the Church” and replaces it with “that the faith might be safeguarded.” In short, it sanitizes the original language. One difference in the new collect that I find preferable to the old is the explicit mention of providence when it reads “who in your providence raised up Pope Saint Pius the Fifth.” This enriches the prayer because it explicitly attributes the papacy of St. Pius V to God’s providence, and in doing so reminds us of God’s providence and presence in the world. I think it is especially important for modern people to be reminded of divine providence so its inclusion in the collect constitutes an improvement. The reference to St. Pius V’s liturgical reform is described as “more fitting worship” as opposed to “the restoration of divine worship.” I find the change in language to be unnecessary but not necessarily bad in and of itself. It certainly does not emphasize the importance of Pius V’s liturgical reforms as much as the old collect does. 

I recognize that while both these prayers differ in their language, they maintain the same basic petitions to God: to defend the faith and to cultivate worship. The new prayer makes some laudable improvements (e.g. mentioning God’s providence) and the shift in tone might make its reception easier for a modern man or woman. However, there is still the fundamental question of whether our liturgy should be changed to conform to the sensibilities of man or whether man should conform his sensibilities to that of the Catholic faith as expressed in the Church’s liturgy. As for Catholics today, I think it's important that we embrace the fullness of the Church’s prayer and teaching, not just the ones that appease our modern sensibilities, and the Traditional liturgy, in its prayer, aids in this. I welcome disagreement and discussion; however, I think it's imprudent to conform the Church and her prayers to each era’s sensibilities rather than letting the Church’s Tradition and Liturgy stand in all ages. 

Official Latin versions of the prayers: 

(1962 Missale Romanum):  Deus, qui ad conterendos Ecclesiæ tuæ hostes, et ad divinum cultum reparandum, beatum Pium Pontificem maximum eligere dignatus es: fac nos ipsius defendi præsidiis, et ita tuis inhærere obsequiis: ut omnium hostium superatis insidiis, perpetua pace lætemur. Per Dominum.

(1970 Missale Romanum): Deus, qui in ecclesia tua beatum Pium papam ad fidem tuendam ac te dignius colendum providus excitasti, da nobis, ipso intercedente, vivida fide ac fructuosa caritate mysterium tuorum esse participes. Per Dominum.

Modernity’s Maternity: Janice Chik Breidenbach’s “Philosophy of Motherhood”

We all have mothers. We grow and develop in our mothers’ wombs, and then they carry us into the world. How maternal relationships affect our lives after birth varies among individuals, but our preborn development is a universal experience. Our mothers shape our reality from conception. They are our first human connection. What do we know about motherhood? We understand perfectly the biological development of a child in the womb, but we possess limited psychological and philosophical research about this process, and about the continuation of that connection after birth. Janice Chik, professor of philosophy at Ave Maria College in Florida, seeks to unravel the deep and unexplored philosophy of motherhood. At her talk at Holy Cross on March 28, she posed two questions: why is the study of motherhood untouched by philosophers, and why is motherhood so unpopular today?

Chik gave three reasons for the lack of philosophical work done on motherhood. She suggested first that because motherhood is subjective, it may be challenging to universalize mothers’ different experiences and develop a cohesive study. Motherhood is extremely personal and evokes radically different responses from everyone. The second possibility she raised, in a half-joking manner, is that most philosophers tend not to be mothers themselves, so motherhood is not of any interest to them. The philosophers that mention motherhood portray it negatively. Chik cited Plato’s Symposium, a Socratic dialogue that places Socrates in a drinking party making social commentary and debating with fellow Athenians. Socrates’ character Diotima distinguishes between a biological pregnancy and a “pregnancy” of ideas, the latter of which is far superior. It is good to impregnate women, Diotima argues, because in this way we can pursue immortality through perpetuating our lineages. However, it is even better to “impregnate” young men with wisdom and learning, because ideas are more immortal than people. We should note that Diotima is the only female speaker in all of the Platonic dialogues. Philosophy trumps motherhood. The third reason Chik supplies is slightly more extreme: some thinkers, such as the modern feminist philosopher Jeffner Allen, suppose that motherhood is “dangerous to women” and contributes to the “annihilation of women” because it further compels them into patriarchal domination. Allen argues that we should abandon motherhood altogether.

Arguing for motherhood’s philosophical essence, Chik contended that the diversity of experience among mothers contributes to the richness of motherhood. In contextualizing and relating these different experiences, we can reach a common conclusion about its psychological and philosophical importance. She then expounded Aristotle’s claim that we are “rational animals.” Our nature, as she observed, prepares us well for motherhood. Like all animals, we grow and nourish our young. However, we also have the benefit of reflecting on that relationship. Why shouldn’t we attempt to understand motherhood beyond its biological nature, especially since we are not limited to our biological nature? Finally, Chik referenced modern metaphysicist L.A. Paul, who argues that motherhood is a “transformative experience.” We ought to explore phenomena that can pull us out of our current state of life into something completely different, that turns our self-orientation inside-out.

L.A. Paul also argues that we cannot know what our own experience of motherhood will be like. She states in her book Transformative Experiences that modernity calls couples to deeply consider what outcome parenting will have on their happiness. Modern parenting guides pose a number of factors to spouses, many of which are about personal satisfaction and finding meaning in one’s life. Chik suggested that modernity’s notion of self-seeking and self-realization clashes with maternity, which is humanity’s most intimate and arguably most selfless relationship. Modernity seeks to free human beings from the bounds of nature in order to achieve total self sufficiency. Motherhood’s essence contradicts this goal. It involves four unchangeable, biological facts: conception between a man and a woman to create a life, gestation, childbirth, and breastfeeding. Motherhood cannot progress past nature because it is nature: it is one of those stubborn, unchangeable facts about humanity that binds us to our brute-selves.

Chik referred to “three C’s” of modernity that compete with motherhood: control, commodification, and careerism. The first principle, control, insists that women must regulate and minimize motherhood, or else they are not equal to men. We control human life and our destiny. We have agency, and we have knowledge of our agency. Motherhood thrusts us out of control. Women have physical limitations that we didn’t invent, like lactation and pregnancy. We can’t control the baby’s development in the womb. After birth, we can’t control if our baby cries in public. We must care for it anyways, and it will not understand if we scold or attempt to correct it. Chik argues that this lack of control is good. Motherhood humbles us and it reflects the reality of human beings. It shows us that we cannot have complete control over our lives. It makes us more willing to embrace people who may inconvenience us, and it reminds us to love the helpless and bothersome. Chik then highlighted the beauty in pregnancy’s passivity. She referenced Josef Pieper’s Leisure: the Basis of Culture, in which Pieper argues that culture is most fruitful when human beings are able to be at rest, when they do not push themselves to constantly labor and toil. She likens this receptivity to pregnancy. Catholics hold that God shares his transcendental qualities, Truth, Goodness, and Beauty, with humanity as divine gifts: they require no action from our end besides a simple “yes.” The woman has no action in the benefits she reaps from being pregnant, nor does she initiate the emotional connection between herself and her child. She is the “creative artist” of her child, providing its environment and forming it, but she herself has no control over this process.

The second “C” of modernity that conflicts with motherhood is commodification. Children are reduced to their commercial value, emphasizing costliness and greatly decreasing their appeal to prospective parents. Chik aptly pointed out the absurdity of attempting to place a monetary value on new life. Modernity tends to place babies in a parasitic framework, especially within pregnancy: babies are seen as thieves of mothers’ resources. Scientifically, pregnancy is actually quite beneficial to the mother. It increases levels of estrogen and androgen, improving hair growth and shine. Studies have shown that it improves blood levels and increases oxygen, which boosts metabolism. Popular thought likes to perceive mothers as being sacrificial. On the other hand, Chik countered, motherhood has mutual psychological and spiritual benefits for the mother and the child.

The third “C” is careerism. Careerism asserts that our identity isn’t relational: it’s found in our wage-related work. It also affirms again that women have to be in the working world in order to be equal to men. Chik remarked that the denigration of motherhood is not strictly a modern idea. Since ancient times, careers have been considered better labor than motherhood. After all, motherhood does not provide sick days or health insurance. Rather, motherhood participates in the act of Creation. Like Christ’s love, it houses the homeless. It may seem oppressive to some, but in reality, it is a participation in divine grace.

In response to these three ideas, Chik stated that we must reorient ourselves to the theological. Motherhood involves the production of an immortal soul. No other station in life can do this. She likened the experience of pregnancy to the Eucharist: it is the offering up of one’s body for another. It is a totally selfless and life-giving vocation that accepts the earthly stranger and submits to God. For many women, motherhood is the “fiat” that transforms their lives. It unites them with Mary in her “yes” at the Annunciation that set the events of salvation into motion. It further joins them with Christ’s love for God the Father in His passion. It is transformative and philosophical and glorifies the nature of womanhood. As Catholic philosopher Alice von Hildebrand once said, “woman by her very nature is maternal – for every woman, whether married or unmarried, is called upon to be a biological, psychological, or spiritual mother — she knows intuitively that to give, to nurture, to care for others, to suffer with and for them — for maternity implies suffering — is infinitely more valuable in God’s sight than to conquer nations and fly to the moon.”

Letter From the Editors, Easter 2023

Dear Reader,

Thank you for picking up the newest edition of The Fenwick Review! As we contemplate the resurrection of Christ (and as students attempt to resurrect their motivation to persist in their studies) so fittingly do we offer a fresh batch of articles on two of the most contentious topics: life and death.

From an analysis of the proportional nature of the death penalty, to Texas’ incentivizing of new life in the form of tax reductions, we at The Fenwick Review are continually striving to provide insightful, pertinent commentary on the issues that matter the most. In addition, this issue features a potent expose of the Student Government Association, along with a thoughtful examination of problems besetting the sacrament of matrimony.

Whatever may be said of our commentary, our critics have never been able to call us boring. We pride ourselves for being a publication that inspires complex feelings and critical thinking among our readership, and we intend to continue in that same vein. We are grateful for your continued readership and hope that we may remain an important touchpoint for discussion during your time on Mount St. James.

Love us or hate us, we thank you for your time and attention.

God bless and Happy Easter,

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

An SGA Exposé

Our friends at The College Street Journal released an article taking a look at the Student Government Association budget in an earlier issue. Because of the confines of being an economic journal, they limited their assessment and purely gave the facts. I would like to expand further on the facts that they presented and looking at those facts, it is apparent that the SGA budget is bloated with funding to groups that are not accessible to the majority of students, that is crowd funded by the mandatory student activity fee. Moving beyond finances, the general attitude towards race, ethnicity, and identity related student organizations presents the pinnacle of college liberal white savior behavior. I would like to make it clear that this is not a judgment on the groups that are receiving the money as I have no issue with their existence or their monetary claims, or the SGA members who composed it who I am sure mean well, but rather the long standing culture and precedent that college liberalism has come to be. All information here is publicly available and no rules were broken to receive it. This is an exercise in the democratic process and transparency that SGA desperately needs.

The SGA budget is rife with strange monetary allocations to groups one probably would not expect to be funded by SGA. The most abhorrent of the budget allocations though comes from that spent on what SGA calls multicultural student organizations (MSOs) and identity based organizations (IBOs). Of the $705,522 allocated to recognized student organizations (RSOs), $129,100 is allocated to these MSOs and IBOs. While that may seem small in comparison, the total RSO budget includes groups like CAB, Purple Key Society, Purple Patcher, and the Spring Break Immersion Program who have a higher function than what most would consider a club, putting on large events and high cost activities like the spring concert, 100 days ball, the yearbook, and subsidizing spring break trips. Without the $333,000 these groups receive, the RSO budget is only $372,522. Excluding the $15,000 Pride receives as the only IBO, 31% of the real RSO budget is dedicated to groups based on race and ethnicity yet, according to collegefactual.com, only 22% of Holy Cross students are students of color. While some may say that these numbers are close enough, it is also important to note that members of these clubs also get to enjoy the budgets of other clubs that are not based on personal characteristics, while students who are not of the specific minority groups do not.

The issue I have with the SGA budget is not with the existence of these groups, as I fundamentally believe that most clubs that are not outwardly hateful or obscene should have a space on campus, rather my issue arises with the allocation of funds to groups that are not accessible to the student body as a whole. While I understand that most of the events that these groups often use their money for are technically available for all students, students that are not members of these groups most often do not attend these events by MSO and IBO groups because they perceive these events as meant to be spaces for these minorities, and the respectful populace of Holy Cross students will most often respect that. Additionally, the language in the public space of these groups indicate that they are meant to foster community among the specific race or ethnicity, leading to non-minority students wanting to lend those groups their space. Members of these groups should be entitled to do with their time what they please, and that means that they can congregate with whatever groups of people they should desire, but other students should not be required to subsidize it with their student activity fee. Instead, the student activity fee should be lowered and students should have the opportunity to spend their own money where they wish. Events for MSO and IBO groups already often feature tickets which could instead be sold at a higher price, creating an incentive for these events to be more outwardly welcoming and better attended. The budget should ultimately reflect the student body.

The high budgets of these groups do not reflect poorly on the groups receiving them, as when given the option for more money, it is often smart to accept it, rather it showcases the white savior attitude that this campus and many others across the country clings on to. I have had the pleasure of serving in the SGA senate and have had first-hand experience in the mindset on display. I would like to make it very clear, those in SGA I have interacted with have been very nice and welcoming, and I am sure that they all mean well, nonetheless this attitude of the student body is present in the SGA. A common trope among SGA discussion is to talk about a mythical divide between SGA and the MSOs/IBOs, as if there is some great rift between them. From my experience, the MSOs/IBOs do not care about the SGA and the SGA desperately wants them to care. The guilt that the predominantly white campus and as an extension SGA suffers from is reflected in their willingness to give funds to events that most white students do not feel comfortable attending because they are marketed as students of color or LGBTQ events, even if they are accessible to all.

This attitude is further reflected in the SGA cabinet budget that allocates $24,500 to the Directors of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion and a further $2,000 to the Director of Social Justice. The DEI budget is by far the most funded with the next highest being $15,000 for the Director of Community Relations with most of the other Cabinet budgets hovering around $2,000. The discrepancy shows an obsession with DEI initiatives and a need to correct injustice that is just not present on campus.

Other clubs it appears SGA is far stingier with their money. The new Chess Club, a club that was just approved last semester and which every student can feel welcome joining, has been very vocal on their social media that they were given only enough money for two chess sets at the cost of $50. Each club, in order to be recognized, has to present a list of fifteen potential members in order to be eligible for recognition. Two chess sets is only enough for four people and is a capital investment as it can be reused every year, unlike the plethora of events that are scheduled by MSOs and IBOs. Some could contend the dispersal of funds to club chess pointing out that RSOs, according to the SGA Bylaws, are not supposed to receive funding from the reserve board of more than $100 in their first year, yet this rule is rarely followed considering ProspHer, a new MSO dedicated to “Womxn of Color'' received a far greater amount yet was also only approved this last semester.

Fundamentally, the Holy Cross campus, represented through SGA, in an effort to fuel inclusivity to ease the liberal guilt they possess, obsess over the approval of multicultural groups and identity based organizations. The budget is a pure reflection of that, alienating those who are not a part of these groups, and using the student activity to disproportionately fund it. The solution is to not encourage a separation based on identity, fueling the rift with the money of the masses, but rather to bring students together, without the divides of identity. The obsession of identity fuels division.

Rightly Ordered Violence: A Commentary on Capital Punishment

On March 24, Idaho Governor Brad Little signed legislation to revive a method of execution that had been removed from the state’s law for almost fifteen years: the firing squad. While a number of states have passed legislation to abolish capital punishment, Idaho has taken the opposite approach. Passed by veto-proof majorities in the legislature, the legislation will enable Idaho’s Department of Corrections to utilize a firing squad as a method of execution if an execution by lethal injection cannot be carried out. As with other allegedly “dated” methods of execution, the legalization of firing squad in Idaho drew outcry from various critics, who argued that the firing squad was both “uncivilized” and “inhumane.” The very same adjectives have been used to describe the death penalty itself, and many states have taken heed to those criticisms by outlawing capital punishment. Yet in truth, capital punishment is actually a necessary component of an ordered society, and it is the violent, even macabre nature of the punishment that makes it such a critical tool for dispensing justice.

When it comes to prominent critics of the death penalty, the Catholic Church represents one of the largest institutional opponents of capital punishment. Pope Francis has called the death penalty “inadmissible,” and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has toed a similar line. However, a closer inspection of the Church’s history reveals consistent support for the death penalty in sacred scripture and the writings of various Church Doctors and saints. Both Romans 13 and Acts 25 delegate capital punishment to the state as a legitimate means of executing justice against evildoers. St. Augustine declared in City of God that an executioner did not become a murderer by killing an offender, but instead acted as an instrument of the State. St. Thomas Aquinas went even further, stating in his Summa Theologica that putting offenders to death for particularly heinous crimes was praiseworthy because doing so would protect society at large from the offender’s influence. He added that capital punishment would also encourage contrition by the condemned and expiate the criminal’s temporal punishment which would otherwise be due in Purgatory. Pope Pius XII echoed this sentiment in 1952, noting that the Church was not ignoring the value of human life, but acknowledging that the condemned had deprived themselves of their right to life by the grave nature of their offenses. Pope Benedict XVI also assessed that there were indeed instances in which capital punishment was a necessary recourse, and that it was perfectly legitimate for Catholics to disagree with each other on the subject of the death penalty.

Setting aside the authority of the Church, capital punishment oftentimes represents the only proportional punishment for particularly egregious offenses. In terms of penalties for crimes, the general standard lies in proportionality to the offense. The more serious the crime, the more severe the punishment which is applied. For a premeditated murder with aggravating factors like torture or sexual assault, allowing the offender to live out the rest of their days with taxpayer-funded prison amenities smacks of insufficiency and impotence. The same is true of cases of child sexual abuse, rape, and prolific drug trafficking. It is not justice to allow criminals who commit these kinds of offenses to continue enjoying life, even a life in confinement, after having robbed their victims of life or having caused such physical and psychological harm as to bring the victims’ lives to ruin. Of course, to put a condemned criminal to death under current statutes is not mere Hammurabian retaliation. The offender is allowed to request a last meal, which can often be elaborate in nature, and has access to a spiritual advisor of his or her choice. Their gastronomic and spiritual needs attended to, the offender is then put to death by a method that, at least in theory, follows a standardized protocol which will end the inmate’s life with haste and a minimal amount of pain, luxuries the condemned certainly did not afford to their victims.

Beyond proportionality, contrary to established opinion, the death penalty both statistically and anecdotally has a deterrent effect on certain violent crimes, particularly murder. A 2003 study conducted by Emory University Professors Hashem Dezhbakhsh, Paul R. Rubin, and Joanna M. Shepherd examined data from 3,000 U.S. counties from 1977 to 1996. The researchers found that each execution resulted in an average of 18 fewer murders and a negative correlation between executions and incidents of murder. Considering the significant scope of the study, it seems apparent that the death penalty does indeed give some criminals incentive to reconsider their activities.

Of course, there are a variety of problems with the manner in which executions are often carried out in America. Death row inmates generally spend 10 to 15 years on death row appealing their sentences prior to execution, and some are on death row for even longer. Beyond the excessively lengthy appeals process, most states utilize lethal injection as their primary method of execution. Perhaps the most needlessly complex and unintentionally inhumane method of execution, lethal injection is a symbol of everything wrong with American capital punishment. First introduced in Oklahoma in 1978, lethal injection utilizes a protocol of one or more drugs to sedate, paralyze, and stop the condemned’s heart. 

Yet, this apparently clinical, sterile method of execution has handicapped state corrections agencies. Drug companies opposed to capital punishment have refused to sell the necessary drugs for execution to corrections agencies, leaving states unable to carry out executions. Alternatively, states have resorted to protocols using alternative drugs, often with disastrous results. In some cases, because of the use of insufficiently potent sedatives, the condemned experience feelings of burning and drowning from paralytic agents used in lethal injection. Meanwhile, the increasing age and questionable health of the death row population means that many inmates lack a healthy vein structure to allow the insertion of IV lines. This has sometimes led individuals to make incisions into the arms or legs of inmates to insert IV lines, with inmates having to assist corrections officials with placement of the lines in some cases.

Thus, if capital punishment is to remain an effective instrument of justice, changes will need to be made. The same Emory study illustrating the effectiveness of deterrence found that the deterrent effect was increased when the execution was carried out with less time between conviction and execution. The appeals process must become more streamlined, so death row will be a transitory station for the condemned, rather than a de facto life sentence. With regard to the method of execution, lethal injection must go the way of drawing and quartering in favor of quicker and more painless methods of execution such as firing squad, long drop hanging, and the guillotine. All these methods of execution have produced very low rates of “botched” executions, and are not reliant on the use of difficult-to-obtain materials as in the case of lethal injection. 

While all three are certainly more gruesome, this in itself would likely be a benefit, rather than a drawback. When the state puts someone to death, it does so to exact justice for the most heinous of crimes. To put someone to death in a fashion resembling putting a beloved family pet to sleep seems wholly unbefitting such circumstances, while a more bloody method of execution would certainly emphasize the gravity of the crime. Beyond these steps, it might be pertinent to make executions more widely accessible to the public eye. If the public is to accept capital punishment as a necessary component of the justice system, it must be acquainted with the process, however macabre it may be.

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.