A Farewell to Psalms: The Liturgical Reform and the Psalms of the Roman Rite

n.b this article refers to the Psalms as they are numbered in the Septuagint and Vulgate editions of the Bible.

“Great are you O Lord, and surpassingly worthy of praise” begins St. Augustine in his ever-resounding Confessions [1]. Augustine, however, does not really begin his Confessions because the words he uses are not his own, rather they are the words of the Psalmist: King David. He adapts Psalms 47:2, 95:4, and 144:3, changing them from third person to second person to address the Lord, and swapping the word “nimis” for “valde” (both roughly mean “surpassingly” or “greatly”). I first read the Confessions in my medieval philosophy class with Fr. Manoussakis. Before even opening the text we were taught Augustine’s threefold meaning of “Confession:” laudare (to praise), professio (profession of faith), and confession (of sins). Indeed, the Psalms, and other scripture verses, cohere throughout the entirety of the confessions; integrated into the whole of the work to achieve Augustine’s aim that “we can all declare, great is the Lord, and surpassingly worthy of praise” [2]. The traditional Latin Mass employs the Psalms in a similar way to St. Augustine: they cohere throughout Mass, bringing the voice of King David and the prayers of ancient Jewish temple worship into the Roman Missal of Pope St. Pius V, and  enriching the reverence and prayer of the Mass. The antiquity of their placement in the Mass is also of great value to tradition. In sum, the Psalms of the traditional Mass enhance the worship and richness of the Roman Rite while also directing us towards the sacrifice of the Mass.

Our word “Psalm” ultimately derives from the Greek Psalmos [ψαλμός] meaning “Music sung to the harp” [3]. The Hebrew word for “Psalm” is Tehillim which means “praises.” Through the singing or recitation of the Psalms, we offer God the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving which readily prepares us psychologically and spiritually to witness the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass at the Eucharist (Mass of the Faithful), where Christ is really and substantially present on the altar. Thus it is fitting that in the old rite, every Mass begins with a signing of the Cross and a Psalm. Before the principal Sunday Mass in the traditional rite, the antiphon is known as the Asperges, sung by the choir as the priest sprinkles the congregation with holy water. The Asperges antiphon comes from Psalms 50: 9 and 50: 3 and concludes with the glory be (gloria):  

Ps. 50: 9 Thou shalt sprinkle [Asperges] me with hyssop, and I shall be cleansed: thou shalt wash me, and I shall be made whiter than snow. 

Ps. 50: 3 Have mercy on me, O God, according to thy great mercy

℣ Glory be to Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit

℟ As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall world without end. Amen.  

Of particular charm is how the actions of the priest enact the content of the prayer, drawing a parallel between the sprinkling of holy water by the Priest and the sprinkling of hyssop in the Psalm. In the Eastertide, the Asperges is replaced with the vidi aquam and Psalm 50: 3 with Psalm 117. The Asperges ceremony has been handed down since at least the 900s A.D and grew out of customs which stretch back even further into antiquity [4]. Unfortunately, the rite of sprinkling and the Asperges are almost entirely absent from modern catholic liturgical life; even at Holy Cross, it is gone.

There is an inscription across the front of St. Joseph’s Chapel here at Holy Cross which reads “Introibo ad altare Dei ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam” (“I will go to the altar of God to the God that giveth joy to my youth”) It comes from verse 4 of Psalm 42 (Iudica me), the chief preparatory prayer in the old rite, verse 4 serves as the antiphon. The priest and his servers pray the entirety of Psalm 42 and the other preparatory prayers at the foot of the altar at the start of Mass. After Psalm 42, the Priest and his servers proceed to recite Psalm 123: 8: 

℣ Our help ✠ is in the name of the Lord 

℟ Who made heaven and earth

The prayers at the foot of the altar continue with the priest and servers reciting the Confiteor (“I confess”) and finally, after the priest absolves the server, they continue in the words of David. There is a dialogue between the priest and server using Psalms 84:7-8 and 101: 2 : 

℣ Ps. 84: 7 Thou wilt turn, O God, and bring us to life

℟ and Thy people shall rejoice in Thee

℣ Ps. 84: 8 shew us, O Lord, thy mercy

℟ and grant us thy salvation 

℣ Ps. 101: 2 Hear, O Lord, my prayer

℟ and let my cry come to thee

It's worth noting that this dialogue sequence also takes place after the Asperges. Taken together, there are nine unique Psalm verses in the prayers at the foot of the altar. These prayers found in the traditional Latin Mass today have been there since the 15th century [5], while some form of preparatory prayer itself has existed since at least the 12th century [6]. I find these prayers rather humbling; it's an earnest way to begin Mass and the Psalms lead us to take more seriously the sense of the sacred. In the creation of the new Mass, the reformers totally expunged the preparatory prayers. The liturgy now starts without this careful, delicate, and natural preparation.

The Psalms have also fallen victim to what has been often referred to as the new Mass’s liturgical “deregulation.” The changes to the introit, or “entrance chant” as the new rite calls it, demonstrates this deregulation. In the old rite, the introit was composed of two scripture verses, usually Psalm verses. At a Low Mass, The priest recites it on the right side of the altar (epistle side) after the prayers at the foot of the altar. At a High Mass, the choir would chant the introit as the priest and servers recited the prayers at the foot of the altar. It is Psalms galore! After ascending the altar, the priest would then recite the introit to himself. The Psalms and scripture verses for each day were chosen deliberately with great care over the centuries in the Church; the idea of reciting or chanting anything else was, and is, almost unfathomable. Now, however, The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) allows this “entrance chant” (functionally equivalent to the traditional Mass’s introit) to be taken from one of four options (GIRM, 47-48). The more traditional choice among the options is to chant the day’s antiphon or the antiphon with its Psalm from the Graduale Romanum. The next option is to chant the antiphon and Psalm for the liturgical time. Option three allows singing any Psalm (this can be arranged in the responsorial or metrical style). Option four allows for “another liturgical chant that is suited to the sacred action, the day, or the time of year, similarly approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop.” Although three out of the four options employ Psalms, by far the most common choice is option four which allows a slew of modern music. If you walk into a church today, the chanting of a Psalm as the entrance chant is no guarantee; there’s an even slimmer chance that it would be in Latin. The new Mass’s innovative use of options has allowed for the Psalms to be easily expelled from the entrance chant/introit. Even worse, it favors individual taste (of say the music director or parish priest) over the sound, consistent, and sacred liturgical fixes that are guaranteed in the traditional rite. Other parts of the Mass such as the Offertory Antiphon and the Communion Verse have also fallen victim to liturgical deregulation, so often these propers which were replete with Psalms are replaced with a hymn.

The replacement of the gradual verses with the responsorial Psalm was another great blow to the received tradition of the Roman Rite. In the traditional rite, the choir sang the two prescribed Psalm verses in the gradual between the Epistle and the Gospel. This short and sweet part of the Mass gave way to a rich musical tradition. The reformers of the Mass made the more participatory “responsorial Psalm” the default manner of singing the psalms between readings. The ultimate origin of the gradual lies in pre-Christian Jewish services and it is believed the earliest Christians would have recited the whole Psalm rather than just two verses [7]. The Gregorian Sacramentary, which dates to about the 10th century, refers to these Psalms as the “graduale” (it is named as such because it was recited by the Deacon on the steps, which in Latin is gradus, of the sanctuary). At some point in the first millennium, the singing of the whole Psalm verse was reduced to two and it remained this way until 1969. Presently, there is no historical evidence for the existence of the modern responsorial Psalm in the ancient Roman liturgy (although responsory style Psalms did exist in other Western liturgies); its insertion into the liturgy was largely motivated by the desire of the reformers to force the participation of the laity; it was not authentic organic development. In order to allow the laity the ease of participation in the responsorial Psalm, the music of the traditional gradual was replaced by the simplified and vernacularized music for the responsorial Psalm. It should be noted that the latest edition of the Roman Gradual was published in 1974 which provides gradual verses that can replace the responsorial psalm [8]; this, however, is seldom done. The likelihood of hearing Gregorian chant in a Catholic parish church today is low, very low.  

The offertory marks the start of the Mass of the Faithful, now called the liturgy of the Eucharist. The traditional rite houses two Psalms in the offertory. The first is Psalm 140: 2-4 which is recited during the incensing of the altar at High Mass. Rather fittingly the Psalms reads “Let my prayer be directed as incense in thy sight; the lifting up of my hands, as evening sacrifice.” The second Psalm, called the lavabo, is said by the priest as he washes his hands after offering the chalice. St. Cyril of Jerusalem explains “The washing of hands is a symbol that you ought to be pure from all sinful and unlawful deeds” [9]. For the washing of the hands, the traditional rite prescribes Psalm 25: 6-12 which is given in English here:

6 I will wash [Lavabo] my hands among the innocent; and will compass thy altar, O Lord: 7 That I may hear the voice of thy praise: and tell of all thy wondrous works. 8 I have loved, O Lord, the beauty of thy house; and the place where thy glory dwelleth. 9 Take not away my soul, O God, with the wicked: nor my life with bloody men: 10 In whose hands are iniquities: their right hand is filled with gifts. 11 But as for me, I have walked in my innocence: redeem me, and have mercy on me. 12 My foot hath stood in the direct way: in the churches I will bless thee, O Lord. (Ps. 25: 6-12) 

The use of these six Psalm verses dates back to probably around the 13th century. They are a notable aspect of the received tradition of the Roman Rite. The voice of the Psalmist, however, has been truncated in the new rite. Instead of Psalm 25: 6-12, the priest prays Psalm 50: 4, in English, “Wash me, O Lord, from my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin.”

The priest’s communion Psalms also went missing in the new rite of Mass. After he receives Holy Communion, the priest quietly says the words of Psalm 115: 3-4 and finishes with verse 4 of Psalm 17 “ What shall I render to the Lord, for all the things that he hath rendered to me? I will take the chalice of salvation; and I will call upon the name of the Lord.  Praising I will call upon the Lord: and I shall be saved from my enemies.” I can not help but perceive beauty in the fact that the priest recites these Psalms at this intimate moment in the Mass. The new rite of Mass replaces these psalm verses with these words “May the Body of Christ keep me safe for everlasting life. [here he takes the chalice of blood] May the Blood of Christ keep me safe for everlasting life.” The Psalms have been removed from the communion of the priest

That is the story of the Psalms in the liturgical reform following the Second Vatican Council. The central question we have to answer is why the Psalms in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass matter. I explained earlier that the chanting and recitation of the Psalms were integral to the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, especially during the Mass of the Catechumens (Liturgy of the Word). But more importantly, the Mass is the sacrifice at Calvary made present; therefore, it is fitting that the Psalms be present and quoted a great number of times throughout the Mass. By quoting the Psalms at the sacrifice of the Mass, the priest does as Christ did; he quotes the Psalms during Mass because Christ quotes the Psalms at Calvary (Ps. 21: 1, see Matthew 27: 46 & Mark 15: 34) (Ps. 30: 6, see Luke 23: 46). The Psalms further emphasize the true sacrificial nature of the Mass as the same sacrifice of our Lord on that same cross for which our school is named. The Psalms should never be viewed as something superfluous, but rather as something integral to our Roman Rite. Thus I conclude that the liturgical reform’s removal of the Psalms from the Mass constitutes a tragedy.

Endnotes

[1] St. Augustine, Confessions Books 1-8, trans. Carolyn J.-B Hammond (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014), 3.

[2] St. Augustine, Confessions Books 9-13, trans. Carolyn J.-B Hammond (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014), 191.

[3] “ψαλμός.” Wiktionary. Wikimedia Foundation, accessed 10 October 2023. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ψαλμός#Ancient_Greek.

[4] “Asperges.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907)  https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/asperges.

[5] Peter, Kwasniewski. “The Prayers at the Foot of the Altar and the Last Gospel: A Case-Study in Pius V’s Conservatism,” New Liturgical Movement, 23 August 2021. https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2021/08/the-prayers-at-foot-of-altar-and-last.html .

[6] Adrian, Fortescue. The Mass: A Study Of The Roman Liturgy (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1922) 225.

[7] Adrian, Fortescue. The Mass: A Study Of The Roman Liturgy (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1922) 266-267.

[8] Jeff, Ostrowski. “Eight (8) Responsorial Psalm Options • On turning Missalettes into little “gods,”” Corpus Christi Watershed, 30 September 2023. https://www.ccwatershed.org/2023/09/30/eight-valid-options-responsorial-psalm-on-turning-the-missalette-into-a-little-god/.

[9] Philip, Kosloski. “Why do priests wash their hands during Mass?” Aleteia, 10 July 2021.  https://aleteia.org/2021/07/10/why-do-priests-wash-their-hands-during-mass/.

Bibliography

“Asperges.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907.  https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/asperges 

Fortescue, Adrian. The Mass: A Study Of The Roman Liturgy. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1922. 

General Instruction of the Roman Missal. International Commission on English in the Liturgy Corporation, 2010. 

Kosloski, Philip. “Why do priests wash their hands during Mass?” Aleteia, 10 July 2021, accessed 10 October 2023. https://aleteia.org/2021/07/10/why-do-priests-wash-their-hands-during-mass/. 

Kwasniewski, Peter. “The Prayers at the Foot of the Altar and the Last Gospel: A Case-Study in Pius V’s Conservatism.” New Liturgical Movement, 23 August 2021, accessed: 10 October 2023.https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2021/08/the-prayers-at-foot-of-altar-and-last.html. 

Ostrowski, Jeff. “Eight (8) Responsorial Psalm Options • On turning Missalettes into little “gods”” Corpus Christi Watershed, 30 September 2023, accessed 10 October 2023. https://www.ccwatershed.org/2023/09/30/eight-valid-options-responsorial-psalm-on-turning-the-missalette-into-a-little-god/. 

St. Augustine. Confessions Books 1-8. Translated by Carolyn J.-B Hammond. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014.

St. Augustine. Confessions Books 9-13. Translated by Carolyn J.-B Hammond. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014.

“ψαλμός.” Wiktionary. Wikimedia Foundation, accessed 10 October 2023. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ψαλμός#Ancient_Greek

Sources Consulted

Davies, Michael. A Short History of the Roman Mass. Tan Books, 1997.

“Gradual.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 6. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/gradual

Lasance, Rev. F.X, and Rev. Francis Augustine Walsh, O.S.B. The New Roman Missal - Father Lasance. Christian Book Club of America, 1945. 

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

“In This House We Believe…”

One of my favorite moments of my Public Policy course comes on day one of the social welfare policy unit. I begin by skewering a bumper sticker popular among some conservatives: “Work harder! Millions on welfare depend on you.” I demonstrate to my students how reductive and deceptive this is by walking them through many different policies and programs that make up the American welfare state and showing them how much money is spent on each. They learn that the share of the federal budget spent on aid to working-age, able-bodied adults who aren’t working is in fact quite small. 

People on the political left aren’t immune to the temptation to reduce nuance and complexity to facile slogans. We’ve all seen the yard sign: “In this house we believe…” What follows is a list of progressive bromides. One line always stands out to me: “Science is real.”

It’s hard to know what this means. Before the Covid-19 pandemic, I took the phrase as a reference to climate change. Progressives are deeply concerned about the warming planet and advocate for a robust policy response; there are too many Americans who still do not believe in anthropogenic global warming, and most of these unbelievers are on the political right. Post-pandemic, one might read “science is real” to mean something like “the Covid vaccine is safe and effective, and you should take it.”

But the claim on the sign is far broader than either of these interpretations. It seems to suggest that our political community can be neatly divided into two camps: one which believes in and follows “science,” and another which rejects it. This is not an accurate description of reality. Most progressives are not loyal adherents to science, just as most conservatives are not anti-science zealots. 

Consider Nicholas Kristof’s commendable observation in a recent New York Times op-ed that too many progressives refuse to reckon with social science showing the clear benefits of two-parent households. Among the facts Kristof cites: “Families headed by single mothers are five times as likely to live in poverty as married-couple families.” Yet Kristof reports that, shockingly, just 3 in 10 college-educated progressives agree that “children are better off if they have married parents.” Among college-educated conservatives, more than 9 in 10 agreed with the statement [1].

In other instances, progressives’ use of data, of facts, of “the science,” is incomplete and thus rather misleading. The issue of police killings has been at the heart of progressive calls for racial justice since the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014. Progressives are correct to point out that Black Americans are killed by police at a disproportionate rate. However, as data from The Washington Post show, police killings of unarmed individuals are quite uncommon. Since the Post began tracking them eight years ago, there have been roughly 1,000 fatal police shootings per year. In fewer than 10 percent of these cases, the victim was unarmed. Approximately 20 unarmed Black Americans are fatally shot by police each year [2]. These numbers are obviously still too high. But they are at odds with the claims of some progressives, who have asserted that police kill unarmed Black men far more frequently. For example, during a 2022 judicial confirmation hearing, Senator John Kennedy noted that district court nominee Nusrat Choudhury had incorrectly claimed, “The killing of unarmed Black men by police happens every day in America” [3]. Choudhury’s misstatement jibes with survey results indicating that it is common for progressives to significantly overestimate the number of unarmed Black men killed by police [4].

During the Covid pandemic, progressives often instructed everyone to “follow the science.” One of the policies pursued under this banner was the prolonged closure of schools. Certainly, there was science that pointed toward closing schools, especially during the early stage of the pandemic when little was known about the virus. But there was also plenty of evidence suggesting that prolonged isolation and remote learning for children was likely to have myriad negative effects on child development. That’s why in the summer of 2020—well before the vaccine was available—the American Academy of Pediatrics argued for reopening schools on a more aggressive schedule than the CDC was recommending [5]. Scientists were disagreeing with other scientists. How is one supposed to “follow the science” when there is real science on both sides of an issue? Here, the progressive recourse to science was not particularly helpful. As is often the case, there was no scientifically-prescribed answer to the difficult question at hand.

I recently came across a different version of the “In this house” yard sign. It reads, “In this house we believe that simplistic platitudes, trite tautologies, and semantically overloaded aphorisms are poor substitutes for respectful and rational discussion about complex issues.” I must admit that, for a split second, I thought about putting it on my front lawn. 

Endnotes

[1] Nicholas Kristof, “The One Privilege Liberals Ignore,” The New York Times, September 13, 2023. Opinion | The One Privilege Liberals Ignore - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

[2] Police Shootings Database, “Fatal Force,” The Washington Post, last updated September 23, 2023. Police shootings database 2015-2023: Search by race, age, department - Washington Post

[3] Jason L. Riley, “Was a Judicial Nominee Prejudiced in Her ‘Role as an Advocate’?,” The Wall Street Journal, May 3, 2022. Was a Judicial Nominee Prejudiced in Her ‘Role as an Advocate’? - WSJ

[4] Zach Goldberg, “Perceptions Are Not Reality: What Americans Get Wrong About Police Violence,” Manhattan Institute, August 10, 2023. Perceptions Are Not Reality: What Americans Get Wrong About Police Violence | Manhattan Institute

[5]  Dana Goldstein, “Why a Pediatric Group Is Pushing to Reopen Schools This Fall,” The New York Times, June 30, 2020. Why A.A.P. Guidelines Are Pushing for Schools to Reopen This Fall - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Enough Is Enough: End Aid To Ukraine In The Name of Peace

I am firmly against most, if not all military aid the United States does at an international level, and not in a lame libertarian way. The Global American Empire spreads its wealth and influence around the world in the name of various liberal causes, and very seldom does this influence have any positive effect for the American people. The same holds for our generous giving to Ukraine: it has done nothing to help Americans and has only perpetuated the war, contributing to the deaths of almost half a million people

I am against this war. As a Christian, I am vehemently opposed to seeing soldiers on both sides suffer casualties in a conflict that could have been avoided. It is easy for us here in America to look at the war and encourage Ukrainians to keep fighting. The media has spun a great narrative about this calamity: the fledgling democracy against the evil oligarchy; Zylenskyy, a comedian-turned-politician, against Putin, the former KGB spy. This sanitized version of reality makes excellent material for the movies, but this is real life. We can give money and missiles to Ukraine for a long time but, at the end of the day, wars are won by men, and in this respect Russia has an almost three to one advantage on the battlefield. 

The U.S. has contributed more to the Ukrainian war effort than any other country. Out of the roughly $150 billion that has been sent in the form of aid and weapons, the US has given over half: $77 billion [1]. This is a drop in the bucket in terms of our annual spending, but in the words of a wise man, “It’s not about the money it’s about sending a message.” What message are we sending to our people, and to the world, by siphoning money to a corrupt country at war with a declining power like Russia? The government has failed to provide our people with a secure border, but its coffers are deep enough to proliferate fighting in a region many Americans can’t even point to on a map?  Seriously? If America stopped sending aid, the war could be over in a matter of weeks; President Zelenksyy stated this himself during his trip to Washington in September [2]. 

In the likely event of a Russian victory, little will change for Americans. For those in Eastern Europe however, there will be a great sigh of relief. Fathers and sons will return home; mothers will no longer have to fear for their families; Luhansk and Donetsk—the contested regions that are predominantly Russian-speaking—will be ceded back to Russia. This is not ideal for Ukraine but it will likely be a part of Russia’s terms of surrender. It is not likely that Ukraine will be fully absorbed into Russia as many people in the West fear; given the time and resources the Russians have poured into this campaign it makes little sense for them to occupy the country and periodically put down rebellions and civil unrest. Ultimately, I can not foresee President Zelenskyy remaining in control of Ukraine—I pray no harm comes to him but one way or another he will probably be forced to step down and a pro-Russian leader will be installed. The country will revert to how it was before 2014 with Ukraine as a buffer between NATO and Russia. 

I am still not sure why we are financing the slaughter in Ukraine. The official fact sheet from the United States government published in February 2023 states that we are supporting Ukraine against the “unjust” assault by Russia [3]. The United State’s justification fails to consider the fact that President Zelenskyy continued to pursue NATO membership, which Russia claims to be a direct threat to their national security. NATO was founded in opposition to the Soviet Union and has remained hostile to Russia up to the present day; if Ukraine had gone through with its membership, it would mean Russia would be surrounded by adversaries (excluding Belarus).  Even if we assume that Russia had no rational reason for invading, and that President Putin is the deranged sociopath the media portrays him to be, when the bodies are piled this high—some 190,000 dead soldiers in total [4]— it is prudent for Ukraine and her western backers to sue for peace. If President Zelenskyy is really adamant about continuing the fight, the U.S. will have to step up and stop sending aid. 

Russia and her people are not inherently evil; they do not have to be our eternal enemy. This may come as a shock to those stuck in the Neocon matrix, but it's not the 1960s anymore. Russia is not bent on spreading atheist-communism across the globe. America has been doing fine in that regard for decades. In the same vein, Ukraine is not a paragon of virtue and democracy, this notion was concocted as soon as the war broke out and is utterly false. No actor in this affair is completely blameless—no leader, be it President Zelenskyy or President Putin is all good or all bad—but the time for pointing fingers is done. Making sweeping moral claims and painting with a broad brush is a foolish exercise: it is this mindset that led us into World War I, Vietnam, and other conflicts that America need not have entered. In the name of peace, in the name of humanity, the U.S. government must stop sending aid to Ukraine and let this war come to an end. 

End Notes

[1] Christopher, Wolf, “Countries That Have Sent the Most Aid to Ukraine,” U.S. News & World Reports, February 24, 2023, https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2023-02-24/these-countries-have-sent-the-most-aid-to-ukraine.

[2]Ariana Figueroa and Samantha Dietel, “‘If we don’t get the aid, we will lose the war’: Zelenskyy asks Congress to help Ukraine,” Colorado Newsline, September 22, 2023, https://coloradonewsline.com/2023/09/22/aid-war-zelenskyy-asks-congress-to-help-ukraine/.

[3] The White House, “FACT SHEET: One Year of Supporting Ukraine,” February 21, 2023, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/02/21/fact-sheet-one-year-of-supporting-ukraine/.

[4] Helene Cooper, Thomas Gibbons-Neff, Eric Schmitt, and Julian E. Barnes. “Troop Deaths and Injuries in Ukraine War Near 500,000, U.S. Officials Say” The New York Times, August 18, 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/18/us/politics/ukraine-russia-war-casualties.html#:~:text=The%20number%20includes%20as%20many,and%20100%2C000%20to%20120%2C000%20wounded.

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/

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.