Clothes Make the Man

“For the apparel oft proclaims the man” ~ Shakespeare

“Domine non sum dignus” ~ Matthew 8:8

If you were to ask any of the students who attended Saint Anthony’s High School to say what made their school special amongst both private and public schools, there is no doubt that the active presence of the Franciscan Brothers of Brooklyn would be duly noted. Humble and hard-working men, they have shaped the Faith of the hundreds of thousands of students that have crossed their path. They have fostered in each the image of an unwavering yet tender-hearted Church. There is no wonder that their alumni often find themselves in professions dedicated to upholding Church teachings. 

This would not have been possible had it not been for their religious apparel, the Habit. The Habit is an essential element of what it means to be a Franciscan. It ranges from gray to brown to black depending on the particular community, but it is always fastened by a white waist cord with the Franciscan Crown attached. By wearing it, the Brothers unite their own individuality into a common charism. They place themselves in a paradox: though maintaining full membership in this world, they are engaging in it as citizens of Heaven.

The Habit is not a unique expression of this function. It is a part of what is collectively known as the religious dress. In the Christian world, primarily in the Western and Eastern churches, this refers to the daily clothing we see members of Religious Orders—both male and female—wear. Take the Jesuits on campus for example. Aside from the “S.J.” suffix attached to their names, they are easily discernible by their black attire and Roman collar. For male religious, these “street clothes” vary in appearance based on clerical state, ordination rank, and additional responsibilities; but in general, they are either a black clerical suit or cassock with a white Roman collar [1]. For female religious, the clothes vary based on the community and its particular charism. 

Many religious communities, like the Franciscans, maintain a traditional dress which is worn when with the community, when at work, or when amongst other religious groups. The Jesuits, as a tenet of their religious community and its distinct mission, do not have a special habit; rather, they generally adopt the clerical dress typical of the local diocesan priests [2]. 

The more solemn clothing, the vestments or in layman’s terms the “big guns”, are worn by the priest alone during the performance of the Sacraments. As Catholics, we are most familiar with these because of their primary and extensive usage at the Mass [3]. 

The Mass: it is the axis and pinnacle of a Christian’s life. It is Christ’s gift to the world that serves as both the perpetual renewal and memorial of His monumental sacrifice. This definitive expression of His boundless love lies at the heart of the Eucharist: when the bread and wine are transubstantiated beyond human comprehension into His Body and Blood [4]. It is in part by utilizing the finest adornments at Her disposal that the Church does Her best to both affirm and invite us to partake in this mystical, life-giving event—which yields the gifts of Joy and Hope. 

The Priest’s appearance and attire must, therefore, equally evoke the nature of Christ. His outermost garment, the chasuble, shows the all-encompassing, protective, and definitive Love of Christ; while His innermost, the white amice, serves as the Helmet of Christ’s redemptive blood that cleanses sin and sustains all with Grace even at their lowest points [5]. It was thus the view of Pope Saint John Paul II, one in which I find myself realizing, that such grand things as tiaras, laced trimmings, and jewels that were once members of the vestments, were only ever meant to accentuate, not eclipse this great Truth [6].

Even when away from the altar, the priest remains in Persona Christi, in the person of Christ. Many of us either do not know or properly realize that to be a priest or to be a member of a religious community is not an occupation. It is the occupant's sole identity, an indelible mark made by ordination or final vows that requires voluntary, utter self-surrender to the Will of God [7]. Our Eastern brethren recognize this better than we do, for whenever they greet an Orthodox cleric they are sure to kiss his hand while silently asking for a blessing. This is not a mark of clericalism nor a gesture based solely on cultural modes of respect: rather, it is the most efficacious and humbling reminder to the cleric of the august, yet heavy responsibilities entrusted to him.

Mankind has been made in the image and likeness of God [8]. This is an irrevocable Truth. We are all called, therefore, to certain responsibilities that are equal not in degree, but in bringing greater glory to Him. The clergy and religious communities do this in a highly visible and personal fashion when wearing their dress. They are publicly declaring witness to Christ’s infinite love and mercy which has, at extreme times, culminated in their martyrdom. They truly are the cornerstones of the Church and instruments of Christ. Therefore, their dress serves as an emblem to their mission. It invites all, particularly the struggling and the young, and asks each to seek meaning beyond this world. To accept the offer to be a part of something that demands the whole person. Something that is truly and utterly Divine. That ultimate calling: to be children of the Church.

Endnotes:

[1] Thurston, Herbert. “Clerical Costume.” CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Clerical

Costume, 1908. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04419b.htm.

[2] Saint Ignatius of Loyola, The Constitutions of the Society of Jesus and Their

Complementary Norms: A Complete English Translation of the Official Latin Texts,

(Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1996). 

[3] Braun, Joseph. “Vestments.” CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Vestments, 1912.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15388a.htm.

[4] Jungmann, Josef Andreas, and Francis A Brunner. “The Mass Ceremonies in

Detail: Putting on the Liturgical Vestments.” Essay. In The Mass of the Roman Rite:

Its Origins & Development (Missarum Sollemnia), 276–89. Vienna, Austria: Herder

Verlag, 1950. 

[5] Jungmann, Josef Andreas, Julian Fernandes, and Mary Ellen Evans. “The

Theology of the Eucharistic Sacrifice: The Sacrifice of Christ and of the Church.”

Essay. In The Mass: An Historical, Theological, and Pastoral Survey, 111–27.

Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1976.

[6] John Paul II, Pope Saint. “Papal Inauguration Mass of Pope John Paul II.” The Holy See, October 22, 1978. https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/homilies/1978/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_19781022_inizio-pontificato.html.

[7] Mangan, Charles M, and Gerald E Murray. “Why A Priest Should Wear His

Roman Collar: EWTN.” EWTN Global Catholic Television Network, June

1995. https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/why-a-priest-should-wear-his-roman

collar-11956
[8] Gen. 1:26-38 (NABRE)

The Review Reviews: Carrion Comfort by Gerard Manley Hopkins

Not, I'll not, carrion comfort, Despair, not feast on thee

Not untwist—slack they may be—these last strands of man

In me ór, most weary, cry I can no more. I can;

Can something, hope, wish day come, not choose not to be.

But ah, but O thou terrible, why wouldst thou rude on me

Thy wring-world right foot rock? lay a lionlimb against me? scan

With darksome devouring eyes my bruisèd bones? and fan,

O in turns of tempest, me heaped there; me frantic to avoid thee and flee?

Why? That my chaff might fly; my grain lie, sheer and clear.

Nay in all that toil, that coil, since (seems) I kissed the rod,

Hand rather, my heart lo! lapped strength, stole joy, would laugh, chéer.

Cheer whom though? the hero whose heaven-handling flung me, fóot tród

Me? or me that fought him? O which one? is it each one? That night, that year

Of now done darkness I wretch lay wrestling with (my God!) my God.

At the age of 22, Gerard Manley Hopkins, against the wishes of his parents, converted to Catholicism. He entered the Society of Jesus two years later. As a Jesuit, Hopkins dealt with depression, writing many sonnets about his experiences in what came to be known as his “terrible sonnets.” Included in this selection are “I Wake and Feel the Fell of Dark, Not Day,” “No Worst, There is None,” “Carrion Comfort,” and many others. Hopkins uses this poem, starting as a description of his depression, to explain why God would allow such woes to befall him.

Although Hopkins had already desired a more “Miltonic” style by the time he wrote this sonnet, having written many of his previous poems in this (debatably) iambic pentameter, this sonnet, instead, uses sprung rhythm (which is accentual, rather than foot based verse—using a less regular stress placement). It is possible that this more sporadic accentuation and rhyme, as opposed to the comparative regularity of his previous pentameter sonnets, serve to highlight the seemingly sporadic nature of his punishment. Hopkins fails to understand why God would “lay a lionlimb against” him: it seems random.

As with much of Hopkin’s thought, the source of this punishment, this sorrow, “Despair,” lies in the crucifixion. As Hopkins asks, “why wouldst thou rude on me,” he makes a connection to the rood (cross) that Christ died upon by the homophones “rude” and “rood.” The final four words of the sonnet are also a connection to the crucifixion: “(my God!) my God” echoes Christ’s words on the cross: “my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” As Christ suffered that we might join the Father in heaven, so too do we suffer that we might make ourselves more worthy of the Father. Only read the words of Hopkins: “That my chaff might fly; my grain lie, sheer and clear.” The chaff, the unnecessary part of his wheat must be blown away by his suffering, leaving only his greater grain behind [1]. By this suffering, “hand rather, my heart lo! lapped strength, stole joy, would laugh, chéer;” he gains strength, he steals joy, he is able to laugh and cheer as a result of this “wring-world right foot rock.”

It is once Hopkins realizes that this suffering was for good that he sees the horror of his fighting against it and of wishing to end his life; to wish for the comfort of being a carrion, as described in the first stanza. He cries: “That night, that year / Of now done darkness I wretch lay wrestling with (my God!) my God.” Hopkins uses the similar sound of “wretch” and “wrestling” to join them together: wrestling against the plan of God has made him a wretch or, being a wretch, he wrestled against his God. It is by this final thought that we see the true comfort for one’s suffering: trust in the eternal, omnibenevolent providence of God.

This sonnet by Hopkins exemplifies the Jesuit inheritance that we share with him: finding God in all things, even in our own suffering. But we must not only find God, but as Hopkins, must praise Him, glorify Him, sing our thanks to Him. The Jesuits were known for going into countries hostile to the faith, risking their lives for the sake of proclaiming the glories of God—this is our inheritance; may we not do the same?

Endnotes: 

[1] This is further explained in his retreat notes from St. Stanislaus’ College, Tullabeg, Jan. 6, 1889.

The Hill We Die On

In an article published last Fall, I proposed a serious re-examination of our relationship with the state of Israel. I cited various actions by Israel which were inconsistent with our American ideals—mostly, humanitarian crimes. In that piece, my aim was to make a general, moral critique of our ‘only genuine ally, Israel’ [1], and present a common grievance among our generation. In this piece, I would like to more directly address fellow conservatives. As our political culture continues to progress, a rift has formed between typically older and younger conservatives: one of foreign policy. Younger conservatives desire that we would place America ‘first’, and leave our insoluble foreign concerns abroad. Yet, support for Israel alone continues to receive such unilateral defense among our party elites.

On June 18th, 2025, Tucker Carlson, former journalist for the Fox News Network, posted an interview with Senator Ted Cruz (R) of Texas. Carlson’s main volley of questions for Senator Cruz were simple, ‘why did the US government attack Iran?’ Senator Cruz spent the interview accusing the Iranian government of various acts of war (‘attempting to assassinate the President’, intervening in domestic politics, and developing nuclear weapons against the West), however, failing to properly ground his accusations.

The conversation later became directly focused on our support for Israel. Senator Cruz noted that when he entered Congress in 2012, his stated intention was to be the “leading defender of Israel in the United States Senate.” An odd thing for a Canadian-born, Cuban-American legislator from Texas to aspire to. Senator Cruz deepened his resolve by claiming that Christians have been biblically commanded to defend Israel (citing Genesis 12:3). Leaving aside the absurdity of claiming that biblical Israel is synonymous with the modern state of Israel, it is even further absurd to rationalize that this then lays an impetus on American foreign policy. The warhawk agenda knows no moral stance too sacred to corrupt. However, I only mention this instance to question why many in the old guard are decidedly intent on support for Israel, especially when their rationale seems so flimsy.

Examples abound, but attention and space is limited, so I will only cite some recent prominent examples:

• On August 4th, 2025, Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson (R), made an unofficial visit to the conflicted settlements of the West Bank [2]. Speaker Johnson became the highest ranking American to visit the settlement and used his position to voice unequivocal support for Israeli occupation; stating, “the mountains of Judea and Samaria are the rightful property of the Jewish people”, and that “even if the world thinks otherwise, we stand with you.” Such statements are hardly tactful attempts at peace and misaligned with the will of the American people. With such statements Speaker Johnson not only hinders peace in the region, but also alienates our allies. This heavy-handed, American diplomacy is expressly damaging to our position as peace-keepers, and even more to our identity as moral leaders.

• The United Kingdom and France had moved to propose recognizing Palestinian statehood if Israel will not commit to a cease-fire, a move which President Trump has stated ‘no position on’[3]. However, when Canada joined their proposition, President Trump leveraged our ongoing tariff negotiations with Canada to say this “will make it very hard for us to make a Trade Deal with them. Oh’ Canada!!!” [4] If the administration’s intent in raising tariffs was to better our trade deficit, generate revenue for our government, and help American industry, why are we economically punishing an ally for speaking out against Israel’s humanitarian crisis? 

Furthermore, I do not only disagree with the administration because Israel is its object. Tariff policy was likewise misappropriated to punish Brazil for indicting their President, Jair Bolsonaro [5]. 

• Early in his second term, President Trump issued executive order 13899, an order meant to take “forceful and unprecedented steps to combat antisemitism” [6]. Part of the order urged agencies to use all means available to curb antisemitism on campuses and in public life; even to the point of revoking visas and denaturalizing citizens. Denaturalization in itself is a nebulous topic but one with legal precedent. However, it is quite difficult to maintain the moral high ground when we are willing to use extensive measures against legal immigrants, founded on contentious definitions, in favor of a foreign state. The federal government, following the 2016 IHRA Bucharest plenary, defines antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews” [7],which is proper and fitting. Yet, some of the stated examples are difficult to practically adopt. For example, one cannot “deny the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” But many organizations like Amnesty International [8], The Guardian [9], PBS [10], Georgetown’s Berkeley Center [11], and the Human Rights Watch [12] are quite sure that the state does not maintain a race-neutral perception of Palestinians, even a negative one. Further, one may not “apply double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.” But there is clearly a double standard in how our government treats Israel. No other nation in the world would dare to so overtly subjugate two million refugees and assert that the best course would be to involuntarily remove them [13]. Israel demands justice for themselves, but expects leniency which cannot be expected to any other nation.

It is not so much that our nation supports an ally, nor whether the Israelis have a right to statehood, but that our current administration seems to tie every issue into the support of an ever-dismally-favorable nation. Across the board, politically minded Americans, especially our youth, have gained a worse outlook on our support for Israel [14]. Gone are the days where support for Israel was a tepid part of the ‘American Imperial’ ticket, now we can barely find sanity in their conduct of war, and our elections are suffering for it. I hate to beat a dead horse (because it was mentioned in my previous coverage of Israel), but it is nothing short of astounding that in their only debate, the singular issue Trump and Harris shared ground on was Israel. Both candidates raced to the bottom to show unwavering patriotism to their foreign lobby [15]. 

As stark as these points may seem when taken out of context, I wish that these things did not require coverage. To many readers, these kinds of objections span a deep rift between our domestic standards and foreign policy. We cannot maintain consistency abroad and at home, when this is the conduct that our ally chooses to employ; and we especially, cannot continue to allow our government to unilaterally seek their friendship against American popular opinion.

I wish we could leave these concerns and return to America First. To truly focus ourselves on the problems which actually affect Americans. Leave the Saudis and Israelis with the principle of subsidiarity; let them deal with their regional concerns. If our administration is to “Make America Great Again”, then we cannot continue to engage in Middle Eastern affairs. Before Israel is ever brought back into the national conversation, we must first resolve our issues at home. To what concern is Israel to the American family, when cartels plague our southern border and peddle illegal substances to our inner-cities; when a medical procedure can place a man into dire financial straits; when children are continuing to become exposed to sex and pornography at younger and younger ages; when exorbitant student debt is the entrance fee for a chance to make a livable salary; when millions of the unborn are lost every year; or when political violence continues to shock our nation?

It is not whether Israel has a right to statehood, but of what concern that is to us. Moreso, why is this the issue which our party elites will go to such extreme lengths when we are so troubled at home. So why must our representatives and political establishment, especially of my own party, choose this hill to die on?

Endnotes: 

[1] “US Working to End Use of Term West Bank, Mike Johnson Says | The Jerusalem Post.” 2025. The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-863278. 

[2] Luscombe, Richard. 2025. “Speaker Mike Johnson Visits Occupied West Bank to Support Israeli Settlers.” The Guardian. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/04/mike-johnson-israel-west-bank. 

[3] Bazail-Eimil, Eric, and Esther Webber. 2025. “Trump Administration Keeps Outrage about Palestinian State Limited to Sharp Words.” POLITICO. Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/24/trump-administration-punishing-allies-recognizing-palestinian-state-00577873.  

[4] Price, Michelle L. 2025. “Trump Using Canada’s Recognition of Palestinian State in Trade Talks.” AP News. https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-palestinians-canada-d5613417c217374352305564c6a96842. 

[5] The White House. “Addressing Threats to the United States by the Government of Brazil.” 2025. The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/07/addressing-threats-to-the-us/. 

[6] The White House. 2025. “Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Takes Forceful and Unprecedented Steps to Combat Anti-Semitism – the White House.” The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/01/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-takes-forceful-and-unprecedented-steps-to-combat-anti-semitism/. 

[7] U.S Department of State. 2016. “Defining Antisemitism.” United States Department of State. https://www.state.gov/defining-antisemitism/. 

[8] Amnesty International. 2022. “Israel’s Apartheid against Palestinians: A Cruel System of Domination and a Crime against Humanity.” Amnesty International. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/israels-apartheid-against-palestinians-a-cruel-system-of-domination-and-a-crime-against-humanity/. 

[9] Graham-Harrison, Emma, and Quique Kierszenbaum. 2025. “Thousands of Israelis Join Violent, Racist March through Jerusalem’s Muslim Quarter.” The Guardian. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/26/thousands-join-israeli-flag-march-through-muslim-quarter-of-old-city-in-jerusalem. 

[10] Zion, Illan Ben. 2023. “Israeli Crowds Chant Racist Slogans, Taunt Palestinians during Jerusalem Day March.” PBS NewsHour. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/israeli-crowds-chant-racist-slogans-taunt-palestinians-during-jerusalem-day-march. 

[11]  Karkabi, Nadeem. 2021. “Jewish Religious Nationalism in Israel and the Racist Exclusion of Palestinians.” Berkleycenter.georgetown.edu. https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/responses/jewish-religious-nationalism-in-israel-and-the-racist-exclusion-of-palestinians. 

[12] Human Rights Watch. 2021. “A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution.” Human Rights Watch. Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution. 

[13] Said, Summer, Robbie Gramer, and Omar Abdel-Baqui. 2025. “Israel Is Quietly in Talks to Relocate Palestinians from Gaza.” The Wallstreet Journal. https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/israel-is-quietly-in-talks-to-relocate-palestinians-from-gaza-90a7ab23?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=ASWzDAjMJUkNAZzbZv2p30I4LRiZCWnVzV73cgXJglPrmryiPYMKXRGEybu7bhqDnrs%3D&gaa_ts=68a77887&gaa_sig=3iMOoQsRpPc3zaTas-6YxW66DYYDRA3cTLonOP3ihYDrifx4wOI_ZTQOracOl5YnJPgHjq0JWDci7eJOiZkXng%3D%3D. 

[14] Muchnick, Jordan, and William A Galston. 2025. “Support for Israel Continues to Deteriorate, Especially among Democrats and Young People.” Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/support-for-israel-continues-to-deteriorate-especially-among-democrats-and-young-people/. 

[15] Jakes, Lara. 2024. “Where Do Trump and Harris Stand on Israel-Gaza Conflict?” Nytimes.com. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/11/world/middleeast/trump-harris-israel-gaza.html.

St. Joseph’s Memorial Chapel: Holy Cross’ Historic Event Hall?

Throughout the history of the Church, the saints have said plenty of things about St. Joseph, a man who said nothing about himself. St. John Henry Newman, a 19th century English literary and theological giant, says of St. Joseph: “His was the title of father of the Son of God, because he was the Spouse of Mary, ever Virgin. He was our Lord’s father, because Jesus ever yielded to him the obedience of a son. He was our Lord’s father, because to him were entrusted, and by him were faithfully fulfilled, the duties of a father, in protecting Him, giving Him a home, sustaining and rearing Him, and providing Him with a trade” [1]. St. Teresa of Avila, a 16th century Spanish mystic, Doctor of the Church, and reformer of the Carmelites, says of St. Joseph: “As [Jesus] was subject to St. Joseph on earth – for since bearing the title of father, being the Lord’s tutor, Joseph could give the Child command – so in heaven God does whatever he commands” [2]. St. Joseph was declared “patron saint of the universal Church” by Pope Pius IX in 1870 [3], a title which was celebrated by Pope Francis in his 2020 Apostolic Letter Patris corde [4], written for the 150th anniversary of the declaration.

The Church affirms time and time again St. Joseph’s crucial role in the Holy Family and subsequently in salvation history. Next to the Blessed Virgin, he is our greatest intercessor and exemplar of everyday virtue. He is also the role model for masculinity and fatherhood, making him the perfect patron saint for the chapel of a Catholic men’s college, which was what St. Joseph’s Chapel was back in 1924, when it was consecrated.

On April 21st, 2024, Holy Cross celebrated the 100th Anniversary of the St. Joseph Memorial Chapel with a celebration of Holy Mass featuring alumni, faculty, staff, and students of the College. President Rougeau gave opening remarks, Bishop McManus was present among the faithful, and three college choirs joined in song to commemorate the event [5]. What better way to celebrate Holy Cross’ stunning, historical chapel dedicated to the father of the Holy Family? A few more events took place to commemorate the Chapel’s 100th Anniversary – on March 23rd, 2024, the College Choir and orchestra performed pieces that were performed at the chapel’s original dedication, and this past November the College held a special Mass for All Saints’ Day featuring the Gospel Choir of St. Augustine’s Church from Washington, DC.

However, on March 19th, the Feast of St. Joseph, the College barricaded the doors of the Chapel, removed the altar from the sanctuary, replaced it with armchairs, and moved the Blessed Sacrament to the downstairs tabernacle. By 5 PM, security was guarding every entrance, and students were prohibited from entering. This was because of a panel event which would take place in the Chapel’s sanctuary. The panel featured Dr. Anthony Fauci and his wife, Dr. Christine Grady, in conversation with President Rougeau and his wife, Dr. Robin Kornegay-Rougeau. The panelists were invited to speak about how they have “navigated their personal and professional paths; how they have balanced demanding careers with family life; and the lessons they have learned along the way.” In the promotion for the panel, the College called it “the culmination of our celebration of the 100th Anniversary of St. Joseph Memorial Chapel.”

At the beginning of the panel event, Michele Murray, the Senior Vice President for Student Development and Mission, remarked that the College was delighted to host the panel “in honor of St. Joseph.” What could be more unrelated to the celebration of a Catholic chapel or St. Joseph than a panel event whose topic had nothing to do with the Catholic Faith, and whose main guest is not a practicing Catholic [6]? A Fenwick Review writer in attendance remarked that only one of the panelists explicitly mentioned God. In fact, in order for the event to occur, the College needed to strip the chapel of the qualities that sacramentally defined it as a Catholic chapel – the Blessed Sacrament and the altar. St. Joseph Chapel was reduced to an event hall, devoid of the sacred.

Is St. Joseph Chapel primarily a beautiful, old, event hall, whose function is to host the College’s most prestigious guests? Does it deserve to be celebrated merely for being a beautiful building, completely stripped of the features which define it as a place of worship? Can the College celebrate a “culminating event of the 100th Anniversary of the Chapel” while completely dismissing its sacred purpose and its patron saint?

The College held no special devotional events for St. Joseph’s feast day, no additional Masses to mark the “culmination” of the Chapel’s 100th Anniversary, and barricaded its entrances as early as 9 AM. By the time I arrived at 4:45 PM, security was blocking every door and prohibiting students from entering, even for personal prayer. The panel event ended at 8:30 PM, and as a result the regular 9:00 PM Mass had to begin late. Students were not allowed to enter the Chapel until minutes before the Mass began. So, even the regular sacramental activities of the day were pushed aside for the panel event.

It is a great privilege to have a beautiful chapel on campus, and an even greater privilege to have St. Joseph as its patron. What can be said of a College which “celebrates” its chapel and its chapel’s patron saint with an event that has to do with neither? Was St. Joseph’s Solemnity just an excuse to host our prestigious guests in the campus’ most beautiful building? What might the College’s attempt to celebrate the Chapel on St. Joseph’s feast day without an emphasis on the sacraments, or any religious element, reveal about its commitment to its Catholic tradition?

Endnotes

[1] John Henry Newman, A Triduo to St. Joseph, “Day 2: Consider the Glorious Titles of St. Joseph.” Newman Reader. https://www.newmanreader.org/works/meditations/meditations8.html#triduojoseph

[2] St. Teresa of Avila, The Life of Teresa of Jesus, trans. Kieran Kavanaugh, O.C.D. and Otilio Rodriguez O.C.D. (Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1995), 79-80.

[3] Pope Pius IX, Decree: St. Joseph as Patron of the Universal Church, Dec. 8, 1870, https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/quemadmodum-deus-20726 

[4] Pope Francis, Patris Corde, Dec. 8, 2020, https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_letters/documents/papa-francesco-lettera-ap_20201208_patris-corde.html

[5] William McHale, Holy Cross Celebrates the 100th Anniversary of St. Joseph Memorial Chapel, May 3, 2024, https://hcspire.com/2024/05/03/holy-cross-celebrates-the-100th-anniversary-of-st-joseph-memorial-chapel/

[6] “Doctor Anthony Fauci on why he left the US government | BBC,” BBC News, December 1, 2023, YouTube Video, 3:43-4:51, https://youtu.be/3p6N6Lt3fo8?si=UPGSCkVxyzl-Qzyx. 

Holy Cross Holds Sexual Health Trivia Night Hosted by Well-Known Sexologist Goody Howard

Goody Howard, MSW, MPH, a nationally acclaimed sex educator, came to Holy Cross on February 12th for an event titled “The Birds and the Bees...and STDs.” It was sponsored by the Office of Title IX & Equal Opportunity, as well as Health Services, Student Wellness, Relationship Peer Educators (RPE), Student Health Awareness Peer Educators (SHAPE), and the Student Government Association (SGA), and was advertised across campus as a “sexual health education trivia” event with a “live Q&A.” The event was held in the Prior Performing Arts Center and gathered a crowd of nearly fifty students. 

On her website, Howard describes herself as “your favorite sex educator's favorite sex educator”[1], dedicated to “empowering through sexual exploration, education, and awareness”[2]. She also advertises “Goody Gear”[3], her merchandise, including items like graphic hoodies and shirts that read “Masturbation: i’m rubbin’ it”[4], “DILDO DEALER” [5], and “got toys?” [6] Additionally, her website has a wide selection of sex toys listed under a section called the “Adult Toy Store” [7]. She also advertises various workshops such as “Rideology,” a sexual fitness class, “Lick!” and “Lip Service!”, which are “penis-focused” and “vulva-focused oral sex workshops,” and “Play Date!”, a “pleasure event” about sex toys [8]. At Holy Cross, she hosted “Sex Trivia!”, an event aimed at testing participants’ “sexpertise” and whose booking fee starts at one-thousand dollars [9]. 

She began the event with a slideshow describing her biography, featured speaking topics, and a list of organizations which she has been featured on. Among these organizations is Pornhub, the most visited pornographic website in the world, Sister Song, an organization credited with creating the term “reproductive justice” and dedicated to increasing access to abortion, especially for women of color, and XBIZ, a sex industry news source. Presumably having been informed about what she is and is not allowed to promote at a Catholic institution like Holy Cross, she expressed brief concern and promised to be “on her best behavior.” What then followed was a quiz-game about the human reproductive systems, STIs, and contraception with prizes for the top three scorers. 

The trivia questions included,  “Which condom brand is most likely to break?”, “What are the side effects of hormonal birth control?”, “How long can sperm survive outside of a human body?”, “How many kinds of orgasms are there?”, “Should heterosexual couples use condoms for anal sex?”, “Are semen and sperm the same thing?”, “Can you get pregnant while on your period?”, and “Can lesbians get STIs?” After each question, she gave her own answers and answered questions from the audience. She explained to students several aspects of the reproductive systems and sexual intercourse, such as the difference between the vulva and the vagina, how the menstrual cycle affects the immune system, and how sperm function in relation to semen. She also noted that “squirt” is a term which refers to fluid that is expelled from the Skene’s gland rather than urine, and explained how to perform manual-vaginal sex when one has long nails by using gloves and cotton balls. She also touched on several points about contraception, such as the fact that Plan-B becomes less effective as one’s body weight increases, that lamb-skin condoms only prevent pregnancy and do not prevent STI transmission, how to use the website for the “ONE Condoms” brand, which offers condoms in custom sizes, and that heterosexual couples (in “perfect practice”) should use condoms even for oral and anal sex.

After the quiz, the remainder of the time was dedicated to responding to anonymous questions from the students. During this final segment, she responded to a question about how to properly clean a “rose” sex toy, a question that she expressed great excitement about answering at the beginning of the event. She also responded to a question asking whether or not “gay sex was real sex.” She responded with an unequivocal “yes,” since (to paraphrase) “they do the same thing straight couples do: penises are exchanged, there are mouths on genitals, etc.” Another student asked whether or not “scissoring,” a sexual practice involving two vulvas, was actually a real thing and whether or not “it worked.” She again responded with an unequivocal “yes” on both fronts. Before elaborating on her answer, she again expressed slight concern about whether or not she was crossing the line, but after receiving the “OK” from one of the staff members facilitating the event, she proceeded. First, she shouted to the audience, “Alright folks, phones down!” in order to prevent anyone from recording what she was about to do, and then proceeded to enthusiastically and confidently demonstrate how to perform the act: she dropped to the ground and pretended to grind her genitals on those of an imaginary woman to simulate the aforementioned act of scissoring. This was followed by a roar of cheering and laughter from the student audience. 

She also explained how to clean one’s mouth both before and after oral sex to ensure the health of oneself and one’s partner, as well as the locations of both the male and female “G-spots” and how to correctly stimulate them with one’s fingers in order to excite arousal. Finally, before taking a video for her social media page to advertise how educational her workshops are, she ended the event by answering the question, “Can I still experience sexual arousal if I’m practicing abstinence?” Again, her answer was yes, which she explained by stating that just like virginity and sexual orientation, abstinence is a spectrum. Thus, one could engage in “self-pleasure,” i.e. masturbation, in order to enjoy sexual pleasure while abstinent. Or, if someone chooses not to engage in masturbation, she recommended regularly going to the gym “in order to let out all that pent up energy” which must surely be there among people who do not masturbate.

At the end of the night, the room erupted in applause. The staff members and the students present all appeared to agree that the night was a great success, and the mission of the event had been accomplished.

Endnotes

[1] Goody Howard, “Home,” Ask Goody, https://www.askgoody.com.

[2] Goody Howard, “About,” Ask Goody, https://www.askgoody.com/about-5.

[3] Goody Howard, “More/ Goody Gear,” Ask Goody, https://www.askgoody.com/goody-gear. 

[4] Goody Howard, “More/ Goody Gear/ McMasturbate Hoodie,” Ask Goody, https://www.askgoody.com/product-page/mc-masturbate-hoodie. 

[5] Goody Howard, “More/ Goody Gear/ Dildo Dealer TShirt,” Ask Goody, https://www.askgoody.com/product-page/dildo-dealer-tshirt. 

[6] Goody Howard, “More/ Goody Gear/ Got Toys? Hoodie,” Ask Goody, https://www.askgoody.com/product-page/got-toys-hoodie. 

[7] Goody Howard, “Adult Toy Store,” Ask Goody, https://www.askgoody.com/adult-toystore. 

[8] Goody Howard, “Scheduling & Workshops,” Ask Goody, https://www.askgoody.com/workshops. 

[9] Ibid.

In Defense of Classics

A lurking sentiment pervades the Classics Department, one which inspires unease and uncertainty for the future of the study at Holy Cross altogether. Classics, many feel, is on the brink of erosion. Well, do such claims have grounds to be made? And if so, is Classics worth keeping alive in its current form?

Several factors may indicate that Classics will undergo further change. Recently introduced changes have raised questions among Classics students as to the trajectory of the department. Hebrew, a language traditionally taught in theological contexts [1], has joined Ancient Greek and Latin as potential languages to satisfy the two-language Major requirement, with a few other languages being floated around as potential additions. Though new languages may bear relevance and cultivate interest, this alteration in the language requirement follows a general trend in the department. Classics is shifting from being a study of the ancients who inspired Western tradition to a study of the ancillary states to the classical tradition, which, although incredibly important and involved, do not define the basis of the tradition. Although it is important for Classicists to be open to various perspectives from the study of Classics, it is also important to ensure that hypercritical viewpoints are not the only ones relayed; otherwise, the study has effectively failed at delivering a variety of perspectives. Many Classics students worry that these new courses are a sign of an eventual “loss of identity” for the department, wherein the focus will no longer be on Greece and Rome and will instead be on the broader ancient world.

Such a shift would not be unheard of. Last semester, a talk was held in Rehm Library in which Classics scholar and President of the American Council of Learned Societies, Joy Connolly, proposed a new way to teach about premodern history: Ancient Studies. Connolly expounds her proposition further in her upcoming book, All the World’s Past, where she sets forth to foster a “decolonized field” [2], a composite of perspectives inspired by Afrofuturist thought [3] The idea of Ancient Studies appears utterly unproblematic on its face—a means of recognizing underappreciated cultures and getting a broad sense of the ancient world is both appealing and admirable. But this is not the complete story—Connolly makes it clear in her speech that Ancient Studies is in some way a substitute for Classics [4]. She presents Classics as a declining field and enumerates her grievances with it. Where she frames her new field as an “epistemic reparation,” she implies that Classics operates as a “vehicle for white supremacy” [5]. While talking about colonialism, she disparages Classics for its supposed “Eurocentrism,” “proto-nationalist origin story,” and value assessment on subjective matters (such as others saying that Greek or Roman art is the best). Connolly claims that “Greeceandroman Studies” (her monolithic term for Classics) was founded on ethnonationalism and racism, designed for nationalism, and informed and animated by white elites [6]. Evidently, Connolly must have had a reason to intertwine her criticisms of “Greeceandroman Studies” in her speech, and it’s difficult to see this as a call to anything other than replacement or redirection.

This speech would not be so notable if there was no likelihood for it to bear any fruits—but there’s good reason to believe that Connolly’s proposals could have consequences. The same aspirations and theories are echoed by scholars throughout the field of Classics. If Connolly’s mission is to bring Ancient Studies to institutions around the country, it would not be unreasonable to assume that faculty or administration at Holy Cross could soon be in favor of phasing the Classics department into Ancient Studies, especially given the department’s new course offerings (regarding the increasingly Near Eastern focus) and the diminishing of the Greek and Latin language requirements. Holy Cross is not a large enough institution to have the diversity of field selection at schools such as Boston University. Were two similar departments to be run in tandem with one another, the scarcity of students and funding would likely cause the dilution of one of the fields, thereby making it more advantageous for the school to prioritize one of the other. Such could be the case were Ancient Studies to be introduced alongside Classics. It’s possible that were it introduced, it may just be a replacement for Classics altogether.

Given the possibility that Connolly’s criticisms of Classics are shared among members of the Holy Cross administration, faculty, and even the student body, I believe it is worth analyzing the criticisms made of Classics in detail and giving the department a fair trial before it is slowly dispensed with. As a student who does not study Classics and bears little attachment to the major, I would like to offer my perspective. I shall divide these claims as such: first, that Classics is used as a proto-nationalist origin story and wherefore a vehicle for ethnonationalism and white supremacy; second, that Classics is a eurocentric field; and third, that value assessments in favor of Greece and Rome are indefensible.

To address Connolly’s thesis, it is necessary to deracinate the core of these beliefs. A recent view that has notably risen to prominence in the last decade is the denial of “the West”: the idea that “Western Civilization” does not exist and never has. Eight years ago, The Guardian’s Kwame Anthony Appiah published an article called “There is no such thing as western civilisation” claiming as much—that Western Civilization is a modern invention that lacks proper reason for any continued usage [7]. Appiah argues that “Western” values are not beholden to any group and are appropriated by modern Europeans for a false identity, yet it is unanimously agreed that values are an aspect of culture. Much of Appiah’s argument is reliant on the blurred lines entailed by the label of “Western,” yet for much of the article, Appiah’s well-read historical recounting makes a rather competent case in favor of Western Civilization, outlining the development of the identity and shift in ideological spread from the time of the ancients through the conflicts between Christendom and Islam. It is certainly the case that the idea of “Western Civilization” is blurred on its borders, has morphed over time, and has been misappropriated—but does that make it a false phrase worth discarding? Or is it still applicable in certain instances? Even if centuries ago the West was not an established enough idea for its distinction to be made, its continuous reassertion has, at this point, manifested itself into existence. Additionally, even if it had not gone by the same name, the sentiments of Western Civilization predate its coining. In Saint Thomas More’s 1516 novel Utopia, the character Raphael represents the West to the Utopians by bringing them the Bible and Ancient Greek philosophy. What More viewed as the undergirding tenets of a broadly Western culture may also be reflected in Jesuit tradition.

When Connolly refers to Greeceandroman Studies as a “proto-nationalist origin story” [8], it seems that she’s expressing support for Appiah’s point of view, believing that Classics have been used to justify nationalism through a sense of having a historic “right” [9]. And, Connolly isn’t wrong—this certainly has occurred (Byzantine Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, Russian Empire, etc.)—but is it the fault of Classics? Or is it the byproduct of nation-states being the dominant form of government in Europe and needing to reach for national credibility? The latter seems far more culpable, and to push such guilt on the study of Classics itself seems rather misdirected. The abuse of knowledge is not the fault of knowledge itself.

In his article, Appiah also asserts that the term “Western” can often be seen as a euphemism for “white,” but I find this to be a case of falsely conflating causation with correlation. Much of Western Civilization happens to be “white,” but only because the idea of the West was most popular in European geographical bounds before colonialism, upon which colonial settlers brought ideas such as the West with them through their relocations. This may be similar to the reason that Connolly calls Classics a “vehicle for white supremacy.” If she believes both that “Western culture” means “white” and that the field makes value assessments on a cultural basis [10], it’s no wonder that she sees Classics as having racist undertones. But Classics today is no longer limited along the lines of race; anyone within and outside of our cultural bounds can live, observe, and learn from the teachings we’ve valued for centuries.

Is the study of Classics Eurocentric? I find this proposition to be rather comical, not because it is incorrect, but because its attention is misdirected. Classics inherently carry with them some degree of Eurocentrism because the study primarily focuses on two largely European powers (albeit ones that are far more focused on the Mediterranean than Europe). Asking whether or not Classics is Eurocentric is the wrong question to ask. Instead, we should be asking: Would it be wrong for Classics to be Eurocentric? Are we to believe, too, that the study of the Ancient Sinosphere is too Asiacentric? Every field is in some way exclusive; every study, by its nature, must focus on one area and exclude many others, as it is impossible for people to learn everything. It’s okay to have a broader study of history where the courses aren’t all concentric on one region of the world and its culture, but that’s no longer Classics and loses the reasons why Classics is taught. The core of Classics is not whiteness, nor is it the European continent—it’s the framework that’s inspired generations of cultural change and intellectual consideration. Its influences and references may be found everywhere, including the country we reside in. James Madison explains in Federalist No. 10 that the American constitution intended to make valuable improvements on the “popular models, both ancient and modern,” implying reference to Athens and Enlightenment thought, which was inspired by Athenian thinkers. Much in the same way studies of Confucious are warranted in East Asia due to their unabashed influence, the same applies to the United States and the Classics.

The final point of Connolly’s I should address is that Classics makes a value assessment on subjective matters [11]. I would counter by saying that value assessments in any field depend on who is informing, and choosing to focus on one topic does not necessarily express its superiority over others as much as its cultural relevance. And, were the department to hold Classical art in higher esteem than art of other civilizations, would it be a problem? Although art is ultimately subjective, there tend to be objective reasons that lead people to enjoy art. The conversation of objectivity in art is complicated enough to render one’s value assessment that Classical art is better than others decently defendable, so why not let such a conversation occur? Drawing out the argument of value assessment in art to imply racial superiority falsely indicates that genetics are the primary determining factor in cultural development. For these two reasons, value assessment is, at its root, not an issue.

In a time of sweeping changes, Classics is not a vestigial relic of the past that warrants overhaul. It is not problematic, showing no sway to ethnonationalism and white supremacy, being more about its tradition than its place of origin, and assessing value no differently than any other study. We should not rebrand Classics, nor should we alter its purpose; we must double down on the tradition of Classics in a time when others brush it aside. Christendom and Classics are the two defining aspects of Jesuit tradition, as mentioned in the Jesuit Ratio Studiorum [12], and to impede on them is to destroy the culture of our esteemed and historical institution.

Endnotes 

[1] See: Ratio Studiorum, rules of the Provincial paragraph 7. https://ia802307.us.archive.org/12/items/ratio-studiorum-1599/ratio-studiorum-1599.pdf. 

[2] Joy Connolly, “All the World’s Past: The Case for a New Field,” (lecture, College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, MA, October 8, 2024), 45:08. https://youtu.be/CZ6MRpg3_a0?si=PuFASPCd5GFcAhmZ. 

[3] Ibid. 47:27 

[4] Ibid. 32:49-33:16, 35:23-35:54

[5] Ibid. 7:28. 

[6] Ibid. 40:25, 42:05

[7] Kwame Anthony Appiah, “There is no Such Thing as Western Civilization,” The Guardian, November 9, 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/09/western-civilisation-appiah-reith-lecture. 

[8] Joy Connolly, “All the World’s Past: The Case for a New Field”, 36:53. 

[9] Ibid. 41:51 

[10] Ibid. 39:59, 37:51-38:21

[11] Ibid. 35:40-35:54, 37:51

[12] See: Ratio Studiorum

Cover photo: Statue of River Tiber in the Vatican Museums – Photo by Daniel J. Capobianco

The Office of the Presidency: The Dignified & the Efficient

“In such constitutions there are two parts (not indeed separable with microscopic accuracy, for the genius of great affairs abhors nicety of division): first, those which excite and preserve the reverence of the population–the dignified parts, if I may so call them; and next, the efficient parts—those by which it, in fact, works and rules.” ~ Walter Bagehot, The English Constitution, 1867

The English political analyst Walter Bagehot was correct in his pronouncement that a functioning government is made up of two components: the dignified and the efficient. From this, I shall make a personal assertion: we, as Americans, do not know nor attempt to know what this means. Yes, we always desire an efficient government; we always attempt to elect one and become furious whenever Congress or the President cannot fulfill their promises. But, this desire does not extend to them striving to behave as exemplar models of dignity. The effects this has had on our collective institutional confidence are extraordinary.

Before I continue, I must make a quick note to the reader. I am not advocating for the adoption of a British style of government: we declared independence to attempt a democratic republican experiment. Instead, I am using this particular aspect of the unwritten British constitution to analyze a perceived defect in the American one and to recommend a remedy. It should not, therefore, be dismissed as that of an idealist but reviewed as a part of a wider introspection on the American identity.  

Since the unprecedented turmoils of the 1960s and 1970s—from Vietnam to the Iranian Hostage Crisis—the confidence that Americans have in their nation and her governmental institutions has steeply declined [1]. How did this nation, this “Great Arsenal of Democracy” (as Franklin Roosevelt described it), lose her people’s respect in less than six decades? For us to get a sense of an answer to this question, I believe we must take a look at the evolution of the most visible and controversial position in our nation: that of the Office of the Presidency. 

To understand this Office, we must look at the powers invested in it from the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution empowers the Office of the Presidency in a single clause: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States” (Article II, section 2, clause 1). No specifications are given as to what these executive powers are, making it a direct contrast to the confining perimeters set for the legislature by Article I. Herein lies our contemporary problem. 

To understand the meaning behind this vagueness, we must turn back to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when our founders attempted to rectify the errors of the Articles of Confederation. These Articles—our first constitutional attempt—granted a wide berth of authority to the states and purposefully rejected power separation to avoid any semblance to a European monarchy. These states jealously guarded their autonomy to the extent of ignoring the interests of their citizens. Their local legislatures—that is, the senates of each state—were autonomous to the point of eminence over the federal. This ineptitude culminated in Shays’s Rebellion, which ignited a national desire for a powerful federal legislature and judiciary presided over by a unifying federal executive. Formulating a powerful legislature and judiciary was easy for the Convention; deciding on what an executive would look like was quite another matter altogether. What powers would be entrusted to the individual, how exactly this individual would be chosen, and whether there would only be one individual; these were but a few of the many questions the framers debated over. Their deliberations—influenced heavily by The Federalist Papers [2], co-authored by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay—produced Article II of the Constitution. The point was to ensure that the Office was flexible in times of change but rigid enough to maintain the tenets of the Constitution  [3] [4].

For nearly three centuries, our country has faced an array of unprecedented challenges, both foreign and domestic. Each has required an extraordinary vision, a commanding force, and a persuasive voice from an altruistic figure who is above the fray. The first five presidents—more or less—successfully did this and built our national foundations, from Washington’s two-term precedent and noble bearings to Monroe’s Doctrine that initiated America’s standing in the global theater. Certain presidents after, such as Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and Gerard Ford, imitated them, fortifying the mortar that at times required departures from individual rights and institutional expectations—the termination of habeas corpus, the unparalleled four-term presidency, and the pardon of a disgraced former president—in order to “preserve the principles of democracy for the long-run” [5]. 

All presidents have had these intentions at heart whenever they act; yet, the development of social media, an expansive press, and entrenched partisan views have oriented the importance on the occupant rather than the Office and have distorted and sidelined this focus. 

Permit me to use President Kennedy as an example of this modern, systematic emphasis on the individual. A popular, charismatic leader during the thick of the Cold War, his far-reaching, unrealistic rhetoric, coupled with his Hollywood glamor, aided an undue reverence to the officeholder—the individual—rather than the Office [6]. It inflated the legacy of this tragic young man, who lacked morality and discipline, into a Camelotian figure.

We, the People, expect the President not only to be an administrative fixer but to have the charms of a hero. We would like him to be better than a King, better than a Dei Gratia Rex. We want him to be a demigod. 

We have empowered the presidents to be concerned about their popularity and to proclaim unity in public while behaving depravedly at the same time. We adore their extravagant affirmations and demagogic speeches. We would prefer them to move with the national currents, making promises of restoration and reversing moral decay with very little substance on how they are going to accomplish this. We are quite content—even though we say we aren't—with them simply being puppets on stage, creating policies that react to changes rather than enact any [7]. 

We have played a significant part in expanding this malaise through our ignorance and passive behavior. It is, therefore, not solely the responsibility of the President to make his office respectable again but that of us—the people. Perhaps we would do well to learn from the wisdom of two philosophical politicians—Cicero and Riezler—of two failed republics—the Roman and the Weimar—on what should be expected from a chief executive. The moment he is elected, he is, in essence, transfigured from the politician—who maneuvers from one short-lived smartness to next—into the statesman—who is a skillful and clever politician who actively carries out his laundry list of long and short-term goals [8]. Though the stability of institutions will fluctuate because of the everchanging times, it is the duty of the leader to embody and employ civil and political prudence, to serve as moderator and rector in order to be the source for the polity—the political institution—as a whole [9]. To be rector et gubernator civitatis: the model statesman.

Endnotes: 

[1]“Public Trust in Government: 1958-2024,” Pew Research Center, June 24, 2024, https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/06/24/public-trust-in-government-1958-2024/. 

[2] Melvyn Bragg and Guests, “The Federalist Papers,” October 12, 2023, on BBC Radio 4, https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001r7sv. 

[3] Joseph A. Pika, John A. Maltese, and Andrew Rudalevige, The Politics of the Presidency, (SAGE Publications Incorporated, 2020). 

[4] Stephen F Knott, The Lost Soul of the American Presidency: The Decline Into Demagoguery and the Prospects for Renewal, (University Press of Kansas, 2019).

[5] American Political Thought: The Philosophical Dimension of American Statesmanship, eds. Morton J. Frisch, and Richard G. Stevens, (Transaction Publishers, 2011).

[6] Stephen F Knott, The Lost Soul of the American Presidency: The Decline Into Demagoguery and the Prospects for Renewal, passim. 

[7] Kurt Riezler, “The Philosopher of History and the Modern Statesman.” Social Research 13, no. 3 (September): 368-380. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40982156. 

[8] Ibid. 

[9] Walter Nicgorski, “Cicero's Focus: From the Best Regime to the Model Statesman.” Political Theory 19, no. 2 (May 1991): 230-251. https://www.jstor.org/stable/191663.

An Interview with Dr. Anthony Fauci ‘62: Perspectives, Policy… and the Pardon

During his recent residency at Holy Cross, representatives from the Fenwick Review and the Spire had the opportunity to sit with Dr. Anthony Fauci ‘62 for an on-the-record conversation. We asked Dr. Fauci about the value of the humanities, the impact of COVID-19 policy on education, the role of “experts” and federalism in policy making, and his preemptive pardon from former President Biden.

Liam Murphy: A lot of students today who plan to go into medicine would find having a classics or humanities background inconceivable or unnecessary, because of academic specialization. Do you think something is lost there with that sort of disregard for a holistic, humanities education?

Dr. Anthony Fauci: I think it is… When I went to medical school (I went to Cornell Medical School in New York City), and we had a lot of kids in our class, who took pre-med courses that were purely scientific, I mean, there was nothing in the humanities about that at all. [Those students] were great. They were good guys and ladies. You know, they did well, so I don't think it's a sine qua non, that if you don't do that, you're not going to succeed. But I think for individuals depending upon, you know, your own personality, that there's a lot of value added to that, and I think for some people there would be a loss in that. I know it was extremely helpful to me to go into medicine and have a broader look at things… My interest was always curiosity about people, not formulas in physics, or in chemistry, or in biology… The person who was second or third [in my class at Cornell] was a very good friend of mine, who was here with me at the Cross, who did the same AB Classics, Greek pre-med. So out of the top four people there, two of them were from Holy Cross.

LM: On the topic of education, particularly as it concerns COVID policy: Given the effects of COVID-19 lockdowns and policies on education, such as the backward slide in literacy and mathematics skills, do you think that the extent of those measures was entirely justified? With this in mind, would you recommend the same approach if a similar pandemic were to break out in the future?

AF: Okay. I brought this up last night but I’ll repeat it for you for the record. I think anyone who is thinking fairly and not in that blame-game situation would agree universally, that it was absolutely essential to flatten the curve and, quote, “shut down.” I say “shut down,” not “lock down,” because we did not do what other countries did, where essentially, you couldn't even leave your house, you couldn't go to work. I mean, we did GPS monitoring of where people were going. We were not locked down. Schools were closed, so to do that in March, April, and May, when thousands of people per day were dying, when freezer trucks were lining up in front of hospitals because there were too many dead people, you couldn't fit in the ward. Something had to be done. So I think that's incontrovertibly correct. 

What we need to reexamine as we look forward to lessons learned, is how long you kept things shut down, how long you kept the schools closed, how long you stopped work at different places. People don't remember, and there's a lot of slings and arrows thrown at me, but if you go back, and I ask people to do that and they say, “You closed the schools! And you did that!” Go back and go to YouTube and look at what I was saying in the fall of 2020, what I was saying a thousand times: “Open the schools as quickly and as safely as possible. Open the schools, close the bars…” So, when we go back, and I would hope people do that instead of pointing fingers at the teachers union, or pointing fingers at certain local people who kept schools, and factories, and other things closed, examine what the risk-benefit ratio of that is. And what people do [is] lump it all into one. They say we shouldn't have closed anything. The Great Barrington Declaration, which, conceptually and practically, everybody agrees is incorrect. There would have been thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of more deaths. So you shouldn't lump them together, like shut down and how long you shut down. You should say, we should have paused in the spring, when thousands of people were dying, but we need to examine that risk-benefit of how long you kept things shut down.

LM: What do you think about the policy making role of specialized experts, such as scientists, who are not themselves policy makers nor necessarily experts on policy making? And do you think that this role may have been inordinately expanded during COVID, since there might have been factors relevant to policy making which were not part of their areas of expertise?

AF: What a great question. I’m glad you asked that, because that is the subject of a great deal of misunderstanding. The public health officials and the scientists, myself included, we did not make policy. There was the perception that we made policy. We gave the facts and the information, if you [look at] the Trump administration and then the same thing for the Biden administration (I'm not, you know, saying one versus the other)... there was a coronavirus task force that was headed by Debbie Birx, my colleague (I was on the task force), that had on it the Surgeon General and the director of the CDC. We examined the scientific and public health data and said, “This would happen if you flatten the curve, this would happen if you wore a mask.” That was communicated to the Vice President, Pence, who communicated it to the president, who made the decision about what the policy was. 

Now, since I was a communicator, that goes back 38 years to HIV, I was a trusted communicator in public health. I did it with HIV, I did it with Ebola, I did it with anthrax, I did it with Zika. So I would get up in front of the television and say, here are the kinds of things you should do, you should wear a mask, you should do this. People misinterpreted that I made the policy, and they would ask the same question, Liam, that you're asking: “Should a scientist and a public health person make the policy?” No. The scientific person, the public health person, gathers the data, presents it to the policy maker, and the policy maker makes the policy. It is a major misunderstanding that you have a couple of docs and public health people in a room, deciding, “Okay, we're gonna close your factory.” There isn't a factory in the United States that I closed. There isn't a school in the United States that I closed, and yet there's this prevalent perception that the public health people closed the schools, closed the factories, ruined the economy. That decision was made at a much higher level.

Juan Cortes: Do you believe that federalism, which allows for differences in policy between the states, aided or inhibited the response to the COVID-19 pandemic? For example, states such as New York were more shut down, while Florida was more open. As the pandemic continued, it gave us an observation of how policy variations influence outcome.

AF: Yeah, a very sad observation. Federalism, which, as you know, dates back to the birth of our country, reflects the diversity throughout, regionally, culturally, ethnically. We have an enormous country that you're all aware of. You know, there are a lot of differences depending upon where you live, what the resources are in a particular region of the country. New York City versus Mississippi and San Francisco versus Florida. So federalism or the “states’ rights,” as it were, has an important contribution to being sensitive to diversity. However, when you're dealing with a pandemic that equally kills somebody in Maine as it does in Texas, then, unfortunately, the idea of individual decisions about how you're gonna do things as opposed to taking something that would [be standard, like:] people should get vaccinated. We know vaccinations have saved (this isn't me making it up), clearly saved three to five million people in the United States and 15 to 20 million people worldwide. That's not TikTok. That's not social media. That's a fact, okay? Yet, because of the differences… between a red state and a blue state, it is tragic that… the political association is that if you are Republican, it's much less likely you will wear a mask or get vaccinated than if you are a Democrat. That's not conjecture, that's a fact. Another fact is that if you live in a red state versus a blue state, you will have a greater chance of getting hospitalized or dying from COVID. So here's where you have a situation where what should be a sensitivity to diversity leads to people dying. So when people die because of that difference, then you've got a question that maybe this is a point where the strict adherence to, “Okay, if you're in Wyoming and you don't want to wear a mask, but you're in New York City and you want to wear a mask” [is worse than] saying, “We're going through a pandemic together as a nation, let's do the most scientifically correct and scientifically sound thing.” That did not happen. And that, I think, is one of the contributions to what I mentioned last night, that it is tragic and astounding that the richest country in the world had 1.2 million deaths, and on a per capita basis, we were one of the worst two or three countries in the world in deaths. What is wrong with that picture, you know? But it is the truth.

JC: What precedent do you think your preemptive pardon from President Biden sets? Do you think measures like this are necessary to protect experts from political backlash?

AF: The pardon is a very sensitive issue… Preemptive pardons, there's a potential negative aspect to that. President Biden did a preemptive pardon because there was something that was happening that was unprecedented. And what was unprecedented was a presidential candidate who said publicly, “I am your vengeance, I am your retribution. I am going to punish people who disagreed with me.” He didn't hint that, he said it. So that triggered the idea of a preemptive pardon. 

However, there is an issue, that that could backfire, because then… in subsequent situations people might assume that I can do anything I want in a public position, as long as somebody's gonna preemptively pardon me. So, on the one hand, it's a positive thing because it protects people from unjust attacks on them when they clearly have done nothing wrong. On the other hand, it has the potential to shield people who intend to do things wrong. So it's a double-edged sword. I'm not at all one-hundred-percent comfortable with the idea of pardon. I mean, I didn't ask for a pardon. That's very clear because I said, that could hint to some people that I did something wrong. But the attorneys in the White House said, “In the weight of all things balancing, do it,” and they were very, very adamant about that. It wasn't like two guys said “yes,” and one lady said “no,” it was one-hundred-percent, “do it.” But I didn't ask for it.

Cover image by Christopher Michel, Wikimedia, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anthony_Fauci_in_2023_02_(cropped).jpg.