The Gadfly, Volume XXII, Issue 1

Table of Contents Letter from the Editor

by Anthony Halstead ~3~

Religion- Finding truth in Nietzsche

by Kieran Kiley ~12~

Inspired by J.P.’s cartoon, The Flight to Europe

by Anonymous ~5~

Culture- The right to live or choose?

by Triana Rose ~15~

Miscellaneous- Discerning gender roles (Real men pet pups)

by Patrick Neve III ~6~

TouchĂŠ- Modesty: An unrevealing art form

by Baron Buckner ~17~

Politics- U.S. and Russian Relations

by Kathryn Carnell ~9~

TheGadflyPublicationTeam Bite the Sleeping Horse

Editor-in-Chief Anthony Halstead

Layout Editor Elizabeth Hoyle

Copy Editor James Monsour

Staff Photographer Elizabeth Feudo

Executive Assitant/ Cartoonist Julia Premus

Cover photo Nicholas Swanson

The Gadfly is a student-run publication and a platform for free speech.

The views expressed here are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Franciscan University of Steubenville.

October/November

LetterfromtheEditor Welcome!

This is the Gadfly, a platform in which students (and even professors) write about interesting and sometimes controversial topics. If you have already picked up the previous edition on Art, you may notice quite a substantial change between this edition and that one. In previous editions, we selected a single theme and asked writers to think outside of the box on topics within the theme. This time, however, we have made five categories: Politics, Religion, Culture, Touché – a section in which writers reply to previously published articles – and a section for miscellaneous articles that do not belong in the other four categories. On top of that, we have given the Gadfly a visual overhaul.

But more important than the categories and the aesthetic appeal, however, is the content. In this edition, we will hear opinions on a wide array of subjects: from the relationship between the United States and Russia, to why real men show affection to dogs, there

is much to be discussed, and our writers have put much thought and great effort into their articles. So without further ado, I present to you this month’s edition of The Gadfly.

Sincerely, Anthony Halstead Editor-in-Chief P.S. Are you interested in writing an article for the Gadfly? The requirements are simple: The article must be around 1,300 words; the article must fit one of the five categories listed above; the article must be e-mailed to notestothegadfly@gmail.com; and the article must be in by or before November 13. Will your article be one of the lucky few that fill the remaining eight spots for this semester? Send it in soon and find out!

3

“Nothing can dim the light that shines from within.�

Maya Angelou

Inspired by J.P.’s cartoon, “The Flight to Europe” Anonymous The passports only get you so far, just like the promises they made you when everything followed the predicted chronology and all you had to do was work, eat, sleep, rinse, and repeat.

Then came the end of the world, the thief that stole in at dinner time instead of in the middle of the night as was foretold.

Now the saftey net of life as it was has been burnt away, its ashes shot through with a hailstorm of bullets and you and millions of others are left falling headfirst, aiming for a bed, a home, a job, a chance.

Surely those who denounce your need, who refuse you refuge before you’ve arrived on their shores, will not hold to their hard hearts when they see your starving children and your families covered in wounds seen and unseen, will they?

The Gadfly

5

Misc: Discerning gender roles (real men pet pups) Patrick Neve III Real Men Pet Pups

I saw a puppy the other day. I gave it a pat.

I’ve been away at Franciscan for over two months now, and one of the biggest things that I miss are my dogs.

I’m 93% sure they hate me, but they’re adorable and I love them. So the other day, when I saw a little black lab running around the field near the JC, I flipped out. I ran to this pup and I played with it and fawned over it with some of my classmates. It was great. However, in the midst of this puppy licking its way into our very hearts and affirming God’s love for us and for all of creation, I realized something: I was the only dude in the group. I was the only guy in a group of girls squealing over this little puppy, and that made me think… “Am I masculine?”

Some would say I was being a stud. Hanging out with the puppy to appear fragile and sensitive to the beautiful women surrounding me, but that was not the case. I just like puppies. As a man who has done chorus and drama for the better part of my schooling career, I have said and heard this sentence a lot: “I like being in theater/chorus because there’s so many girls!” Where in reality, I liked being in theater and chorus because I enjoy singing and being on stage. There seems to be a notion in our society that men can only like ‘feminine’ things if they have an ulterior motive. Most people like to get on a soapbox about things like this, but our society’s problem doesn’t lie in the idea that men are pigs that only want sex, the problem lies (as most things do) in our misunderstanding of what masculinity and femininity are.

Gender Roles

Traditional nuclear family culture has this classic picture of Mom making dinner and the kids playing with toys. Johnny has his GI Joes and trucks, while Jane has her dolls and tea set. Dad comes in from a long day at work, Mom calls Jane in to help set the table, and Johnny jumps on Dad, begging for that Red Ryder BB Gun for Christmas. Mom serves dinner and then Dad sits on the recliner reading the Evening Post and smoking a cigar while Mom

The Gadfly

5

cleans and the kids watch Howdy Doody, or whatever.

Essentially you have these roles in society: • Husbands- Make the money and provide • Wives- Clean the house and care for the kids • Boys- Play with trucks and G.I. Joes • Girls- Play with dolls and help Mom in the kitchen These “gender roles” are not very accurate when it comes to defining masculinity and femininity the way God intended them to be. They even sparked the feminist counter-cultural revolution, that we are so familiar with, which is different but equally disastrous when it comes to maintaining the spirit of masculinity and femininity. The Gender Role Culture (GRC) was called oppressive to women by the Feminist Counter-Culture (FCC) due to the fact that this model did not leave much room for women to have careers.

These roles can appear oppressive, but what we need to understand is: the GRC was just giving it their best shot. Our human nature knows that our genders mean something, but without God, we have no way to define them accurately, so in the GRC era, we settled for these definitions: • Man= The Provider • Woman= The Caretaker These roles are somewhat accurate, as it explains why most girls like to play with dolls and why most boys like to play with trucks and army figures. There is a sense of valor and providing that young boys seek and it usually manifests itself as playing war hero or pretending to build things.

Playing with dolls and having tea parties provides young girls with a sense of caring and inclusion. These pre-pubescent roles eventually grow and become the ‘providing father’ and the ‘caretaking mother.’ However, they are just the human manifestation of the famous painting, “The Treachery of Images.”

The Treachery of Images

If you are familiar with John Green’s “The Fault in our Stars,” or a fan of ironic French portraiture, you may know “The Treachery of Images” by René Migritte (If not, just google it. You probably have a smartphone). It

6

is a painting of a pipe with a caption that says, “Ceci n’est pas une pipe,” or, “this is not a pipe.” At first the audience may be confused. It is a pipe right? “WRONG!” the artist laughs, in a haughty French voice (even though he’s Belgian), “it’s a PICTURE of a pipe!” Now, this picture’s purpose is not just to make you feel dumb, nor is it merely fuel for John Green’s cancerous prose. Pepe Le Pew actually has a point. So often in our culture we fall victim to viewing illustrations as the real thing, as the FCC has done with gender roles.

The FCC is justified in trying to right the wrongs that can and do accompany the GRC. However, it does tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater. As opposed to correcting where the GRC went wrong, the FCC has gone so far as to condemn gender as a whole and suggest there is no difference between a man and a woman, be it spiritually, emotionally, physically, or even in some cases, biologically.

As Christians, we tend to adopt the GRC model of gender as it is closest to the truth, and fully reject the FCC model because it is so far removed. Which explains why most feminists view the Church as oppressive. However, the GRC model still does not fully encapsulate what it means to be a man or a woman. The GRC roles are actually just human illustrations of what it means to be masculine or feminine. Provider and Caretaker are rooted in society. Our True Roles are (deeply) rooted in Christ.

Our True Roles

In the simplest terms, masculinity and femininity can be defined as: • Man= The Initiator • Woman= The Receiver/Responder

These True Roles are illustrated in our cultural traditions; for instance, our traditions state that the man asks the woman on a date. Obviously this isn’t a law, however it mimics the man’s role as the initiator (of the question) and the woman’s role as the receiver/responder. She receives the question and the affection that comes along with it and responds with her answer and, possibly, mutual affection.

That’s a nice fluffy metaphor for our roles as men and women, but the roles of Initiator and Receiver are fulfilled in the way our bodies are built. The man’s body really only has one part that aids creation and that’s at the beginning (Initiation.) The woman then receives her husband, and

The Gadfly

responds to the man’s love by producing A NEW PERSON, which, let’s be honest, is a LOT cooler.

For some reason, we don’t like talking about that stuff. (“that stuff” lol)

For some reason, we don’t like talking about SEX. I think it’s because we’re ashamed of it, but we shouldn’t be ashamed. Sex is God’s illustration of who we are as men and women, and in addition to that, it’s the illustration of who He is as the Trinity: The Father loves the Son and the Son responds with a love so powerful it creates another Person. We as a society have lost sight of sex and sexuality as a beautiful and holy illustration of the Trinity, and that is, truly, the greatest tragedy of our time.

There IS A Solution

Simply put, the solution is discernment. Discern the good in the illustrations of the world, and leave out the misinterpretations. Sift through the world’s definitions, keeping what is holy and dismissing what is not. Migritte’s painting can still give us an idea of what pipes are. Similarly, our society’s illustrations can point us to what our roles mean.

However, only a real pipe can act as a real pipe. Therefore, be real men and women.

Men: Be initiators of love. Don’t cower or be fearful. Let the love you seek be kind, pure, and sincere.

Women: Receive that love and turn it into something beautiful, as only a woman can. Understand the power that is given to you in this exchange. Discern wisely and, if it is God’s will, respond with greater love.

Brothers and sisters, we live in a world that has forgotten the meaning of Man and Woman and is attempting to blur the lines between the two. Our culture is thirsting for answers to the confusion, hate and anger about human sexuality, but with the example of Christ’s Perfect Masculinity, and Mary’s Perfect Femininity, we can lead our generation back to the authentic relationship between Man and Woman that we have lost.

6

7

Politics: U.S. and Russian Relations Kathryn Carnell

In a recent Reuters report, the U.S. Air Force Secretary Deborah James said, “Russia is the biggest threat to U.S. national security, and America must boost its military presence throughout Europe.”

After reading her statement, and after watching the continued destruction of the Ukraine for so long, it’s tempting to see Russia as absolute evil, and the United States as the absolute good. Or, given Russia’s condemnation of gay relationships, Russia as absolute good, and the United States as absolute evil. But by reducing this conflict to a battle of good versus evil and asking for someone to be punished, we make three critical mistakes. First, we forget that the ideologies of the United States and Russia are far more similar in nature than we realize. Secondly, we forget that the political leaders of a nation are not always a fair representation of their citizen’s hearts, and we wind up blaming everyone for the actions of a few. Finally, we ignore the Ukraine, who cannot, and should not, be ignored.

While the American citizen has more personal liberty, in my opinion, Russia and the United States have frighteningly similar moral, political, and cultural characters – even if their currents sweep in opposite directions. Russia, who was previously moving toward more democratic cultural norms (or at least away from socialist ones) is now successfully resurrecting a semi-religious nationalism, spearheaded by Vladimir Putin and his supporters. They are also doing a fantastic job of capitalizing on the internal pro-traditional family movement by claiming their society is more righteous than ours because Russia doesn’t support gay unions. In principle, they are choosing the morally correct path. But in practice, the politically intolerant perspective toward all LGBT people, and not only of gay unions, is creating a climate of fear and violence that is unnecessary. Systematic intolerance, in addition to the trend of artistic suppression in the name of protecting Russia from Western influences, is just as unhealthy for a nation as is excessive tolerance.

Speaking of unhealthy tolerance, the wave of radical “open-mindedness” in the U.S. has created an

The Gadfly

equally striking intolerance within our own country for anyone who does not subscribe to the atheistic, pro-choice, LGBT supporting standard set by pop culture icons and the far political left. Living out a Judeo-Christian morality is becoming more and more difficult as the government increases their use of legal restrictions on personal rights for the sake of pleasing and protecting a minority. The elderly Christian couple in Florida whose Christian wedding venue was persecuted relentlessly after they refused to host a gay couple’s wedding is an excellent example. Furthermore, the same ideological oppression we see in Russia exists here, as well: any professor or academic who does not openly agree with the prevailing atheistic, existentialist perspective has a much harder time than others when trying to find a job in mainstream colleges or universities. And we are all well aware of the suppression of free expression that takes place in public schooling system, the promotion of LGBT behavior as the expected norm, and how terribly untrustworthy many of our own public officials are.

Russia can see our moral bankruptcy clearly. Putin and the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill I of Moscow, have both condemned the United States for godlessness. Patriarch Kirill I’s comments were aired on Russian television this past summer: “The general political direction of the [Western political] elite bears, without doubt, an anti-Christian and anti-religious character. We have been through an epoch of atheism, and we know what it is to live without God. We want to shout to the whole world, ‘Stop!’”

Putin also spoke on the same topic in a different interview, saying that many Euro-Atlantic countries have “moved away from their roots, including [their] Christian values. Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan. This is the path to degradation.” They have a point! The governing mentalities within the United States protect, in written law, under the labels of “natural rights,” “freedom,” and “justice,” behavior

8

9

that kills the soul. As we can now see more clearly, Russia’s dominant political ideologies are just as corrupt as ours. Of course, it’s good to know that the traditional family should be protected and to work with the church for the protection of the marginalized.

But Russian LGBT people are afraid for their lives; outside news and arts are suppressed in certain areas depending on the message they spread; the political structures themselves are corrupt, and thousands of men and women in the Ukraine have died in the name of one man’s conception of Russian nationalism.

These mentalities, however, in both cases, are a small group. The majority of both of our nations are good, hardworking, honest people. It’s as unjust to lump the Russian citizenry in with Putin and his army as it is for Europe to place America into one group-thinking Leftist camp that watches Keeping Up With the Kardashians every night. If you hate the idea of being mistaken as something other than what you are, then remember that Russian people deserve the same respect. Be precise with your criticism and deliberately distinguish the people of Russia from her rulers in your hearts. When we don’t, it’s too easy to fall into fanaticism.

Given the facts, I don’t know which nation has righteousness on her side. But I do know the struggle to make sense of Russia’s unsettlingly militaristic rise has cost us valuable time and energy. By focusing on our natural desire for what we perceive as good to triumph over what we perceive as evil and finding someone to punish, we forgot to pay attention to the people who are currently suffering as a result of what we’re supposedly trying to stop.

Dr. Sich, a professor at Franciscan University and native Ukrainian, has written extensively on the suffering of the Ukrainian people, saying that they are intimately familiar with the Cross. In an article for Crisis Magazine, he writes that they not only want to seek what Europe has to offer, but also want to “… offer [their] own rich traditions and wisdom to help revitalize a ‘tired Europe,’…to help heal Western Europe of its profoundly violent anti-life (abortion) and anti-family (homosexual “marriage”) policies as well as the crass individualism and consumerism that threaten, as George Weigel recently put it, “the moral foundations necessary to sustain a free polity and a free economy … ordered to the common good.”

The Gadfly

Translation: the Ukraine was derailed from contributing to Europe its rich Catholic-Christian heritage because of their battle with Russia.

Let that sink in: Russian political leaders, who claim they are trying to spread pro-family politics and Judeo-Christian morality, are engaging in what looks like a manslaughter over a piece of territory – a war Putin has denied openly – with a nation that has the same beliefs about marriage and the family, and wants to help spread them to all of Europe.

Do you think that’s a coincidence? I don’t.

And while they duke it out, the United States, morally bankrupt as she is, is spreading said moral bankruptcy throughout Europe.

Let’s not try to understand. Dr. Sich continues on the subject of the injustice of current violence, saying: “As George Weigel reminds us from a lesson taught by John Paul II, one should not psychologize an adversary: “bad guys behave badly because of who they are, what they espouse and what they seek, not because of anything we did to them … [their agendas are] driven by their own ideologies, not reactions to U.S. policy that can be pacified through behavioral changes.”

If this is the shadow of a conflict to come – if our current trajectory places us directly in the path of open war, as some people want – know that the Russian government won’t be the ones who suffer. Our government will not suffer. The simple people will suffer and die for the sins of their leaders before any trauma even touches their walls. Be deliberate in your opinions, and don’t ask for more violence unless it’s absolutely necessary to stop what’s happening in the Ukraine. Please understand: if the U.S. gets directly involved in a fight with Russia, the people responsible for the injustice will not suffer like you think you want them to. You, and I, our loved ones, regular families in Russia, Ukrainian men, women, and children, and the rest of the world – as is already happening in the Crimea.

9

10

“He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster.

And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.�

Friederich Nietzsche

Religion: Finding Truth in Nietzsche Kieran Kiley

You’ve all heard of him before. Atheists praised his

of customs and doctrines that had been passed on for centuries

work; Christians decried his very existence. His words were

and needed to free themselves from the shackles of superstition in

powerful like a raging hurricane, but also comforting like a light

order to take control of their lives and their destinies.

snowfall. I’m talking about Frederich Nietzche, arguably the

world’s most renowned atheist thinker of the twentieth century.

Nietzsche’s view seems totally incompatible with the Christiani-

I can probably already guess what you’re thinking: “Frederich

ty. Yet, in order to understand his wisdom, one must consider first

Nietzche! Isn’t he in hell?” Um, maybe. Nevertheless, his phi-

the depth to his work. See, what Nietzsche is pointing out is more

losophy was full of insight. As crazy as it might sound, Nietzche

than just a philosophical truth; it’s a psychological one, mainly

actually helped in my conversion to Catholicism… yes, I said it.

that man is what he believes. In his view, the convictions one

So let’s take a look at a few of his ideas, shall we?

holds can either deter or motivate him into living a fulfilling life.

Thus an optimistic world view will lead to an optimistic exis-

“God is Dead.” Nietzsche rejected classical Western

At first glance, one is totally justified in pointing out that

philosophy and objective moral norms. He accepted that without

tence. Under Nietzsche’s view, Christianity can only lead man to

God man really didn’t have any ultimate purpose to cling to. Life,

a mediocre life since, given its moral restrictions, it calls man to

down to its very core, was absolutely pointless. What distin-

reject life itself. He voiced these sentiments stating: “If the Chris-

guished Nietzsche from more nihilistic atheists was his reaction

tian dogmas of a revengeful God, universal sinfulness, election

to this arbitrary existence. A lot of people I encounter seem to

by divine grace and the danger of eternal damnation were true, it

place atheism in this box of nothingness; they assume that a lack

would be a sign of weak-mindedness and lack of character not to

of belief in God necessitates meaninglessness. Granted, there is

become a priest, apostle or hermit and, in fear and trembling, to

truth to this idea. I reckon many of us would live life different-

work solely on one’s own salvation; it would be senseless to lose

ly knowing that there was no God to hold us accountable. We

sight of one’s eternal advantage for the sake of temporal com-

would probably become just a little baby bit more irritated by

fort.” Thus, Christianity, in his view, is created a cult of scared

our university’s strict alcohol and visitation policies. Ironically,

and uncourageous individuals which undermines man and his

Nietzsche didn’t endorse nihilism but rejected it, saying: “I do

nature.

not reproach, [nihilism’s] arrival. I believe it is one of the greatest

crises, a moment of the deepest self-reflection of humanity.

call to willpower is supported by not only philosophers but also

Whether man recovers from it, whether he becomes a master of

psychologists. David D. Burns, a well-known psychologist of

this crisis, is a question of his strength!” Rather than advocating

anxiety and depression noted that these disorders “result from

that we simply give into our passions and live a hedonistic life,

your thoughts or cognitions.” In his book When Panic Attacks, he

Nietzsche invoked the ideal of the Übermensch. This “Superman”

argued that the underlying causes of mental illnesses are self-de-

was Nietzche’s remedy for classic Christian morality. It was a

feating beliefs or convictions that made us vulnerable to psycho-

psychic projection of human beings rising up and conquering the

logical conflict within ourselves. Whenever we give ourselves

universe, and creating value for themselves rather than relying on

over to negative affirmations, saying things like “I’m not good

past traditions and dogmas. To put it otherwise, if there is no God

enough,” or “I always have to be perfect,” it puts severe pressure

then WE ARE GOD: the individual holds the key to unlocking

on us that causes life to become paralyzing rather than liberating.

the purpose in life since he or she can create and project value

Thus, one has to work on reforming and modifying self-defeat-

into the material realm by shear will. By achieving the goals we

ing beliefs in order to eliminate worry and improve overall life

set for ourselves, happiness must inevitably follow as a conse-

performance. So if you have dating anxiety with that girl you’ve

quence of our willpower to overcome the various struggles in life.

always liked, chances are, under Nietzsche and modern psycholo-

This was an apocalyptic paradigm shift from traditional moral

gists’ view, it’s a mental issue above all else. Without realizing it,

absolutism. In Nietzsche’s view, those who held such positions,

Nietzsche planted the seeds for Cognitive Behavioral Psychology

especially Christians, were merely following a “herd morality”

which advocated retraining one’s subconscious mind through

The Gadfly

11

Despite the fallacious ends he takes in this idea, such a

12

eliminating negative thoughts entirely and replacing them with a

excessively when we do commit it. It means not embracing nega-

positive affirmation of life. This idea would be at the heart of the

tive cognitive thoughts, like “I’m a loser,” or “I suck at this,” but

Self Help and Personal Development craze that was prominent in

turning them around and constantly telling ourselves: “I do have

the 20th century.

value,” or “I can be a saint.” I personally spend a lot of time in

meditation positively affirming my existence, and telling myself

In what way then does this relate to our faith? If man

can create meaning for himself through will power and psy-

I’m happy despite the objective hardships of the Catholic life, till

cho-therapy, does this then discount God’s existence? Well, in

eventually I start to really believe it. It’s not an easy process, and

my mind, no! In fact, if anything, it is a vital tool for conform-

it’s taken a lot of work, but I can truly say today that if it were not

ing ourselves to Him. It is a truth that reflects our innate nature

for Nietzsche instilling this basic truth into humanity (so long as

of sharing in His image and likeness. God is able to create the

it is used for good), I would not be the same person.

universe through his infinite power, and in the same man is able

same concept can be applied in not just the spiritual life, but in

to create through the mind new ideas to either reject or embrace

our practical lives as well. The next time you find yourself saying

their creator. Put it this way, it’s one thing to come to the truths of

how bad you are at something, maybe if you’re myself it’s getting

the faith; it is another to believe in them wholly with one’s heart.

up in the morning; spend a few moments in quiet consciously

St. James tells us that faith without works “is dead,” and that true

telling yourself you’re a morning person. Overtime, you’ll trick

faith bears fruit. Thus, true belief is indicated by works.

your mind into thinking otherwise and with hard work you’ll

actually start to conform to the reality you project.

As someone who certainly had a skeptical spiritual

The

journey throughout my life, I can maintain times where I fol-

lowed Christian morality out of fear rather than love. If God

contains truth, goodness, beauty, and unity. Applying this mind-

existed, then Hell existed, and I certainly didn’t want to take my

set, it would be unfair to rule out Nietzsche as not an arbiter of

chances with eternal damnation. I’d rather take a Pascal’s Wager

truth like anyone else. As Catholics, we need to view our faith

option, but at heart I was still an agnostic. But fear is not the es-

not just as an abstract reality outside of ourselves, but as some-

sence of Catholicism; the essence is love, and one does not truly

thing that is truly part of our existential essence as human beings.

love something if he does not believe in it. And this is where Ni-

Nietzsche hinted at man’s ability to do this with his own personal

etzsche’s wisdom becomes applicable to our faith, being that we

convictions on life, so why then can this idea not be applied to

can use psychic cognitions of the mind to truly bring ourselves to

conforming ourselves to the truth of Catholicism? As he once

a greater belief in Catholicism which will in turn result in greater

said: “We love life, not because we are used to living but because

fruits. Nietzsche had the courage to stare seemingly at chaotic life

we are used to loving.” So I ask you my fellow Franciscans, do

with no rhyme or reason and yet still assert meaning to it; why

we truly believe in God and Jesus’ teaching? Or do we follow

then can the same concept not be applied to Catholicism? Why

it based on fear and anxiety? If the latter, then we should heed

can we not look at Jesus’ hard truths to “die to ourselves,” and

Nietzsche’s advice at taking the courage in facing life no matter

“be perfect like your heavenly father is perfect,” and still assert

how difficult it may seem, and conditioning ourselves through

meaning and affirmation of them despite the excruciating pain of

psychology in order to embrace it. After all, what doesn’t kill you

living them out? Then, once we have made the choice to project

makes you stronger right?

meaning on to it, despite doubts we may have, we work tirelessly,

“Plato once stated that everything, insofar as it exists, contains truth, goodness,beauty, and unity. Applying this mindset, it would be unfair to rule out Nietzsche as not an arbiter of truth like anyone else.”

through prayer of course, but also through meditation and a mental rewiring of our brain, to truly believe it. It is tempting for one to assume I am reducing religious experience to mere psychological phenomena, but that is not what is the case. I do believe revelatory truth does exist, and that also the arguments for God’s existence can be quite compelling, but in order to conform to such a truth, a psychological phenomenon MUST TAKE PLACE under the guide of a spiritual and, in my case, a philosophical process as well. It means not only avoiding sin, but not shaming ourselves

The Gadfly

Plato once stated that everything, insofar as it exists,

12

13

“Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote.

Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong.

Right is right, even if nobody is right.�

Venerable Fulton Sheen

Culture: Right to choose or live?

Triana Rose

A black fog slithers against the ankles of every American each year, growing thicker with each new promisingly-corrupt politician. It surrounds the ignorant, feeds on the crooked, and attempts to drain the morals of those who live by Truth. The greatest evil currently crippling our nation is due to the legalization of a procedure commonly known as abortion. The goal of this article is to challenge your intellect, your ethics, and your morals, and I want you to decide where you stand.

In 1973, a court case known as Roe vs. Wade was closed, its outcome being that having an abortion up to twenty-eight weeks in the pregnancy would be legal in every state. In certain cases, the abortion procedure is not allowed to extend past twenty-four weeks, but few clinics generally uphold that. The primary abortion-provider in the nation is Planned Parenthood, started by a woman named Margaret Sanger.

Margaret Sanger is viewed as a hero by various organizations, and a Smithsonian museum even added a statue of her to their collection of ‘historical women’. On the surface, it may seem like Margaret Sanger had women’s rights genuinely in mind; she was a large proponent for the availability of birth control and other contraceptives, and is practically the face of the feminism movement. What most people do not know, however, is her original reason for starting Planned Parenthood: to rid the world of anyone she deemed unfit to produce ‘thoroughbreds’.

“We don’t want the word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” This was said by Margaret Sanger in 1939, when she wrote a letter to Dr. Gamble, addressing what she affectionately called ‘The Negro Project’. Here is another quote stating her intentions: “We should apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of the population whose progeny is tainted, as whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring”. Margaret Sanger, just like Hitler, was trying to purify the human race of those who she believed were not acceptable to live.

There are pro-choicers, however, who argue that is not the purpose of Planned Parenthood anymore;

The Gadfly

it might have been the original reason, but it evolved with the times. So what is the purpose now? Planned Parenthood provides everything from preventing pregnancies (contraceptives), showing pregnancies (ultrasounds), and terminating pregnancies (abortions).

While it is true Planned Parenthood offers these and all are used frequently, the two most-active services are the provision of contraceptives and abortion procedures.

Now let us look at some unbiased, strictly-factual information. First off, the Merriam Webster definition of abortion is, “a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus”. It also defines pregnant as, “of a woman or female animal: having a baby or babies developing inside the body”.

Science proves that when a sperm fertilizes an egg at conception, a fetus is formed with human DNA distinct of his/her parents. It also shows that by the fifth week of a pregnancy, the baby’s brain, spinal cord, and heart are developing. By week six, the limbs are beginning to form, and the heart now has a rhythmic beating. The baby has human characteristics a lot earlier than most people think. Science also has eight characteristics of life that must be met for something to be considered alive. The first is that it must be a complex and organized structure; anyone who has ever taken biology cannot deny the complexity of human cells. This leads into number two, which is that living things are composed of at least one cell, which the fetus is. Third, living things acquire materials and energy, which the fetus does as a heterotroph. Fourth, the organism must maintain a regularly consistent internal balance; a cell, whether it is animal, plant or human, does this automatically. Fifth, living things respond to stimuli; there are videos online of abortions, you can watch the fetus writhe as the procedure is performed.

Six, living things grow: this is obvious, seeing as if allowed to continue, the fetus becomes a baby, then a toddler, and so on. Seven, living things reproduce themselves: this follows with the growth that occurs naturally. Lastly, living things have the capacity to evolve, which, like every other type of fetus (human or not) it has the potential to do.

15

Next we will approach some of the main arguments.

One of the pro-choice stances is that ‘human’ does not mean ‘human being’. They say that just because something (the fetus) has human DNA, does not mean it is a person that deserves equal rights as say, someone who was born. So the question left, is at what point is a fetus considered a ‘being’? Pro-lifers have found the simplest answer by professing human life begins at conception, and that constitutes the fetus as a human being, so it deserves rights. Pro-choicers do not have quite a solid answer, because they choose when life should or should not be allowed to continue. It is left to each mother to decide when the fetus is actually considered her baby.

The next argument I would say is a very popular one, and it is that abortion should be accessible because of the case of rape. Pro-lifers need to be especially considerate in arguing against this case, seeing as rape is a horrific act that leaves the victim traumatized and often ill for a long time, if not forever. The prochoice argument is clear here: the fetus is an unwanted reminder of a terrible memory, and the mother should not be forced to live with that if she does not want. If she chooses to have the child, pro-choicers acknowledge her bravery, because they stand firmly with the statement, it is all up to the mother. The pro-life argument is the same as before, regarding the fetus’ right to live just as anyone else. They also say that abortions performed because of rape are only one percent of overall reasons to abort (statistically this is true), so to use rape as a reason to keep abortions legal is illogical.

Due to time, I will end the procession of arguments here. Let us go over what has been proven by science and statistics. Science shows us that one, at the moment of conception, the zygote formed has human DNA separate of the parents, and two, it contains all the necessary means to be considered alive. Science also shows us that starting as early as six weeks into gestation, the baby’s heart has begun beating at a regular rhythm. Statistics show us that over fifty-five million abortions have been performed, since Roe vs.

Wade. So, logically, we can draw this conclusion: Fifty-five million human lives have been destroyed in the past forty years.

Among the many names I have been called by pro-choicers, the main one is “anti-choicer”. Inter-

The Gadfly

esting. I am not anti-choice, I am all for a woman being able to have control over her body (you would be shocked to see the amount of fertility apps on my phone). As a female, I know how unnerving it can be to feel like your body is a traitor. Taking away the choice of the mother is not the intent of being pro-life, rather, believing the human fetus has the same rights, we want to ensure it has a choice as well.

There is really only one question you have to ask yourself. Are you going to support the right to choose, or the right to live?

“Pro-choicers...choose when life should or should not be allowed to continue. It is left to each mother to decide when the fetus is actually considered her baby.”

15

16

Touché: Modesty, an unrevealing art form Baron Buckner

When I first began reading “Can you believe she’s wearing that?” which was published in the previous issue of Gadfly, I thought the article was both intellectual and creative. I ran into the brick wall before realizing that my eyes were closed. There are several positive points in the article. The writer identifies that clothing has a “functional purpose before it has an aesthetic purpose.” This is something which should be said more often in this modern society in which we live. It is also mentioned that fashion can tell you much about society. This is another point with which I agree immensely. Today’s trends include extremely tight clothing for both men and women, boat shoes, and shall we say….interesting hair styles? What does this say about our society? If society as a whole actually cared about “functionality” and practicality, then our sense of fashion would change drastically.

Goodbye pre-ripped, fitted jeans and hello durable Wranglers.

If the article continued as it opened, I might have agreed with the premise. Alas, this was not to be the case. The author makes this statement on the following page: “People dress the way they dress simply because they like it.” The reasoning proceeds, “how we dress is art, an individual’s expression.” The writer goes on to attempt to defend this claim in two ways. First, by saying that people dress in a way which makes them feel confident, beautiful, and “like the masterpiece we are.”

Next, the writer argues that we communicate ourselves to the world by how we dress. This statement is fine, in and of itself, but what follows is faulty at best.

Just two sentences later we read, “Odds are, if you’re wearing something you love, some people aren’t going to like it. But who cares?” This is soon followed by, “Who’s to say that she isn’t worth getting to know just because she’s wearing a mini-dress or an ankle skirt?”

At this point, the entire article can be summed up in this way: everyone should dress however they want

The Gadfly

and those who don’t accept it, well, they are simply “haters.”

At this point it would be prudent to stop reading and ponder this line of thought deeper. The question I pose is this: why would we not turn to the Catholic Church and see what it has to say about people, clothing and, (ready for an old-fashioned and un-cool word?), modesty? Look, I agree with the writer when she says that everyone is a “masterpiece.” Absolutely spot on.

But it is for the very fact that we are all masterpieces, made in the image and likeness of God, that we have the duty to take proper care of ourselves. We are masterpieces because we are persons, not just bodies, but persons composed of both a body and soul. The value of a person is not determined by their size or shape.

The value of a person comes from the indisputable fact that each of us is created by God, in His Image, as His sons and daughters whom He loves. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that, “Modesty protects the intimate center of the person.” If a woman dresses immodestly, the attention of those around her (males in particular) is drawn to those particular parts of her body that reveal her sexual value instead of being drawn to her value as a whole person. Sexual value is to be saved for marriage, not highlighted in how we dress and paraded around in society.

As Christians, we have a duty to God, to others, and to ourselves when we dress. The way in which we dress should give God glory by showing proper respect for our body, which is also a temple of the Holy Spirit.

The result of immodesty is objectifying yourself and setting yourself up as a near occasion of sin for those around you. The common retort to this point is something along the lines of: “guys just need to control themselves. It’s not my problem.” I will be the first to admit that I, with all other guys and the entire population, need to improve in self-control. However, you cannot look at how everyone should be and act

17

accordingly. Instead, you must look at people in our fallen state, inclined to sin and too often enslaved by our passions. In his book “Love and Responsibility” Karol Wojtyla, the future Saint Pope John Paul II, wrote, “Man, alas, is not such a perfect being that the sight of the body of another person . . . can arouse in him merely a disinterested liking which develops into an innocent affection. In practice it also arouses concupiscence, or a wish to enjoy concentrated on sexual values with no regard for the value of the person.”

Essentially it is depersonalizing the person and turning them into a subject of lust instead of the “masterpiece” that they are.

What is the one thing that you would say everyone wants? Since the beginning of time, the answer to this question has been love. If you wanted to express the most important thing which modesty inspires, it would be love. True love involves a personal relationship that encourages both people to grow in virtue. Dressing immodestly serves as an obstruction to this reality.

Drawing attention to sexual value as opposed to the value of the person objectifies the person and prevents true love from developing. In the words of Karol Wojtyla, “Sexual modesty is not a flight from love, but on the contrary the opening of a way towards it.”

Now let’s pretend for a moment that the Incarnation didn’t happen yet. Now pretend that Jesus Christ was born of the Blessed Virgin Mary in 2015. How do you think our Blessed Mother would dress in the modern day and age? Can you picture our Blessed Mother lazing around a beach in a bikini? How about standing by the Cross in a mini-dress? Our Blessed Mother should be an example for all women just as St. Joseph should be an example for all men. After all, would we picture a modern St. Joseph bumming around in skinny jeans and a tank top?

So, “can you believe she’s wearing that?” Yes, sadly I can, because we live in a fallen world and a society which as a whole, whether knowingly or in ignorance, embraces immorality. However, the fact that I find more tragic is that some people try to justify immodesty and even turn it back on those who take issue

The Gadfly

with this scourge of society. The Catholic Church and especially the writings of St. Pope John Paul II provide guidance in this vital matter. Perhaps we need to focus more on this guidance instead of on our own inclinations.

“If you wanted to express the most important thing modesty inspires, it would be love.”

18

“Let yourself be silently drawn by the strange pull of what you really love. It will not lead you astray.�

Rumi