Peter Kreeft on "The Great Divorce"

At the end of the 2024 Fall semester, our book club welcomed Professor Peter Kreeft to speak on C.S. Lewis. Professor Kreeft teaches philosophy at Boston College and has authored over eighty books covering topics ranging from Zen Buddhism to Martin Heidegger, as well as philosophical dialogues featuring Marx, Socrates, and John F. Kennedy. When he arrived at Holy Cross donning a suit and purple tie, I asked him if he had done so intentionally as a nod to our school colors. He quickly insisted the tie choice was mere coincidence. Although Peter Kreeft is a giant in the Catholic philosophical world, he knew perfectly how to relate to an audience of college students. 

The lecture was attended by twenty philosophically and theologically inclined students, the majority of whom had been attending weekly meetings covering C.S. Lewis’s 1945 classic, The Great Divorce. In the three weeks leading up to Kreeft’s talk, the group met for one hour on Fridays to share food, fellowship, and thoughts provoking discussion on the chapters we had read. The novella follows an unnamed narrator as he makes the journey (via cosmic bus) from a dull and grey Purgatory to the ethereal outskirts of Heaven. The narrator witnesses souls balk at the idea of entering Heaven, preferring to distance themselves from God and return back to Purgatory (or Hell, depending on how you look at it). Up at the podium, Kreeft expounded effortlessly about the book, crystalizing and deepening the insights we had made together during club meetings. He included jokes and anecdotes that kept the audience engaged, and drew connections between the Bible, Dante, and other works by Lewis. Kreeft covered the main themes of the book: free will and God’s judgment of sin. God in his infinite patience and wisdom, Kreeft said, allows his stupid children to make the same mistakes over and over again so that we may come to him and ask for forgiveness. This gets to the heart of C.S. Lewis’s book: the shades in Heaven are given ample opportunity to accept God’s love, only to turn it down in favor of prideful pursuits. 

After the talk, Professor Kreeft stayed for a while to talk to the students, a courtesy we were all grateful for. 
Book club meetings will continue later this month, copies of Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment will be provided for any Holy Cross student interested. Feel free to contact me at tgange26@g.holycross.edu.

Encountering “the Lonely and Afflicted” – A Catholic Approach to Mental Health

In June and July, I had the opportunity to take a summer session course with Prof. Peter Fay titled “Christian Ethics and Mental Illness.” It was a revelatory experience – one that enriched my limited understanding of how Catholicism presents itself to stand for and with the afflicted.  

In Genesis 1:27, God created human beings in His image and likeness to be happy, whole, and life-giving. In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus gently invites all who labor and are burdened to find rest in Him (Matthew 11:28-30). Similarly, in John’s Gospel, Jesus emphasizes the relationship He seeks with His followers (John 15:4-5). Grounded in God’s Word, Catholics must look to His example to welcome with love and openness all men and women who suffer from mental illness. 

Mental illness is a common and pervasive aspect of human life. Over the last decade – especially since the COVID-19 pandemic – we have seen an alarming increase in depression and suicidal tendencies. In 2023, the CDC estimates that forty-six thousand people died from mental illness. Most were young, most died unnecessarily, and many were among the most gifted that we as a society have. However, despite the ubiquity of mental illness, those who suffer often remain associated with shame and embarrassment, which can prevent people from seeking medical help. 

Indeed, the subject of mental illness tends to bring out a complex humanity. It is an unfortunate fact that public awareness lags behind extensive clinical and scientific progress. Although many respond with kindness and generosity, it too often hits a deep vein of fear and prejudice. The vitriol and irrationality of such people can be disturbing. It also advances the conceptualization of mental illness as a spiritual flaw or shortcoming in character. It is appalling to encounter such attitudes more associated with the Middle Ages than with the progressive twenty-first century. 

As followers of Christ, mental health stigma contradicts the theological foundation of the One True Church. Saint Augustine of Hippo – arguably the greatest genius among the Church Fathers – considers the gift of the human intellect in his book City of God. He writes: “What a wondrous thing it is that we have been given the ability to know our world, ourselves, and even, with the help of grace, our God.” He continues: “[Those with mental illness] say and do many incongruous things, things for the most part alien to their intentions and their characters, certainly contrary to their good intentions and characters; and when we think about their words and actions or see them with our eyes, we can scarcely – or possibly we cannot at all – restrain our tears if we consider their situation as it deserves to be considered” (Volume II, Book XXII). 

St. Augustine’s stance on mental illness – and that of Catholic tradition – is clear. He earnestly urges Christians to empathize with those who struggle with mental illness and recognize that their actions often arise from pain and confusion rather than malice or moral deficiency. All too often, lost years and relationships cannot be recovered. The damage done to oneself and others cannot be put right. A person’s desire and will to live gradually erodes into a loss of meaning. Mental illness is a heavy burden, and adding other burdens of shame and dismay onto it only makes it heavier. Rejecting a person because of prejudice is like rejecting the broken and bloody Jesus hanging on the Cross. Therefore, we are each called to love and advocate for the least among us, in all their pain and fragility – just as Christ took all human suffering on Himself. 

Fifteen hundred years later, Saint John Paul II makes a similar point. At an international conference for healthcare workers in 1996, the Pope expressed: “Whoever suffers from mental illness ‘always’ bears God’s image and likeness in himself, as does every human being.” Nothing – not a criticism, experience, or a person – can diminish a person’s God-given dignity. Mental illness readily conforms that person to Christ and gives him a share in His redeeming passion. 

Catholic and Orthodox Christians can look primarily to the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist – the source and summit of God’s radical love. The Sacrament, just like the Resurrection, can transform mental illness from an end to a beginning. The disarming simplicity of the Host is His promise to be with us “always, until the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20). 

As the Messiah, Jesus Christ restored meaning to people’s lives. He not only served as a profound teacher but also as a healer to those He encountered. His ministry was marked by healing deeds that transcended mere physical ailments – He addressed the deep emotional and spiritual wounds that too often accompany His beloved children. The Gospel of John challenges all disciples – past and present alike – to do the works Jesus did and “greater [works] than these” (John 14:12). As Catholics, we must ask ourselves what deeds we find ourselves engaged in. Do we restore those around us, or do we rob them of the love given to us by the Divine Physician? 

All this is to say that Prof. Fay’s course was a reminder of what the Church can and does do for those with mental illness and that the Church is called to do more. We are all – as Lord Byron put it – differently organized. We each move within the restraints of our mind and live up only partially to its possibilities. However, it must be noted that some face more hardships than others.

That being so, we are each called to extend our arms wider in openness. We must embrace that same sense of love and inclusion found in the Eucharist for those who suffer from mental illness. If we learn to wholeheartedly walk alongside those who suffer, we can then be models of Christ. No longer confining our ministry to the sick toward those with physical ailments uplifts those with invisible – albeit no less important – illnesses. It is not just His work to love. It is ours. 

Bibliography 

Augustine of Hippo. City of God. Translated by Henry Bettenson, Penguin Classics, 2004.

John Paul II. “International Conference for Healthcare Workers: Illnesses of the Mind.” 1996. 

https://www.ncpd.org/resources_and_toolkits/mental-illness-theological-framework 

Pope Francis. “Homily on the Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ.” 2020.

“Mental Health.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, 2024, www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/mental-health.htm.

“Mental Illness Statistics.” National Institute of Mental Health, 

www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/mental-illness.

In Defense of Israel: A Response to Juan Cortes’s “Reconsidering Israel”

n.b., Prof Emeritus Schaefer sent us this article in November of 2024.

I regret having to observe that Juan Cortes’s essay advocating a cutoff of American support for Israel is sadly misinformed. To begin with, his criticism of Israel’s current war of self-defense against attacks from Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran lacks any historical context.

First, one must understand how the state of Israel came to be born. The nations of Israel and Jordan, along with adjacent territories, grew out of what was originally part of the Ottoman Empire. Following World War I, Britain established a “mandate” over these territories (as did France over what later became Lebanon and Syria). pledging in its 1917 Balfour Declaration to establish a Jewish state in part of the land. The Jews, having had a continuous presence in what came to be called “Palestine” since antiquity, migrated to the territory, coming especially from Europe, acquiring land by purchase from its inhabitants, not by force. Yet the Jews were assaulted in a series of violent pogroms by local Arab groups, led by a Mufti who became an ally of Adolf Hitler during World War II (and was unsuccessfully pursued as a war criminal by the Western allies after the war). The land’s Jewish population nonetheless grew, especially as those who were able to flee the Nazis’ endeavor at extermination found refuge there.

In 1947 the Jews were authorized by the United Nations to establish a state of their own on a very small territory. But rather than accept its existence, the surrounding Arab nations launched an attack to destroy the new state as soon as it was declared in 1948.

While Israel won its war of independence, Arab nations never accepted its legitimacy. During the 1950s, Egypt, under its socialist dictator Gamal Abdul Nasser, repeatedly launched irregular “fedayeen” attacks against the Jewish state. Meanwhile, Jordan, which held the historic Old City of Jerusalem, where Jews’ most sacred sites were located, destroyed them, and used the Jewish New City for target practice, compelling its partial depopulation.

In 1956 the nations of Britain, France, and Israel launched the Suez war in order to liberate the Suez Canal, critical to world commerce, from Nasser’s control. But they were compelled to withdraw by the Eisenhower administration, eager to improve its image in the so-called “Third World.” Then in 1967 Nasser and leaders of four other Arab nations prepared to launch a war of total destruction against Israel. But again, Israel won (with no American aid, I add). It was as a result of that war that Israel gained control of the Old City of Jerusalem, along with the “Palestinian” territories of the West Bank of the Jordan River and Gaza, and Egypt’s Sinai peninsula. Rather than wishing to retain those territories, Israel repeatedly sought to surrender them (except for Jerusalem’s Old City), in return for a guarantee of peace from its neighbors. But none of them would agree to recognize the Jewish state. Instead, in 1973 they launched the Yom Kippur War (on Judaism’s holiest day), in which Israel averted destruction only with American assistance. And finally, during the Carter administration, Egypt’s president, Anwar Sadat, finally agreed to grant peace and recognition to Israel, in return for the return of the Sinai (which had contained the only oil wells in Jewish-controlled territory). (For his pains, Sadat was assassinated by the Muslim Brotherhood, of which Hamas is an offshoot.)

In the Oslo Accords of 1992, arranged through negotiations with U.S. representatives, Yasser Arafat, leader of the terrorist Palestinian Liberation Organization, which governed the West Bank and Gaza (under Israeli supervision), agreed to a “framework” for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. But instead of leading to actual peace, the Accords culminated in two “intifadas” (violent uprisings), in which Palestinian suicide bombers murdered thousands of Israeli civilians. (In the last days of the Clinton administration, in negotiations at the Israeli town of Taba, Israel agreed to grant Arafat control over all the Palestinian lands (including minor “land swaps”) in return for peace, but the PLO leader refused (doubtless fearing the fate of Sadat had he agreed). President Clinton specifically blamed Arafat for the failure of the negotiations.

In 2006, Israel took another step for peace, withdrawing all its settlers and troops from Gaza, hoping that the Gazans would now devote themselves to peaceful economic development. But PLO rule over Gaza was shortly replaced by that of the even more terroristic Hamas, whose leaders (including over 1,000 violent prisoners released from Israeli jails in return for one young captured Israeli soldier) soon set about plotting what became the attacks of October 7, 2023, in which over 1,200 Israeli civilians were murdered – with women raped before being tortured to death; babies decapitated; children murdered in front of their parents, and vice versa; and some 251 civilians (including American and Thai citizens) seized as hostages.

Following the October 7 attacks, Israel has had no choice but to set out to destroy Hamas so as to preserve itself against future attacks – just as the United States or any other nation would have done in a similar situation. It has also sought desperately to rescue the hostages. But it has been hampered in its ability to strike at Hamas by the latter’s devilish strategy – in violation of both international law and elemental morality – of concealing nearly all its military facilities underneath or inside of schools, hospitals, and private houses, giving Israel no choice but to attack those facilities at considerable and deeply regrettable cost in civilian lives (even as it has made every effort to minimize such casualties). All this was by the design of the Hamas leader, ex-Israeli terrorist prisoner Yayah Sinwar, who intended to bring about a massive war of Arab vengeance in which the nation of Israel would finally be obliterated. Hamas is in fact a death cult, whose members taunt Israelis with their slogan, “You want to live, and we want to die.” (Nor is Israel responsible for any shortage of humanitarian assistance in Gaza; instead, much of the arriving goods are confiscated by Hamas before they reach the civilian population.)

But behind Hamas and Hezbollah stands a far more powerful, sworn enemy of Israel, the theocracy of Iran, whose leaders, ever since their 1979 seizure of power, have sworn to destroy the “little Satan” (Israel) before taking on the “big Satan” (the United States) in a final battle for global supremacy. Iran has been the “target” of Israeli strikes, as Mr. Cortes puts it, only because it has funded Hamas and Hezbollah terrorism to the tune of billions, while more recently launching a series of missile attacks directly at Israel (rather than just funding Hezbollah’s rockets). Does Mr. Cortes really expect Israel to remain passive in response to these attacks – any more than the United States would if such attacks were directed at this country? How can he justify Iran’s latest attacks on Israel as “retaliation” – when it is Iran that has been consistently attacking Israel, directly and by proxy, ever since the fanatical mullahs established their rule?

Despite Pope Francis’s equation of all war with terrorism, as cited by Cortes, the Catholic theological tradition has long maintained a distinction between just and unjust wars. What could be more just than a defensive war aimed at national survival? And whereas just-war theory emphasizes the need to minimize civilian casualties in war – a rule with which Israel has taken extraordinary efforts to comply – Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran have aimed at the opposite.

Despite Iran’s continued endeavor to develop nuclear weapons capable of striking the U.S. as well as Israel – an enterprise which the Obama and Biden administration’s policies of appeasement did nothing to halt – Cortes is for some reason unable to comprehend why it would be in America’s own interest to fortify Israel’s capacity to mitigate that threat. In fact, when he laments how much “American blood” has been drained in the Middle East in recent decades (referring to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq), he seems unaware of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on this country that provoked the former, and the suspicions held by leaders of both American political parties that Iraqi despot Saddam Hussein, whose previous nuclear plant in Syria had been destroyed by Israel, was himself engaged in restoring his “unconventional weapons” capacity (including chemical and biological warfare) that led to our overthrow of his bloodthirsty tyranny. Both such attacks were launched for America’s sake, not that of Israel. But it should be noted that in recent decades, America has enjoyed a mutually beneficial economic and military relationship with Israel, in which our own defensive capacities (including missile defense) have been fortified by Israeli technological advancements.

Most distressing to me, as a Jew, is Cortes’s comparison of Israeli’s response to the terrorist attacks against it as “genocide.” We Jews know well – just as other Americans should – what genocide looks like. Its exemplar (and the origin of the term) was Hitler’s slaughter of half the world’s Jewish population, by mass shootings and in gas chambers, for no reason other than sheer hatred. To equate Israel’s endeavor to defend itself with such a crime is, quite simply, obscene.

I urge Mr. Cortes to pursue further education regarding the history of Israel, of the Middle East, and of anti-Semitism before writing further on such topics.

A Hero in Our Midst

Few students know that on the far end of our cemetery, under a grand red, white, and blue wreath, lies a man of incredible distinction, someone who truly lived the Holy Cross ideal of being a  man for others. A man of such a distinct courage that our President and our nation saw him fit to receive the highest award our country can bestow: the Congressional Medal of Honor. His name is known in a few circles on our campus, echoed by those who preserve the names of those worthy of our alma mater, and is certainly resounded by the legions of angels and saints in heaven. To our great pride and glory, the final resting place of Fr. Joseph O’Callahan is on our very own campus. 

Fr. O’Callahan was born on May 14th, 1905. Just after graduating from Boston College High School, he began formation with hopes of being ordained into the Jesuit order. He received a bachelor’s degree in 1925 and a master’s in 1929 from St. Andrew’s College, specializing in mathematics, physics, and philosophy. Fr. O’Callahan was ordained into the Roman Catholic priesthood in 1934.  He went on to teach at Boston College, the Jesuit Seminary of Weston College, and eventually directed Holy Cross’ mathematics department in 1938. Coincidentally, one of his students, John V. Power, would also go on to earn the Medal of Honor.

As the U.S. entered into World War II, Fr. O’Callahan felt a strong patriotic duty to serve his nation and put aside his fruitful academic career. He joined the Naval Reserve Chaplain’s Corps and was soon ordered into active naval service in 1940, assigned to the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida.

O’Callahan possessed a special courage few men ever witness. From his very induction into the Navy, he “sought sea duty and wanted to be aboard a carrier” because “[aircraft carriers] are the queens of the fleet, Fighting Ladies, always in the thick of the fray” (IWCF pg. 3). In April of 1942, he was given orders to report to the USS Ranger, set to soon deploy into the European campaign. While aboard the Ranger, O’Callahan was given the opportunity to cut his teeth by learning naval procedure and participating in Operation Torch and Operation Leader as a valued sailor. Aboard the USS Ranger, O’Callahan witnessed the amphibious conquest of French Morocco and the raids of German Shipping in Norwegian waters, becoming an esteemed sailor and finding a passion for his vessel and the Navy he served.

Shortly after his tour on the USS Ranger, O’Callahan was ordered to report to the USS Franklin to aid in a critical operation for the defeat of the Japanese. In March of 1945, Fr. O’Callahan reported to the USS Franklin in Pearl Harbor, which began the perilous duties of Task Force 58. As part of Task Force 58, the USS Franklin would come closer than any other carrier to the Japanese mainland during the war in an attempt to destroy the remnants of the Japanese fleet.

Before dawn on March 19th, 1945, the USS Franklin launched a fighter sweep against Honshu and the Kure Harbor. All men remained alert to a possible Japanese retaliation, forgoing sleep and opportunities to eat. Despite their close attention to possible threats,  a Japanese dive bomber slipped through the cloud cover and slung two semi-armor piercing bombs onto the deck. Fires, explosions, and calamity ensued. A rising inferno consumed all aircrafts and men on deck. The hangar, likewise, was consumed, leaving only two survivors and eviscerating all remaining aircrafts. However, another danger remained. The initial impact of the bombs set off the armed munitions of the striker aircrafts and further threatened the fuel lines of the carrier. There were still tons of munitions within the ship, and an imminent powder keg threatened the remaining lives. The Franklin was left incapacitated and without communications, broiling in the heat of the roaring flames and suffocating the brave survivors. From the bridge, Captain Gehres quickly moved to save the vessel but found vital contingencies failing. A key concern was the Franklin’s magazines, which were posed to explode and lacked critical water lines to extinguish the flames. Rear Admiral Davison urged Capt. Gehres to abandon the ship, but neither the Captain nor his men were willing as there were still many survivors below deck.

Answering his call in this dire situation, Father O’Callahan quickly moved onto the slanting deck to do whatever was necessary to save the men God had entrusted him with. He quickly organized parties of survivors to disarm gun turrets and armed munitions primed to go off. Moving everywhere, all at once, in the midst of fire, debris, and the cries of the wounded and dying, Fr. O’Callahan managed to direct men to crucial duties while administering rites to the dying and comforting the wounded. Capt. Gehres recalls with evident awe the bravery of Fr. O’Callahan as a five-hundred pound bomb broke loose on the deck and began to roll toward an open hold filled with ammunition. A group of sailors instinctively stopped the bomb’s roll but froze at the prospect of having to defuse it. Captain Gehres saw Fr. O’Callahan appear out of nowhere and calmly stand over the bomb, inspiring and encouraging the men as they successfully defused it. Capt. Gehres later referred to Fr. O’Callahan as “the bravest man I have ever seen” [1]. Another striking anecdote is the effort of Fr. O’Callahan in leading firefighting teams into the bowels of the ship to put out raging fires on the magazines and to lead men out of imperiled cells. This man, armed with nothing but a helmet and a bottle of holy water, fulfilled his duty honorably,risking his life for the sake of others. He possessed  courage  akin to that of the greatest of warriors, leaders, and saints.

Fr. O’Callahan maintained the humility of one who knows his duty to God and man, recognizing that he was only one of many to rebel against his ever-dismal fate; he recognized that hundreds of men answered with courage and strength to the needs of their brethren. In answering the praise of Capt. Gehres and the publicity around his actions, Fr. O’Callahan modestly noted that his part in saving the aircraft carrier was “exaggerated”; “Any priest in like circumstances should do and would do what I did” [2]. On that fateful day, seven-hundred and twenty-four sailors perished, and two-hundred and sixty five were injured.

Eventually, the carrier was saved and towed back to the United States for repairs. Due to public outcry, President Truman awarded, Fr. O’Callahan the Medal of Honor and he continued to serve until November 1946. Fr. O’Callahan returned to Holy Cross as a professor in the Philosophy department until he passed away in 1964. In his honor, the U.S. commissioned the USS O’Callahan in 1968. He is now laid to rest in our cemetery and his Medal of Honor, which can be found in the Dinand Archives, testifies to his virtue.

Fr. O’Callahan’s Medal of Honor Citation reads:

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while serving as chaplain on board the U.S.S. Franklin when that vessel was fiercely attacked by enemy Japanese aircraft during offensive operations near Kobe, Japan, on 19 March 1945. A valiant and forceful leader, calmly braving the perilous barriers of flame and twisted metal to aid his men and his ship, Lt. Comdr. O'Callahan groped his way through smoke-filled corridors to the open flight deck and into the midst of violently exploding bombs, shells, rockets, and other armament. With the ship rocked by incessant explosions, with debris and fragments raining down and fires raging in ever-increasing fury, he ministered to the wounded and dying, comforting and encouraging men of all faiths; he organized and led firefighting crews into the blazing inferno on the flight deck; he directed the jettisoning of live ammunition and the flooding of the magazine; he manned a hose to cool hot, armed bombs rolling dangerously on the listing deck, continuing his efforts, despite searing, suffocating smoke which forced men to fall back gasping and imperiled others who replaced them. Serving with courage, fortitude, and deep spiritual strength, Lt. Comdr. O'Callahan inspired the gallant officers and men of the Franklin to fight heroically and with profound faith in the face of almost certain death and to return their stricken ship to port. [3] 

As members of the Holy Cross community, we live, succeed, and strive in memory of those who have come before us, never forgetting that we are all living members in the Kingdom of God, established on the throne of our hearts. Let us rejoice that many great men, like Father O’Callahan, have been and are with us as we pursue our vocations in life. And let us draw courage and inspiration from them, ad maiorem Dei gloriam.

In honor of the memory of Fr. O’Callahan, Holy Cross maintains the O’Callahan Society which “encourages and cultivates the traditions associated with the Jesuit, liberal arts education of military and naval officers” [4]. For further information, there is a page on the Holy Cross website (https://www.holycross.edu/alumni/crusaders-connect/affinity-groups/ocallahan-society).

Endnotes: 

[1] David Davidson and Leslie Gehres, “BEFORE THE COLORS FADE: Leslie Gehres: Captain of the "Ship that Wouldn't Die””, American Heritage, April, 1969, https://www.americanheritage.com/leslie-gehres-captain-ship-wouldnt-die\. 

[2] Joseph O’Callahan, I Was Chaplain on the Franklin, 

[3] “JOSEPH TIMOTHY O’CALLAHAN”, Medal of Honor Society, https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/joseph-t-ocallahan. 

[4] “O’Callahan Society,” College of the Holy Cross, https://www.holycross.edu/alumni/crusaders-connect/affinity-groups/ocallahan-society. 

Further Sources Consulted: 

Naval History and Heritage Command. “Modern Biographies: Joseph Timothy O’Callahan.” https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/research-guides/modern-biographical-files-ndl/modern-bios-o/ocallahan-joseph-timothy.html. 

Satterfield, John R. Saving Big Ben: The USS Franklin and Father Joseph T. O’Callahan. Naval Institute Press, 2011. 
The Ancient Order of Hibernians, “A Shepherd in the Flames: The Medal of Honor Story of Fr. Joseph O’Callahan”, March 11, 2024,https://aoh.com/2024/03/11/a-shepherd-in-the-flames-the-medal-of-honor-story-of-fr-joseph-ocallahan/.

Autumn's Beginnings: My Wonderful Holy Cross Years

The Fenwick Review would like to thank Peter Fay , formerly of the Holy Cross Religious Studies Department, for asking us to be one of the media groups on campus to publish this letter :

I have always lived for summer.  Growing up, I couldn’t wait for the end of June to arrive, for with it came liberation from the exacting schedule of the school year.  The rituals of freedom awaited me: warmer weather, days spent at the pool, trips to the beach, endless baseball games, dinner outside, later bedtimes, and, of course, the joy that comes with crafting and consuming the perfect smore.  Autumn was the enemy: the return of structure and colder weather, the end of uninhibited fun, the grimaced awareness that life would soon sink back into greater restriction.  

As I’ve gotten older, my love for summer has remained, but something else has changed.  I no longer conceive of autumn as the enemy.  In fact, I’ve grown to love autumn.  I find the cooler weather a welcome relief from the heat; I love the fall foliage; and if I drank coffee, I’d like to think that I would thoroughly enjoy a pumpkin spice latte as much as anyone else does.  

But the greatest reason I’ve grown to love autumn has nothing to do with these typical cultural markers.  Instead, it has everything to do with the fact that, for those of us who work in higher education, autumn means the start of something new.  

College campuses are relatively quiet during the summer, but once the calendar flips to August, students slowly begin to trickle back onto campus.  First-year students wonder what this new adventure will entail.  Sophomores can’t wait to be reunited with friends who were total strangers a mere twelve months ago.  Juniors excitedly plan for internships and semesters abroad.  Seniors vow to savor every bit of their last ride.  Whether they realize it or not, all students are wondering: whom and what will this new year bring?  The class that changes my life?  The mentor who sees in me promise that I don’t yet fully see in myself?  The friends who will become my people?  A new love?  In August the campus brims with so much potential, teems with so much energy.  If you don’t believe me, go for a walk around campus the week before classes start.  Watch the sunset as the marching band’s drummers practice.  The rest of the world might associate autumn with endings, but, on the contrary, the start of the new academic year is an invigorating rush of energy, of possibility, of new life.  

I’ve been thinking about this paradox a lot the past few months, as this autumn in particular brings to my life even more newness than the fall usually does.  For the first time in several years, I am not at the College of the Holy Cross.  I have begun a new position in the Ethics Program at Villanova University.  This change is incredibly bittersweet for me.  It is sweet because it represents an exciting opportunity and the next step in my career, and I am happy to report that I am settling in very well at Villanova; it is bitter because I loved being at Holy Cross.  For five of the past six years, I had the unbelievable privilege, honor, duty, and blessing to be able to teach what I love – Christian ethics – at Holy Cross.  I offer this reflection to convey my gratitude and to offer some words of encouragement as the new academic year begins. 

Mindful of St. Ignatius’s belief that ingratitude is the greatest sin, I start with an expression of my gratitude.  I quickly realized during my first semester on campus that all of the love that the College engenders in its students and alumni is entirely well-deserved and more.  Holy Cross is an incredibly special place.  Especially deserving of my recognition are my colleagues in the Department of Religious Studies, who always welcomed me as one of their own; the Department Chairs under whom I worked (i.e. Drs. William Reiser, S.J., Mary M. Doyle Roche, and Caroline Johnson Hodge), who entrusted me with covering the Department’s existing Ethics offerings and with designing my own seminars; Presidents Rev. Philip L. Boroughs, S.J. and Vincent D. Rougeau, who have led the College with excellence, especially during these challenging years in higher education, our nation, our Church, and our world; Provosts Margaret Freije, Ann Marie Leshkowich, and Elliott Visconsi, who have ensured that Holy Cross is and remains a world-class institution for undergraduate education; countless other administrators and staff, without whom Holy Cross would grind to a halt; and Kathy Barrett, who, as Academic Administrative Coordinator for the Department of Religious Studies, saved my bacon time and again.

Equally deserving of my most sincere gratitude are my students.  Teaching is at its core an expression of the type of love that the Christian tradition refers to as agape, the giving of the self to the other.  As teachers we give ourselves to you, our students, and to our content in the hope that you too might discover in it the beauty, depth, and richness that we find in it.  In that giving we encounter not only a more educated student body but, in Christian terms, God’s very self, for “God is love” (1 John 4:8).  

When we love agapically, we take a risk.  We never know if our love will be warmly embraced, received with indifference, or rejected entirely.  Having taught hundreds of Holy Cross students, I can honestly say that everything I gave to you, you returned back to me.  This does not mean that you had to like or agree with everything I said – how boring would your education be if that were the case!  Instead, you considered it, wrestled with it, asked perceptive and challenging questions of it, developed your own insights, and learned and grew tremendously.  In this pattern of giving and receiving in turn, of love offered, accepted, and returned, we again gain not only a more educated student body or better relations between faculty and students.  Rather, we live in a way that is analogous to the pattern of relationships that Christian trinitarian theology claims is at the core of God’s very self.  Indeed, there is a sacredness, a holiness to the work that takes place in the classroom.    

This does not mean that religious conversion is the goal of the work done in the classroom but rather that Christian claims about what is ultimately good, meaningful, and worthwhile provide a basis for the teaching and learning to which the College is rightly committed.  To have a trinitarian relationship in any dimension of one’s life – whether with roommates, friends, parents, a spouse, one’s children – is a tremendous gift.  So don’t let anyone ever tell you that Christian trinitarian theology is irrelevant for your education or for questions regarding how to live life and to live it as well as possible – it just might be the most practical thing of all!  

Now some words of encouragement to you students.  I hope and trust that you fully appreciate how blessed you are to be educated at the premier Jesuit small liberal arts college in the entire world, just as I’ve always felt blessed to be able to contribute to its work too.  With this tremendous blessing comes immense responsibility, which includes especially responsibility to the College’s mission.  How fortunate are you to belong to an institution with such a rich mission statement and such a strong commitment to realizing it.  

If you’ve not already done so, I encourage you to read the College’ mission statement (available at: https://www.holycross.edu/about-us/mission-statement), to think seriously about how it does and ought to shape your education and your life long after you graduate, and to commit yourselves to striving to realize at least one particular dimension of it throughout this academic year.  Our world is desperately in need of people who are formed by the College’s Jesuit liberal arts heritage – that is, people who are educated in both mind and heart; who remain open to learning; who can listen more attentively, read more carefully, think more clearly, write more persuasively, and speak more eloquently; who can frame critical, charitable intellectual challenge as an invitation to growth toward a shared pursuit of greater truth rather than as an attack on one’s own self-worth or as proof that that pursuit is too messy to be worthwhile; who can admit the liabilities in one’s own preferred ways of thinking and living; who can find the assets in the ways of thinking and living that they typically oppose; and who can distinguish effective argumentation from its fallacious counterparts.  

Our world is similarly in desperate need of people who are shaped by the Catholic intellectual tradition that shapes the College’s mission and life.  How fortunate you are to belong to an institution whose heritage has roots that extend back across the millennia and throughout the world.  As any of my students can tell you, my encouragement here is not at all rooted in naivete about the Church’s failings, which an authentic, responsible, life-giving understanding of the tradition rightly indicts.  Moreover, I understand that many students do not enter Holy Cross excited to engage with the Catholic tradition.  

Nevertheless, critical, charitable engagement with the tradition – the core of which is love – is precisely what is needed today as the challenges of the twenty-first century continue to loom.  Whether you are a cradle Catholic who feels at home in the Church, a hardened skeptic, or anywhere in between, and no matter where you are in your own journey, I hope, trust, and expect that you will be pleasantly surprised – and, yes, helpfully challenged too – as you engage with the Catholic intellectual tradition at Holy Cross.  Your doing so is important for yourselves and for the tradition alike.  At its worst, the Church has many failings to answer for.  At its best, it offers so much good to our world.  Do not cede the tradition to those who distort it for their own personal gain.  Reclaim it.  

How might you begin to do that during your undergraduate years?  Start by taking courses in Religious Studies, which will help you to develop a clear, critical, adult, and perhaps even appreciative understanding the Catholic tradition and the other great religious traditions of our world.  You would never turn down the chance to learn about song-writing from Taylor Swift or about playing quarterback from Tom Brady; do not turn down the opportunity to learn from faculty who are similarly among the world’s foremost authorities in their field just because you think religion is disastrous or because you think your high school religion course already taught you everything you need to know about the topic.  

The more you appropriate the College’s mission by habituating yourselves in these virtues of the excellent thinker, the more you will be able to penetrate the beauty, depth, and richness of the content you study, and the better you will be able to harness your gifts in service to our world.  So much for you as persons, for the College, for Worcester, for our nation, for our Church, and for our world hinges upon the formation you undergo during your undergraduate years.  Do not waste them.  We educators have rightly high aspirations for you.  We want you to flourish, to become the people God calls you to become, to grow into your greatest and grandest possibilities for truth, love, and goodness, and to radiate all of these into our world.  Your doing so will enrich your own lives and the lives of countless others who were not able to attend a place like Holy Cross.  May their lives be better because you committed yourselves to the College’s vision for your education. 

To conclude, I’d like to tie together my New York roots with the New England sensibilities that will appeal many in the Holy Cross community.  Long before he led the New England Patriots to unprecedented success and cemented his legacy as one of the greatest head coaches in the history of the National Football League, Bill Belichick was an assistant coach and defensive coordinator of my beloved New York Giants.  2009 was the last year the Giants would play in Giants Stadium – the stadium in which Coach Belichick burst onto the scene as a coaching force to be reckoned with – before it was demolished.  It was also the year that N.F.L. Films put a microphone on then-Patriots Head Coach Belichick for the entire season as part of its A Football Life documentary.  During his last visit to Giants Stadium, N.F.L. Films had Coach Belichick revisit the Giants’ locker room, coaches’ rooms, and offices to reflect upon his professional journey across the decades.  When asked to consider where he began as a lowly assistant coach in relation to where he was as a five-time Super Bowl winner at the time, Coach Belichick said, “I was just trying to establish my coaching career, be a good coach, win some games.  We won a lot of them here.  This is a great organization.  It’s hard not to get choked up about it.  […].  Oh I loved it here, I loved it here.”

I am certainly not Coach Belichick, nor have I risen in my field to the level of success that he has attained in his.  But I would like to think that on some deep level I can understand and appreciate exactly what he meant.  What Giants Stadium means to Bill Belichick, the College of the Holy Cross will always mean to me.  It’s the place that gave me my start.  The first institution of higher education that entrusted me as the instructor of record in one of its courses.  The place where I tried to show that I could do an adequate enough job teaching ethics.  I have had to root against Coach Belichick for longer than I care to remember, but I agree wholeheartedly with him on this point (and, certainly, he stays awake late at night hoping that Fay agrees with him!): it’s impossible to avoid tearing up when reflecting upon those who have launched you, for you never forget your first love.  

Thank you for helping to make my years at Holy Cross so meaningful, beautiful, and amazing, and please rest assured that the College of the Holy Cross will always hold a very special place in my heart.  I have certainly taken and will continue to hold a piece of it and of all of you with me as I begin at Villanova and beyond, and perhaps each of you and the entire Holy Cross family will take a piece of me with you as you continue in your journey at and beyond Mount Saint James.  My Holy Cross email address will be disabled on September 1, 2024.  Please feel free to keep in touch as you see fit – my Villanova email address (peter.fay@villanova.edu) is already active should you wish you to write.  

From the very bottom of my heart, I thank you, I miss you, I love you, I cannot wait to see all of the good that awaits you going forward, and I will be rooting for your continued flourishing from afar as I make my way a little further down the road.  This autumn and beyond, my hope and prayer for you is this: may the season’s new beginnings bring all of us into fuller, deeper life, and may the entire Holy Cross family enter ever more fully into the radiantly sunlit future that awaits it.

Yours gratefully,

Peter K. Fay

Department of Religious Studies 2018-2024

Charity, Queen of Dialogue

Last year, Holy Cross began a long-awaited dialogue about dialogue. Through social media spats, abrupt confrontations, and general tension on campus, the student body demonstrated that it was struggling to come together and engage in constructive discussion about its opposing worldviews. This is the sort of problem that does not befit a liberal arts college, a place whose purpose is the exchange of ideas. In order to remind students of this purpose, the administration had to ask itself, how can Holy Cross foster dialogue? And, are there some subjects that do not merit dialogue?

True to its liberal arts tradition, the College proposed a structured medium for students to voice their views on controversial issues. The administration, in conjunction with the newly founded group SPEECH (Students Promoting Empathy, Expression, and Civic Harmony), began a series called “Dialogue Dinners,” two-hour events during which students could come together and discuss current issues over a meal. These dinners offered students a casual, friendly setting to alleviate the tension of disagreement, but also enforced structure and civility through rules and the presence of administrators and student peer educators. 

One of the rules of the Dialogue Dinners comes directly from the Presupposition of St. Ignatius’ Spiritual Exercises: “Be more eager to put a good interpretation on a neighbor’s statement than to condemn it. If one cannot interpret it favorably, one should ask how the other means it.” Ignatius’ advice calls for patience and cordiality, two necessary qualities of any decent conversation. They certainly have their place at a Dialogue Dinner.

Though the rest of the advice of the Presupposition was not included in the rules of the Dialogue Dinners, it is equally valuable. Still referring to the statements of one’s neighbor, St. Ignatius continues, “If he cannot save it, let him inquire how he means it; and if he means it badly, let him correct him with charity. If that is not enough, let him seek all the suitable means to bring him to mean it well, and save himself.” Notice the key principle here: charity.

St. Ignatius established these guidelines at the beginning of his Spiritual Exercises as a framework for the relationship between the spiritual director and the retreatant, the former of whom is essential to the growing prayer life and discernment of the retreatant. This quote from the Presupposition shows that spiritual direction is impossible without charity, the queen of virtues which Christians also call “love.” For, as Ignatius points out, love seeks understanding. Charity enables the spiritual director and the retreatant to truly listen to and understand one another. Charity disposes of presumptions and self-righteousness. Only with charity can the two engage in constructive dialogue. St. Paul said, “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal” (1 Corinthians 13, ESV). No matter how learned the spiritual director may be, his advice bears no fruit without love for God and the retreatant. The same can be said for the retreatant’s reception of his advice.

Although the Presupposition was originally intended for this pairing, its content can easily be extended beyond the Spiritual Exercises to the rest of us undergoing daily life. Should we not also desire to nourish each other’s souls, knowing one another as fellow beloveds of God? Is this not what we owe one another as neighbors, or in Holy Cross language, as “men and women for and with others”?

St. Ignatius understood the essential role of charity for fruitful dialogue. This idea from our familiar Ignatian tradition takes its roots all the way back to the moment of creation, and is fulfilled by Christ in the New Covenant.

The Gospel of John paints creation as a dialogue between God and His creatures. The first chapter of John explains how Christ was present at the beginning of time, not yet enfleshed but as the “Word,” through Whom “all things were made” (1:3). Creation was made through the “Word,” which in the Greek also translates to “reason” or “logic.” John shows that God’s creation of the world was an act of reason, and that creation was brought about by the speech of God.

The original Greek makes clear that the act of creation was a dialogue. John 1:3, which begins “All things were made through Him,” tells us that the world was made “dia autou,” with the pronoun autou referring to the Logos, the Word. The preposition dia and the noun Logos form the Greek word “dialogos,” where we get our word for “dialogue.” Through his clever wielding of language, John reveals that creation is a dialogue between itself and its Creator.

Christ further exemplifies His life-giving nature as the Word in the miracles He performs during His ministry. In the three cases where he brings people back to life, He uses the power of speech. He famously brings Lazarus back to life when He commands him, “Lazarus, come out!” (John 11:43). He commands the twelve-year-old daughter of the synagogue leader back to life with the words, “‘Talitha cumi,’ which means, ‘Little girl, I say to you, arise.’” (Mark 5:41). Finally, He revives the son of the Naim widow with the command “Young man, I say to you, arise” (Luke 7:14). In each of these instances, Christ revives His creatures through speech. Through the miracles He performs during His ministry, Christ continues His creative act as Logos, culminating in His death and resurrection, by which human beings are constantly being redeemed and brought into new life.

Christ’s crucifixion fulfills creation, since it is by this act that man is able to do what he was made for; namely, enter into an eternal relationship with God. Man was made and given his purpose at the moment of His creation, when God breathed His own life into him – not only biological life, but life in the Spirit, as indicated in the Greek by the word “zoe” (Genesis 2:7) as opposed to “bios.” Man was uniquely made to be like God and to be one with Him. The Fall ruptured this relationship, but Christ’s willing sacrifice revives it and welcomes us back to life in the Spirit. St. Athanasius, a fourth century Church Father, understood creation and salvation as consistent events: “There is thus no inconsistency between creation and salvation; for the One Father has employed the same Agent for both works, effecting the salvation of the world through the same Word Who made it at the first” [1]. The Logos gave man life in the beginning, and He renews this life through His death and resurrection.

Why did Christ give up His life for humanity? St. John says that it was out of love. “Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 8-10). Love is at the essence of God and therefore the essence of the Logos. It was because of love that God formed man from clay and later sent His Son to die for him.

John continues, relaying a social message about how we ought to love one another: “Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us” (1 John 11-12). As John says, Christians are called to love others in a way that parallels God’s love for man.

This poses a heavy demand. God’s love permits no exceptions. Christ’s sacrifice was for every member of the human race. This is a radical truth which dissolves divisions and calls us to love through difference and in difference. According to St. Paul, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). All people have a shared identity in Christ, in their purpose as human beings. 

Creation was a dialogue, with love at its center. Considering the nature of this first dialogue, what can we say of the dialogue at Holy Cross?

Holy Cross’ mission statement is rooted in dialogue. The following is a short excerpt: “Because the search for meaning and value is at the heart of the intellectual life, critical examination of fundamental religious and philosophical questions is integral to liberal arts education. Dialogue about these questions among people from diverse academic disciplines and religious traditions requires everyone to acknowledge and respect differences.” Though in secular language, this quote somewhat mirrors Paul’s advice to the Galatians. Our calling to be one in Christ demands respect in spite of differences. Since we are called to love one another as God loves His creation, dialogue is incomplete without love.

As the Gospels show, Christ’s speech gives life. In being made like God, destined for relationship with Him, we are given the ability to co-create, materially, spiritually, and intellectually. We participate in the perpetual dia Logos between God and man. Knowing the crucial role God has for us in His creation, we ought to do our best to ensure that our speech is also life-giving.

Endnotes 

[1] Athanasius, On the Incarnation, (St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, 1982), 26. 

Some Considerations on the Rosary

The Most Holy Rosary is, in some sense, the unofficial official prayer of the Church. Though technically speaking, the Divine Office (in addition to the sacred liturgy itself) is the official public prayer of the Church, the Rosary is by far the most well known and most practiced devotion in the West. This is perhaps best demonstrated by the fact that this act of piety has the unique privilege of being celebrated with its own feast day in the Roman Rite. While it is not the only devotion to ever be granted such an honor, the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary (which has changed names several times since its institution by St. Pius V after the victory of the Battle of Lepanto in 1571) is the only one of such feasts to be universally inscribed on the traditional liturgical calendar. And indeed, it continues to be so within its inclusion on the calendar of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite as an obligatory memorial. This great feast is celebrated on October 7th, and the entire month of October is dedicated to the Rosary. For this reason, it seems fitting to consider this most beloved of Catholic devotions.

The structure of the Rosary should be familiar to most Catholics. Its recitation consists of “decades”; that is, sets of ten recitations of the Angelical Salutation, a prayer more commonly referred to as the Hail Mary. Between each set the Lord’s Prayer is prayed, more commonly referred to as the Our Father. Given the amount of time that is taken to invoke the Blessed Virgin Mary, one could easily conclude that the Rosary is a Marian devotion. And of course, it is a Marian devotion, and chief among them. However, the Rosary is a devotion primarily oriented not toward the Lord’s mother, but toward the Lord Jesus Christ himself. Of course, this could be said of every act of devotion since all prayer is ultimately oriented toward God. However, what is intended here is not a simple fact regarding the nature of prayer, but a commentary on the true virtue of the Rosary. Whereas other forms of prayer, such as the Angelical Salutation itself, are primarily oriented toward the Blessed Mother in so far as they are simply petitions or acts of love made to her, the Rosary’s main focus is not vocal prayer at all, but meditation. What is the most integral part of the Rosary is also at times the most forgotten: the pious meditation on the mysteries that accompany it. 

The “mysteries” of the Rosary refer to particular events in the life of Christ that are especially fruitful for meditation given their significance in the Gospel. Each of the mysteries is assigned to a decade of the Rosary. Traditionally they are fifteen in number; however, St. John Paul II added five new mysteries, collectively called the Luminous Mysteries, to be recited in addition to the original Joyful, Sorrowful, and Glorious mysteries [1]. Nowadays, the Rosary is typically prayed as one set of mysteries at a time, with the particular set changing according to the day of the week. The original number of fifteen mysteries, which correspond to a total of fifteen decades, is not accidental. The devotion most likely arose from a modification of the Psalter, the collection of all one hundred and fifty psalms found in Scripture. The Psalter was traditionally recited in its entirety every week by the monks, but it soon became an object of attraction to the lay faithful as well. Of course, reciting all of the Psalms in a single week is nearly impossible for the average person given the amount of time required as well as the necessity of literacy (which was not nearly as common in the era when the Rosary began to develop). So the Church, ever mindful of the barriers that life in this world burdens upon the poor and always concerned with the accessibility of the full arsenal of her prayer, naturally developed the simplified version of the Psalter that is known today as “Our Lady’s Psalter:” the Most Holy Rosary. Rather than having to learn to read or memorize an entire collection of texts, the faithful would only have to make use of the most common prayers which were known and memorized by all the baptized and be familiar with the most central mysteries of the Gospel in order to participate in this prayer of the Church. 

Among the mysteries are the Annunciation of Our Lady, her Assumption into Heaven, the Nativity of Our Lord, his Crucifixion and Death, his Resurrection, his Institution of the Most Holy Eucharist, etc. Each of these mysteries finds its origin in Sacred Scripture, and all have lengthy narratives associated with them with the exceptions of only the Assumption and the Coronation of Our Lady as Queen of Heaven. It is for this reason that the Rosary has colloquially been referred to as “the Bible on a string.” In this way, the Rosary is a sort of lectio divina, the ancient method of the prayerful reading of Scripture made accessible to a universal audience. Although the reading of Sacred Scripture ought to always constitute a central part in the Christian’s devotional life, it is the case that the Rosary presents a summary of the Gospel in a manner that is simple, accessible, and easy for all people. Indeed, the Rosary is truly the prayer of the masses. Whereas some devotions are better suited to the more or less educated, others to the devout or the lukewarm, and others to children or adults, the Rosary is a prayer that is both easy and efficacious to all people who approach it in faith. Just as the stained glass windows, pictures, frescos, and statues that adorn medieval churches served to teach the central truths of the Christian religion and the lives of the saints to a mostly illiterate population, so can the Rosary serve to instruct those who either cannot or do not regularly read Sacred Scripture about the mysteries of the Gospel. And what is more, this instruction is done by means of meditation in union with the prayers of the mother of Jesus herself. So, if praying the Rosary is a method of instruction, then the question is raised: who is the instructor? 

Really there are two instructors of those who pray the Rosary: the Holy Spirit and the Blessed Mother. It is fitting to recall the intimate union that the Holy Spirit and Mary share as spiritual spouses, and the Rosary can help to do so. At the Annunciation, the Holy Spirit came upon Mary and in doing so caused the Incarnation of Christ in her womb. So the two are called “spiritual spouses”; “spouses” because the one effected the conception of Christ in the other, and “spiritual” because the virginity of Mary remained intact and she remained truly conjugally married to her most chaste spouse, St. Joseph. As also demonstrated by the Descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, the Holy Spirit once again came to sow seed to blossom into good fruit. Descending upon the Apostles in the presence of Mary, the Holy Spirit officially began the Church on that day. From these examples can be drawn this maxim concerning the Holy Spirit and the Blessed Virgin Mary: wherever the one is, so is the other. And when both are at work, holy fruit is born. So as the Spirit of Truth, who teaches all truth, reveals the secrets hidden in the mysteries of the Rosary, his blessed spouse hears the prayers of her devotees and prays for their sanctification as she reveals more and more of her Divine Son.

There is much more that can be said about this beautiful devotion. For those who are interested in beginning to pray it or mastering it, consider this simple course of action: firstly, memorize the prayers that constitute the Rosary. Secondly, become familiar with the mysteries by reading their respective passages from Scripture. Thirdly, begin to pray the Rosary according to a guide or with someone else who knows how to pray it. Fourthly, intimately meditate on the mysteries as you pray. And finally, pray the Rosary regularly, even every day. I must admit my own hypocrisy in this regard: while I recommend to everyone to pray the Rosary every single day, I myself hardly ever do so. Although I cannot say that I am someone who never skips a day, I can wholeheartedly say that even the regular recitation of the Rosary has completely revolutionized my life. In a time when so many are imprisoned by habitual sin, a prayer like the Rosary is the perfect remedy. Habitual prayer conquers habitual sin. So as we hail our Holy Queen while still in this valley of tears, and as we meditate upon the mysteries of the Most Holy Rosary, may we imitate what they contain and obtain what they promise.

Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Endnotes: 

[1] Pope John Paul II, Rosarium Virginis Mariae, Apostolic Letter, October 16, 2002. https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/2002/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_20021016_rosarium-virginis-mariae.html. 

Reconsidering Israel

“Yes, it is war. It is terrorism,” he said. “That is why the Scripture affirms that ‘God stops wars… breaks the bow, splinters the spear’ (Psalm 46:10). Let us pray to the Lord for peace.”

-Pope Francis

As the war in the Middle East continues to escalate, we Americans find ourselves at a point of reflection. The support of ‘our greatest ally in the Middle East’ has been viewed as a defense of democracy, Western values, and justice in a region hostile to us [1]. Yet war has come, and over the last year we have been given the opportunity to analyze the actions this ally would take. 

The greatest issue we must consider is the nature of the conflict. Up until the recent Iranian retaliation on Israel, this war, has been more characteristic of a genocide [2]. Israel, justifying its actions as defense, repeatedly strikes refugee camps [3], has a history of severing humanitarian aid and basic necessities to Gaza [4], and pushed Palestinians to the border of Egypt [5], pressuring refugees between two irreconcilable forces. For all intents and purposes, Israel’s actions are not characteristic of war, and in many instances mirror terrorist measures [6]. In our rules of engagement, the U.S. refuses to use tactics in any way similar to these, even if such precautions risk American lives [7]. As the standing global hegemon, the U.S. has repeatedly criticized such states that use similar, brutal tactics [8]. So if we are to align ourselves with another power, should we not be even more critical, when their actions are seen as American-sponsored ventures?

Even though Israel’s behavior may seem distant and tangential to American politics, our institutional biases are evident through our excessive media support.  When else has the influence of a foreign nation been so blatant in our domestic politics?

It seems like every day another media effort is made to demonstrate how strongly our leadership supports Israel. If it’s not Representative Brian Mast wearing an Israel Defense Force uniform in the halls of Congress [9], then it’s the presumptive nominees for both parties arguing about who is a greater ally to Israel, in their first debate [10], when they cannot agree on virtually any other policy measure. Or if neither of those, it is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) —an organization fighting to not be classified as a foreign influence since the days of JFK [11]—openly bragging about the weight they hold on elections [12]. Or perhaps it is the more than one-thousand police officers from around the country sent to Israel for training [13] [14].There are thousands of other examples like this which  paint an eerie relationship between the U.S. and Israel. What other nation has a bond anything akin to the one Israel maintains with the U.S? Is there an Indian lobby as influential as theirs, a German, British, or even Ukrainian? 

Especially since the October 7th attacks of last year, more has surfaced that rings a strange note; from the persecution of our Ivy League for antisemitism [15], the ambiguous federal redefinition of antisemitism [16], internal pressure on journalists covering the war in Gaza [17], to individual US states dictating foreign policy for Israel.

Though we have had a relationship with Israel since 1948, our country’s increased involvement over this past year  forces us to consider the following: Where is all this pressure coming from? Why have our institutions and leaders doubled down on their commitment to Israel, in the face of rampant humanitarian atrocities? And why Israel specifically?

But we may not have the luxury of time to reconsider our ally. As the war rages on, it is obvious that it has  amped up its harassment campaign against its nemesis in the region: Iran. With the active presence of the U.S., Israel has continued to provoke its neighbors. It claims to be in the interest of rooting out Hezbollah, but it is clearly seeking to escalate the conflict and ultimately neutralize all possible threats in the area—even at the cost of regime change and generations of turmoil. That is why Israel invaded Lebanon, “depopulating villages” as they went [18]. That is why they freely strike Russian airports [19] when Ukraine still has to ask before doing so. And that is why they continue to alternate missile strikes with Iran, escalating the conflict. It seems as though Israel is perpetually in need of defensive systems [20] [21], and the U.S. always has to come to its rescue. Over the past couple of months alone, the U.S. has both mobilized the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system with one-hundred American troops to operate it [22] and  deployed multiple Air Force squadrons and American aircraft carriers with an “additional few thousand” personnel to the Middle East [23].

Iran has always been the target. Even before the Iraq war, Israeli officials had been promoting our involvement in Iraq, and especially in Iran [24]. In recent days, U.S. agencies have leaked that Israel has further plans to attack Iran [25], surely with US aid: their prime weapon. So as we look to the coming days, we must seriously reconsider this ally and the depth of this war. Is a state with so much overt, odd influence in our domestic politics for our benefit? And are we willing to wage war, on behalf of this state, in a region that has already drained American blood and ammunition for the last thirty-three years?

Endnotes: 

[1] The Editorial Board, “Israel Can Defend Itself and Uphold Its Values,” The New York Times,  Oct. 14, 2023. 

[2] Alene Bouranova, “Is Israel Committing Genocide in Gaza? New Report from BU School of Law's International Human Rights Clinic Lays Out Case,” BU Today, Jun. 5, 2024. 

[3] Nidal Al-Mughrabi, “Israeli strikes in northern Gaza cause scores of casualties, doctors say,” Reuters, Oct. 19, 2024. 

[4] Jomana Karadsheh, Lauren Izso, Eyad Kourdi, Kareem Khadder, “Red Cross says at least 22 killed as strike hits displaced civilians in Gaza as Israel expands operations,” CNN, Jun. 22, 2024. 

[5] Patrick Wintour, “Israeli assault on southern Gaza could push 1m refugees to Egypt border, UNRWA chief warns,” The Guardian, Nov. 30, 2023. 

[6] Matt Murphy, “What we know about the Hezbollah device explosions,” BBC, Sept. 20, 2024. 

[7] “The Efficacy and Ethics of U.S. Counterterrorism Strategy- John Brennan,” Woodrow Wilson Center, April 30, 2012. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cM4mCEXi5v4. See transcript here: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/the-efficacy-and-ethics-us-counterterrorism-strategy

[8] The White House. “Remarks by President Biden on the United States’ Response to Hamas’s Terrorist Attacks Against Israel and Russia’s Ongoing Brutal War Against Ukraine,” October 20, 2023. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/10/20/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-unites-states-response-to-hamass-terrorist-attacks-against-israel-and-russias-ongoing-brutal-war-against-ukraine/. 

[9] Sarah Fortinsky, “GOP lawmaker wears Israeli military uniform to Capitol Hill,” The Hill, Oct. 13, 2023. https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4254384-brian-mast-israeli-military-uniform-capitol-hill/.

[10] “Trump says Harris ‘hates Israel’ during debate,” NBC News, Sept. 10, 2024. https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/trump-says-harris-hates-israel-during-debate-219042885646.

[11] The Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy. “DOJ orders the AZC to Register as a Foreign Agent,” The Israel Lobby Archive, accessed November 13, 2024. https://www.israellobby.org/azcdoj/.

[12] AIPAC. “The Largest Pro-Israel PAC in America,” AIPAC PAC, accessed November 13, 2024. https://www.aipacpac.org. 

[13] Edith Garwood, “With Whom are Many U.S. Police Departments Training? With a Chronic Human Rights Violator - Israel,” (Blog), Amnesty International USA, August 25, 2016. https://www.amnestyusa.org/blog/with-whom-are-many-u-s-police-departments-training-with-a-chronic-human-rights-violator-israel/. 

[14] “U.S.-Israel Strategic Cooperation: Joint Police & Law Enforcement Training,” Jewish Virtual Library, accessed November 13, 2024. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/joint-us-israel-police-and-law-enforcement-training. 

[15] “A look at college presidents who have resigned under pressure over their handling of Gaza protests,” The Associated Press, Aug. 15, 2024. https://apnews.com/article/college-president-resign-shafik-magill-gay-59fe4e1ea31c92f6f180a33a02b336e3. 

[16] U.S. Congress, House, Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023, H.R. 6090, 118th Cong. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090. 

[17] Jeremy Scahill, Ryan Grim, “Leaked NYT Gaza Memo Tells Journalists to Avoid Words ‘Genocide,’ ‘Ethnic Cleansing,’ and ‘Occupied Territory’” The Intercept, Apr. 15, 2024. https://theintercept.com/2024/04/15/nyt-israel-gaza-genocide-palestine-coverage/. 

[18] Nader Durgham and Josephine Deeb, “Israel’s Invasion of Lebanon: What is Happening on the Ground?” Middle East Eye, Oct. 17, 2024. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israels-invasion-lebanon-what-happening-ground. 

[19] Ronny Reyes “Suspected Israeli airstrike hits near Russian airbase accused of housing weapons in Syria: report” The New York Post, Oct. 3, 2024. https://nypost.com/2024/10/03/world-news/suspected-israeli-airstrike-hits-near-russian-airbase-accused-of-housing-weapons-in-syria-report/. 

[20] “Iron Dome failed to activate during Hezbollah rocket barrage on Kiryat Shmona,” The Cradle.Co, Oct. 9, 2024. https://thecradle.co/articles-id/27214. 

[21] Aamer Madhani and Melanie Lidman, “Iran fires at least 180 missiles into Israel as regionwide conflict grows,” The Associated Press, Oct. 2, 2024. 

https://apnews.com/article/israel-lebanon-hezbollah-gaza-news-10-01-2024-eb175dff6e46906caea8b9e43dfbd3da. 

[22] David Brennan, “Why America's THAAD missile defense deployment to Israel is a 'gamble' in Iran conflict, analysts say,” ABC News, Oct. 17, 2024. https://abcnews.go.com/International/americas-thaad-missile-defense-deployment-israel-gamble-iran/story?id=114845323. 

[23] Chris Gordon, “US Sending More Air Force Fighters to Middle East,”Air and Space Forces Magazine, Sept. 30, 2024. https://www.airandspaceforces.com/us-sending-more-air-force-fighters-middle-east/.

[24] Jon Hoffman, “Benjamin Netanyahu Is Pushing for War with Iran,” Cato Institute, Apr. 16, 2024. https://www.cato.org/commentary/benjamin-netanyahu-pushing-war-iran. 

[25] Natasha Bertrand and Alex Marquart, “Leaked documents show US intelligence on Israel’s plans to attack Iran, sources say,” CNN, Oct. 20, 2024. https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/19/politics/us-israel-iran-intelligence-documents/index.html?iid=cnn_buildContentRecirc_end_recirc.