The Review Reviews: Film Review: “The Boys in the Boat” Floats Best on its Historical Cred

Living in Washington State and having once done rowing for a summer, it was practically a mandate that I catch The Boys in the Boat during its time in theaters over winter break. The film, based on a nonfiction book by the same name, tells the story of the University of Washington men’s rowing team that won gold in the 1936 Berlin Olympics. With sports, an underdog victory against staggering odds, and a rhetorical middle finger to the Nazis right before World War II all in the offering, it’s somewhat surprising this book wasn’t adapted into a big-screen crowd pleaser any sooner.

I’d read the book once before but had forgotten most of the details, and after seeing the film in theaters I was inspired to reread it. Reflecting on the film after the reread was an interesting experience. When comparing a film adaptation with its source material, one typically finds that the film has exaggerated story elements so as to better milk the drama, often to the point of losing realism. A viewer unfamiliar with the story might suspect that The Boys in the Boat has done this. Of course the hero, Joe Rantz, was essentially abandoned by his father and is living in extreme poverty before he’s selected for the men’s rowing team. Of course the team is talented beyond anyone’s predictions, and just in time for an Olympic year, too. Of course one of the rowers falls ill upon his arrival in Berlin and pushes on through the final race anyway. And of course, thanks to unethical behavior by officials, the US rowing team is wrongly given the worst lane in the final race, improperly cued to start rowing, and still manages to win anyway. It seems so contrived that the viewer is inclined to skepticism… but all of these things really happened. In fact, far from exaggerating the truth, the film at times actually downplays what’s described in the book. Though Joe mentions that his father left him to fend for himself, the film does not hint at how extreme his situation really was, foraging in the woods for food at the age of fifteen after his family literally packed their car and drove to another town without him; and his search for a job in the film is tame compared to the exhausting and dangerous work men had to take up to earn a wage during the Great Depression. 

Rereading the book, it’s disappointing that the film didn’t include these elements. They’re an interesting part of the story and they would have added more specificity to what risks being a generic sports film. (As an example, the relationship between Joe and his future wife — in the book, a tender and idiosyncratic relationship between two individuals united by their equally fraught childhoods — is sadly reduced to some stock romantic comedy interactions.) Fortunately, it’s a sports film that knows how to film sports well. All of the race scenes, which are really the movie’s raison d’être anyway, are thrillingly shot, helped by an excellent soundtrack. The director wisely cuts between the rowers and the onlookers/coaches, preventing the scenes from becoming exhausting or confusing while also thematically highlighting the importance of a team’s leadership. Audience members leaving the theater will likely be invigorated, high on adrenaline, and newly appreciative of the joys of physical fitness — provided they’re not busy nitpicking details the film left out.

Is The Boys in the Boat another adaptation that only draws criticism from book purists and is most enjoyable if one forgets the source material, then? No, I can’t say that. True, being familiar with the book will make the film’s omissions more bothersome. However, I think the film would suffer more if one isn’t familiar with the book at all. Those apparently contrived plot elements I described earlier would be positively groan-worthy if one didn’t know that they came from history. A lot of the film’s inspirational value stems from its historicity. Without the record to support it, it would be just another sports movie about people overcoming problems that have been cooked up for the purpose of being taken down. 

Perhaps The Boys in the Boat was simply taking on an impossible task. Even with tight editing, the film needs to be two hours long just to show all of the team’s pivotal races. Including the historical details it omitted would have meant cutting a race or two, and I don’t think that would have necessarily been the right choice. There are some who would argue that the problem lies in the medium, and The Boys in the Boat would have been better as a multi-episode miniseries. With languorously stretched adaptations becoming increasingly common on streaming services, though, and so many theatrical releases pushing well over two hours these days, I have a hard time faulting a film for keeping things short. And after everything, I still like The Boys in the Boat. As I mentioned, I left the theater inspired enough to want to reread the book. Perhaps it would have been nice to see its sights set a little higher, but that’s no mark against what the film does accomplish.

 Ultimately, The Boys in the Boat succeeds in what it sets out to do. It’s a fun, easy sports film with good racing eye-candy, granted some extra gravitas by its origin in reality. Fans of the book may not feel that film captures its source material’s atmosphere and will miss the complexity afforded by a book’s long form. Yet the film we have is inoffensive and could be a good accompaniment to the book if one already knows the story. Perhaps the fact that I find it an imperfect adaptation is only a sign of how good other book-to-film adaptations have been.

Overall grade: B+.

Letter from the Editors Winter '24

Dear Reader, 

Thank you for picking up a copy of the Fenwick Review. Last semester, we were happy to publish our Fall edition and get positive feedback from many of our readers, including those across the political aisle. We were particularly encouraged that one of our senior writers’ articles, “Holy Cross Must Ban Pornography,” proved to be an intersection point for conservatives and liberals. As editors, we want to simultaneously defend our Catholic and conservative viewpoints in The Fenwick Review while still engaging respectfully with those who disagree with us. We are happy to see steps being taken in that direction. We hope all our readers enjoy this edition. 

Reddens laudes Domino, 

Griffin Blood ‘26 & Anna Moran ‘24

Where are the rights for student journalism?

Like the United States Constitution, Holy Cross’s Community Standards provide students important guarantees of some very important rights. These include “access to ideas, facts and opinions, the right to express ideas and discuss ideas with others, and the right to “expression of opinion, which includes the right to state agreement or disagreement with the opinions of others and the right to an appropriate forum for the expression of opinion.” I encourage all students to familiarize themselves with these rights (and the Standards more broadly), and to think about the ways that they are exercised every day on campus.

But students who thoroughly review the Standards will not find specific protections for student journalists such as the students who manage and write for The Fenwick Review, The Spire, and The College Street Journal, or for literary publications like fósforo and The Purple. It might be said that such outlets are protected by students’ rights to access ideas, but such a phrase seems to indicate the right of students to read such publications, rather than the right to produce them. Student journalists exercise their rights to express their opinion, and these publications are certainly the “appropriate forum” in which to do so. But the United States’ 232-year experience with the First Amendment has consistently demonstrated that the freedom of the press can only be sustained when the rights of the press are clearly and positively delineated. Might it be an improvement to clearly state such journalistic rights in Holy Cross’s Community Standards?

For instance, a student’s right to express their opinion in an appropriate forum is clearly met by the publication of these journals. Would that right be infringed upon if freely-distributed copies of such appropriate fora were systematically destroyed? This happens more often than you might think. Last year copies of Keene State College’s student newspaper The Equinox were stolen. The culprits—caught on camera—were members of a sorority who were angry about an article investigating violations of the campus masking policy at sorority parties. In 2020, members of Virginia Commonwealth University’s student government association stole copies of the student-run Commonwealth Times because they were upset about an article exposing a “toxic” environment in student government.

This may happen so often because press opponents believe that, because these campus publications are free, they can be taken with impunity. The reality is that the theft of newspapers—even those freely distributed—is an attack on press freedom. Often, however, colleges turn a blind eye to such de facto censorship, and student journalists are understandably reluctant to involve the police in such matters--though it is their right to do so. Students should not have to go to such lengths in order to defend their rights. Colleges should demonstrate their support for the freedom of the press by explicitly prohibiting newspaper theft on campus. Indeed, colleges are among the few places where free distribution of physical newspapers remains a central element of the media landscape, and for this reason alone should ensure that such outlets receive special protection.

It is also unclear that student journalists on campus are protected from prior restraint on what they publish. Again, this happens more often than you might think. At Quinnipiac University, The Quinnipiac Chronicle was prohibited from publishing a series of articles on—get this—university efforts to censor student publications. The University claimed that “student leaders…are expected to generally be supportive of university policies”--a policy that makes a mockery of the notion of freedom of the press. The University of North Alabama fired the advisor of its student newspaper when student journalists investigated the sudden and unexplained banning of a professor from campus.

I’m unaware of anything like this happening at Holy Cross. As advisors to this publication, Prof. Greg Burnep and I have made clear to the editors that they should never allow anyone—including their advisors—to exercise prior restraint on the publication of any article.  Colleges as a whole should make similar pledges--to refrain from censoring student publications. Without such explicit protections, student journalists remain uncertain about what might happen if they did.

Finally, like students everywhere, student journalists are in danger of having their rights delimited by inappropriate exploitation of the university’s disciplinary processes. At Brandeis University, student journalists were charged with privacy violations when they published quotes from speakers at a rally—even though their comments were made publicly. At the University of Alaska-Fairbanks, a professor filed an official gender discrimination complaint against a student paper because of a satirical article suggesting that the university was planning to build a vagina-shaped building. After a months-long investigation, the student satirist was cleared, but one would wonder if they would dare risk another such investigation, or if they were subtly told that future investigations might take into account the fact that they had been accused previously. In Supreme Court parlance, this is called a “chilling effect” on press freedom because journalists are discouraged from writing about subjects that they fear might upset others.

In cases like this, members of the student press are effectively censored via a bait-and-switch tactic that exploits disciplinary procedures designed to ensure student safety, or prevent gender discrimination, or regulate behavior. Knowing that censorship is frowned upon, press opponents instead claim that constitutionally-protected content violates policies that are technically unrelated to content. Colleges should recognize such charges for what they are—a violation of the rights of both authors and readers of student journalism. They can take a stand against this by explicitly affirming the rights of journalists, and clarifying that people who don’t like what they read in the papers should take up their pens rather than filing formal complaints to punish journalists individually.

In an age in which journalists globally are under threat from a variety of regimes, everyone should renew their care for freedom of the press. And if you care about freedom of the press, you should care about freedom of the student press. This isn’t because every student should be comforted by what every publication will say. It is because a community without a free press lacks a valuable tool for holding power-wielders of all sorts in check. But perhaps more important for college campuses, student journalism forces the community to face ideas that are not on the official agenda, or absent from syllabi, or taboo in residence halls. Student journalists, in this way, fulfill the College’s  Mission Statement call for us to “join in dialogue about basic human questions.” That is a purpose worth enshrining in college policy. 

Holy Cross Must Ban Pornography

Aylo, the parent company of the pornography giant Pornhub, was recently sued by victims of sex trafficking for the tenth time in the last three years [1]. These victims claim that Aylo knowingly uploaded videos of their sexual assault for profit. These two hundred and fifty-seven victims, mostly high-school and college-aged women, state that these videos were products of sexual coercion and published without their consent. 

Sadly, these women are not the only victims of the porn industry’s continuing cycles of violence. Millions of men, women, and children worldwide have become victims of sex trafficking, sexual assault, rape, trauma, and despair due to the proliferation of internet pornography. These individuals often remain stuck in cycles of sexual and physical violence, experience high rates of suicidality and post-traumatic stress disorder, and have their lives destroyed by the effects of pornography. 

Pornographers know that their industry causes death, despair, and destruction for countless individuals, and they are still willing to perpetuate this violence for profit. However, this does not mean that the College of the Holy Cross needs to continue tacitly supporting this industry of injustice, sin, and violence. 

The College of the Holy Cross allows pornography to be easily accessed through the school’s WiFi servers. While Holy Cross limits access to other websites on its networks, users can easily access these pornographic websites that continue to profit from the trafficking and exploitation of other human beings. By allowing these websites to be accessed on the school’s WiFi networks, Holy Cross fails to fulfill its mission, which asks members of the campus community to consider “what is our special responsibility to the world’s poor and powerless?” [2]. Our special responsibility is not to further the exploitation of vulnerable people by the pornography industry, but rather it is to take a moral stand by installing pornography filters on the college’s WiFi servers. The administration of the College of the Holy Cross must install filters that ban internet pornography, as pornography demeans human life, harms our student body, and is inherently contrary to the college’s mission. 

Habitual drug consumption leads to massive changes in one’s actions, personality, and lifestyle. An addict’s reality becomes distorted, and chemical changes in the brain make the person different than they once were. Pornography, like all other drugs, changes people for the worse, as it teaches one to devalue the beauty of human life. Researchers have found that eighty-eight percent of the top viewed pornographic videos contain physical violence, and around fifty percent of these videos contain verbal assaults [3]. Men who frequently consume pornographic material are less [4] likely to hold egalitarian views on women and significantly more [5] likely to commit dating and sexual violence. Pornography distorts sexual reality, and it reduces people into sexual objects. Sex becomes a purely physical and transactional relationship in which one person fulfills another’s momentary needs while forgoing their emotional and spiritual well-being. A pornographic view of human sexuality devalues our common humanity, as people are now viewed by others as objects to acquire rather than human beings to intimately love. 

Pornography is not an abstract worry that does not affect those of us who live and work on Mount St. James, rather it affects every person who calls our campus home. Recent studies show that fifty-six percent of men aged eighteen to twenty-nine admit to watching pornography within the past year, and almost eighty percent of them have watched it within the last month.  Sixty percent of daily pornography users feel isolated or lonely, over seventy-five percent of daily users feel self-conscious or insecure about their appearance, and only twenty-six percent feel satisfied with their sex life. Pornography also impacts the formation and flourishing of relationships [6]. Pornography has been linked to difficulty in maintaining sexual arousal, feelings of sexual inadequacy, lower levels of relationship trust, lower levels of communication, and even higher rates of infidelity in relationships [7]. 

This crisis affects our student body–and if you do not think so just listen to most conversations between men on campus behind closed doors. But this article is not meant to shame people who watch pornography, rather it is to sound the clarion call that the student body of Holy Cross needs the college’s administration help to solve this issue. We cannot change the culture of our campus without the administration’s help. These issues affect every student on this campus. Every student’s personal life, relationship with their peers, and social life are all negatively affected by pornography’s presence. If our campus is truly full of “men and women for and with others,” then we cannot be a campus that allows this drug, which isolates, destroys relationships, and changes one’s perspective on the other sex, to be easily accessible through the school’s WiFi.

Easily accessible internet pornography is also contrary to the college’s mission as a Catholic institution sponsored by the Society of Jesus. Our mission statement claims that our institution is “linked with an obligation to address the social realities of poverty, oppression, and injustice in our world” [8]. Reality shows us that pornography exacerbates poverty, oppression, and injustice for those who participate in pornographic videos, and it oppresses the souls of those who indulge in it. Pornography also undermines the college’s commitment to “the service of faith and justice” [9]. Our shared Catholic faith has consistently seen pornography as an evil that destroys human dignity, hurts the souls of all involved, cheapens love and the marital relationship, and continues a grave injustice against our fellow man. If we actually were committed to serving faith and justice on our campus, then it would be obvious that pornography must be banned.

The College of the Holy Cross claims to be an institution that “recognizes the inherent dignity of all human beings,” but our actions do not show that [10]. Holy Cross perpetuates injustice against its students, the broader community, and mankind by allowing easy access to pornography. This institution has the ability to change the culture of the campus from the top down, and it successfully has changed it before. In this case it can do so again. The college’s administration talks a good deal about creating a just campus environment that advocates against injustice in all of its forms, but anyone can obviously see that there is much more work to be done. However, this time Holy Cross can truly commit to creating a campus culture of men and women who stand for and with each other by installing pornography filters on our WiFi networks. If we want to remain true to our mission, then there is no other option.

Endnotes

[1] Breccan F. Thies, “Pornhub hit with 10th sex trafficking lawsuit,” The Washington Examiner, October 4, 2023, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/pornhub-hit-tenth-sex-trafficking-lawsuit.

[2] College of the Holy Cross Mission Statement, https://www.holycross.edu/about-us/mission-statement.

[3] Bridges AJ, Wosnitzer R, Scharrer E, Sun C, Liberman R., “Aggression and sexual behavior in best-selling pornography videos: a content analysis update,” Violence Against Women, 2010 Oct;16(10):1065-85, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20980228/.

[4] Hald, G.M., Malamuth, N.N. and Lange, T., “Pornography and Sexist Attitudes Among Heterosexuals”, Journal of Communication, 63: 638-660, (2013), https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12037.

[5] Rodenhizer, K. A. E., & Edwards, K. M., “The Impacts of Sexual Media Exposure on Adolescent and Emerging Adults’ Dating and Sexual Violence Attitudes and Behaviors: A Critical Review of the Literature,” Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 20(4), 439-452, https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838017717745.

[6] Daniel Cox, et al., “How Prevalent is Pornography?,” The Institute for Family Studies, May 3, 2022, https://ifstudies.org/blog/how-prevalent-is-pornography.

[7] Naomi Brower, “Effects of Pornography on Relationships,” Utah State University, April 2023, https://extension.usu.edu/relationships/research/effects-of-pornography-on-relationships. 

[8] College of the Holy Cross Mission Statement.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Vincent Rougeau, “A Community and a College for All,” Email, August 24, 2023.

Recap of "Is the Catholic University Dead?"

On October 4 at 7 p.m. in Hogan 410, The Society of Saints Peter and Paul hosted Professor James Keating, an associate professor of theology at Providence College, to deliver a talk entitled “Is the Catholic University Dead?” Professor Keating began by answering the question simply: yes. He claimed that the Catholic university no longer fulfills its purpose of infusing the Gospel message into the education it provides, and that this vision of higher education belongs to an irretrievable past. Accepting this disheartening fact, we are left with the question: what do we do now? How are we to find “stirrings of new life among ruins”?

Before discussing plans for the future, Professor Keating performed a post-mortem on the Catholic university. He began by claiming that Catholic leaders did not do what they ought to have done to uphold the tradition of faith-infused education after the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council in 1965. Further, in 1967, the “manifesto” on the future of Catholic education named the Land O’Lakes Statement was signed by “more than twenty prominent leaders in American education”. This statement called Catholic schools to embrace the academic standard of secular schools, to reject intellectual imperialism, to learn theology by conversation, to reduce the importance given to philosophy, and to establish “true autonomy and academic freedom in the face of authority of whatever kind, lay or clerical, external to the academic community itself.” Professor Keating clarified that “autonomy” meant freedom from “the ruling powers of the Catholic Church.” These changes were proposed so that Catholic colleges could match the excellence of secular colleges. However, the implications of the Land O’Lakes statement, coupled with the decreasing numbers within religious orders following Vatican II, resulted in the secularization of Catholic schools. Having started on this path, Catholic education reached a point of no return, leading us to where we are now: a time in which the adjective “Catholic” is difficult to define when it is applied to higher educational institutions. Keating claims that crosses on classroom walls and liturgy offerings do not define a school as Catholic; only offering a “robustly Catholic education” can do that. 

Pope St. John Paul II saw this deterioration and attempted to right the ship with his 1990 Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae, meaning “from the heart of the Church.” Professor Keating cited the constitution, recalling that Catholic universities are “called to explore courageously the riches of Revelation and of nature so that the united endeavor of intelligence and faith will enable people to come to the full measure of their humanity, created in the image and likeness of God, renewed even more marvelously, after sin, in Christ, and called to shine forth in the light of the Spirit.” He provided guidance on how to attain this noble goal: offer courses in theology, offer liturgies, and welcome the ongoing involvement of the local Bishop. He also set forth a requirement that all Catholic faculty must be faithful to the Church, and that all non-Catholic faculty must respect Catholic teaching. Further, the non-Catholic faculty could not outnumber the Catholic faculty. Professor Keating emphasized that Pope St. John Paul II defends the right that non-Catholics have to exist in Catholic education: he does not envision an ideologically homogeneous faculty. However, he does say that if we want faith to be central to Catholic education, then the majority of our educators ought to be active members of the faith they are passing on; as the Latin dictum goes: “nemo quod non habet” (no one can give what they do not have). 

This vision has proved unattainable. The majority of faculty at many Catholic universities, including The College of the Holy Cross and Providence College, are non-Catholic. Others may be active Catholics that have not let their faith inform their scholarly work. Professor Keating paused to clarify that these educators do not bear the responsibility for the death of the Catholic university. He paid them due respect: “they have dedicated their lives to educating our students.” The failure of the constitution can be attributed to the irrevocable change caused by the Land O’Lakes statement in 1967: the dynamic was already set by 1990, and there was no going back. The Apostolic Constitution gave false hope, turning hopeful Catholic educators into “fools waiting for Godot.” Professor Keating sadly recalled that many of them “ended their careers in bitterness fighting to keep the dream alive.” 

Having concluded the post-mortem, Professor Keating provided those of us who remain invested in Catholic education with a hopeful plan for the future: Catholic Studies departments. These departments would provide the Catholic education described in Ex Corde Ecclesiae. The first Catholic Studies department was founded in 1993, paving the way for others who will apply Catholic principles to diverse subjects such as art, science, music, etc. Professor Keating also expressed that Catholic Studies’ course offerings need not always speak positively about the Church, though they must never seek to denigrate her, but rather admit that she, and we, operate within a fallen world. 

Professor Keating admitted that some may see this solution as giving up and establishing a “Catholic ghetto” within a secular whole. However, he maintains that these departments are a cause for hope: they are the only way we can follow Ex Corde Ecclesiae. He challenged professors and teachers who want to join this mission to take it upon themselves. Professor Keating himself started a Catholic Studies major and minor at Providence College. If these departments attract enough students, and there is good reason to believe that they will, then there will be more hires and the programs will grow. 

The hopefulness for these departments is born from the fact that many young Catholics are attracted to academic life. Further, Keating pointed out that undergraduates are in crisis and in need of the truth of the Gospel: they are “unsatisfied with the world bequeathed to them by their elders” and acutely aware of the problems within it. They have seen the “hideous reality of the West without Christ.” They see that our secular world looks more like Huxley’s dystopia than “a liberated society, free from guilt and free to reach its potential.” The “easy-going relativism” of the millennials is not as attractive anymore, nor is the dogmatic culture of the coming generation. Keating affirmed that Catholic education is poised to respond to this need for meaning with “the richness of the salvific message of the Gospel.” As a dedicated Catholic educator, Professor Keating said, “We have nothing to give other than Christ Himself.” He concluded by saying that, if Catholic education is to return, “it’ll be His work, not ours.”

Cover image from Guardian H, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fenwick_DSC_1272.jpg, no changes made to image.

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.