Table of Contents Letter from the Editor by Anthony Halstead ~3~
Tabernacle Troubles by Isodoro LaGrange ~12~
Why “The Jeweler’s Shop” made me cry by Anonymous ~5~
Vices in human sexuality by Pablo Boteyo ~15~
He said, she said by Megan “Buttons” Salzano ~8~
Generation Youtube by Clare Wiker ~18~
TheGadflyPublicationTeam Bite the Sleeping Horse
Editor-in-Chief Anthony Halstead
Layout Editor Elizabeth Hoyle
Copy Editor James Monsour
Staff Photographer Elizabeth Feudo
Executive Assitant Julia Premus
Cover photo Elizabeth Feudo
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.
November/December Letter from the Editor Dear Readers,
the Anscombe Society has given us an excellent examination of vices that afflict and pervert human sexuality. Truly, we at the Gadfly are doubly blessed to have such insightful writers and to have the privilege of publishing their thoughts for all our readers to enjoy. And so, with this edition’s smorgasbord of intellectual fare, we say “Bon appétit!”
I have re-learned an important lesson between this edition and the previous. This lesson is that creativity cannot be restrained. Therefore, the structure of the previous edition – that is, having sections for Politics, Culture, Religion, responses to other articles, and a miscellaneous section – is not present in this edition. The flow of creative juices simply cannot be channeled by human hands. C’est la vie. Thus, here we are with what our authors have given us, and this is certainly no misfortune. After all, this is a very special edition. First of all, the debate on fashion and modesty has continued with Megan “Buttons” Salzano’s reply to Baron Buckner. Second, we at the Gadfly are privileged to publish an article weighing in on the tabernacle controversy. We also have a touching piece giving deeply moving insight on what it is like to live with the struggle of same-sex attraction. Furthermore, a wonderful analysis of the cultural impact (both actual and potential) of YouTube has been graciously delivered to us. Finally, Pablo Boteyo of
Sincerely, Anthony Halstead Editor-in-Chief P.S. Don’t forget that you can write for the Gadfly too! Submit your articles at notestothegadfly@gmail.com. Remember: around 1,300 words, and have it submitted by the deadline. The deadlines for next semester are January 9th, February 13th, and March 12th. Write on anything you like, think outside of the box, and remember to bite the sleeping horse! (Disclaimer: “Bite the sleeping horse!” is a metaphor. Do not actually attempt to bite sleeping horses. That is a sure way to get a hoof through your chest.)
3
“...Love is confident in the victory of good and is ready to do everything in order that good may conquer.” St. John Paul II
4
Why “The Jeweler’s Shop” made me cry Anonymous I ‘m hardly the first person, I’m sure, to rave about the recent abridged production of Karol Wojtyla’s The Jeweler’s Shop which our fellow students recently put on in the Gallery. I may, however, be one of the first to say that it also made me remarkably sad. Allow me to provide some context: I am one of the men and women on this campus struggling with Same-Sex Attraction (SSA, from here on out). Perhaps you didn’t know any of us were here; perhaps you are friends with one of us, even myself. Either way, we’re here, we’re Catholic, and we’re struggling. God bless you if you’ve helped us in our journey, God bless you if you’ve hindered us. Regardless of whether we’ve crossed paths with you or not, we are not the only ones out there; there are many Catholics who struggle with this, and many like us in the world who aren’t Catholic, so chances are extremely good, almost certain that you will run into someone who struggles with SSA someday. I just want to tell you something you may not be aware of. We want exactly what you want. In a recent edition of our own Troubadour, there was an article positing that the argument from the natural ordination of men to women from the beginning is not a good argument to make against gay “marriage”. Now I will admit, I have been swept up in the delightful disease known as ‘senioritis’, so I’m afraid I didn’t bother to look at how this was developed, and for all I know, the author may have made some very good points and found inconsistencies, for which I applaud him. Still, I think it bears saying that I, for one, find the argument remarkably persuasive. The story of Adam and Eve in the book of Genesis is more than a tenet of faith; it is a moving love story. In all of creation, among all the beauty surrounding him, Adam feels a profound
loneliness. He stands at the pinnacle of creation and finds himself an unwilling hermit, for there is no one in all the world with whom he can share his most intimate thoughts and desires, no one with whom to ponder and pray to God, no one to love as an equal. Then, one day, he falls asleep alone, and wakes to see another, a person. And what a person! So beautiful, so marvelous, so remarkably like and simultaneously unlike himself that he breaks into song. At last! One with whom I may share everything, to whom I may give everything! Perhaps you have not been aware of what a remarkable gift the love between a man and a woman is before. Let me tell you, then, that I ache for it every time I look at another man, and am quickly ashamed and pained that I can’t seem to feel the same way for a woman. I feel that song of Adam welling up in my heart, and end up having to let it out through tears and silence instead of joyous outbursts of affection. In order to love as I ought, I have to refuse to express that kind of love, and find a way to express friendship or brotherhood instead. Both of these are good and beautiful, but there is still a corner of my heart that wants to sing, “Bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh!” For all of you who have always had these desires ordered according to the natural order, it is difficult not to deeply envy you. This isn’t unique to me. Our culture is subtly--sometimes not-so-subtly--aware of and infused with this implicit craving which those with SSA experience, and the shame and ache that comes with it. A familiar example, at least to me (apologies to those who are not fanatics about musical theater), is Shrek: The Musical. Now you could go pop yourself some popcorn, hop on Netflix, and watch the show--which, by the way, I recommend, because it’s a hilarious rendition with 5
fantastic music--but I’ll narrow down the field of interest to the song which ends the first act: “Who I’d Be”. Shrek sings about being a hero, a Viking, a poet--anything but the ogre he is. He realizes that he can’t live up to what would be expected of him as any of these things, but he craves them, if only because he’s told that’s how you have a happy life and get to fall in love, “a perfect happy ending”! But he is an ogre, after all, and what is there in life for an ogre but to be outside all of that? Basically, those who struggle with SSA want exactly what every other person on the face of this planet wants: love. We want to know and be known on our deepest levels, to give ourselves to another and, miracle of miracles (Fiddler on the Roof? Anyone?), to have another want the same thing with us! We crave what you crave. We’ve just had it skewed in the wrong direction, for many different reasons, sometimes abuse, sometimes neglect, sometimes just lack of peer affirmation and loneliness. And we know it’s skewed. We can feel the natural order every time we smack our faces up against it, like a barred window, standing between us and the direction of some of our most basic desires while letting us look and long. No one likes to feel caged, so a common response is to scream, “Screw it!” and take a crowbar to the window. It shouldn’t surprise us that the LGBT community is gaining so much momentum; it promises “freedom”, “safety”, “acceptance”, “community”, and most importantly, “love”. It has smashed the “oppressive” and “arbitrary” barriers and beckons to the broken from the other side to do the same. It’s no accident that at the end of the movie version of Shrek, Fiona’s transformation (resulting from her accepting who she loves and who she is) causes all the windows in the church to shatter. Trouble is, no one on the other side is actually happy. The LGBT culture has little concept of fidelity, because it becomes abundantly clear after awhile that you don’t get what you signed up for. The promises start to ring hollow, and even
as these fellow human beings stifle their need for real love, they feel its attraction ever pulling at their heart, trying to drown it out with more partners and wilder sex. It turns out the natural order wasn’t keeping us in; it was keeping destruction and despair out. We were seeing through broken lenses, and the darkness outside fooled us into abandoning real love. For those of us who are Catholic, we are blessed to be aware of the love of God, the possibility of healing, and the reality of why things are the way they are. The struggle, however, is still very real, especially on the front of vocations, the very way in which we are called to love. As a man with SSA, it is difficult to believe that I have options; both the priesthood and religious life are not particularly suitable for men with SSA for various, valid reasons, and that beautiful love of marriage seems unattainable. Watching The Jeweler’s Shop was difficult for me, because often I feel backed into a corner with the single life, which sounds to me more like #foreveralone. But it is also hopeful for me, and hopefully the same for others, because it reminds us that we are made for love, and promises that love is possible. It shows us the beauty of love according to the natural order and, more importantly, relates it to its source in Love Himself. If Love Himself has made us for love, we can be sure that there is a way in which we can love and be loved in astonishing ways in this world, even if we never get to sing Adam’s song to another human being. And what a promise we are made, knowing that Heaven is an eternal wedding feast for the intimate union of our souls with God. We are made for love, and love we shall have, from Love Himself.
7
He said, she said Megan “Buttons” Salzano
Greetings, ladies and gents. In the most recent edition of the Gadfly, a certain Baron Buckner submitted a rebuttal to my article, “Can You Believe She’s Wearing That?” In my opinion, I think he misunderstood much of what my article was addressing, so I am here to clear the air, in as modest a fashion as I can. (Puns intended.)
face facts; this is Franciscan. Do any of the students here actually dress licentiously enough for people to raise … dare I say, hell?) He Said: “Why would we not turn to the Catholic Church and see what it has to say about people, clothing, and modesty?” I Say: Maybe turning to the Catholic Church didn’t cross my mind because my goal was to convey fashion as a form of art, not to give the Franciscan populace yet another article on the theology of the Church. Besides, fashion is such a broad topic; just addressing modest clothing wouldn’t even be scratching the surface. A good writer must address all points relevant to the topic, whether the populace agrees with them or not.
He Said: “When I first began reading, ‘Can You Believe She’s Wearing That?’ ... I thought the article was both intellectual and creative.” I Say: Thank you. I also think it was pretty intellectual and creative. He Said: “I ran into the brick wall before realizing my eyes were closed.” I Say: Oh, that’s unfortunate. You might want to see a doctor about that.
He Said: “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. … Sexual value is to be saved for marriage, not highlighted in how we dress and paraded around in society. … 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 Say: Now, I don’t think women who wear immodest clothing are intentionally objectifying themselves. What sensible woman would look at her closet and say, “Hmm, what should I wear so people treat me like an object today? Or, how can I dress so that I cause people to commit sins?” It is as if Buckner is making an if-then statement along these lines: ‘If all women dress the way the Catholic Church approves, then men won’t turn them into objects of lust.’ This is such a flawed statement for two reasons. Reason #1: It places
He Said: “At this point, the entire article can be summed up in this way: everyone should dress however they want and those who don’t accept it, well, they are simply ‘haters’. At this point it would be prudent to stop reading.” and “Some people try to justify immodesty and even turn it back on those who take issue with this scourge of society.” I Say: At this point it would be prudent to stop reading “Modesty, an Unrevealing Art Form” and analyze my article for its true purpose. I’ll have you know that my article was not some instructional seminar on dressing scantily or justifying immodesty. I wrote it to inform readers about fashion as an art as well as to acknowledge the people at this school who feel singled out for the way they dress or the style they like. I wanted to provide people with a source of confidence, whether they are disliked for dressing modestly or “immodestly.” (I used quotations because, let’s 8
He Said: “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 minidress?” I Say: Okay, first of all, you used the term Blessed Mother a few too many times. It makes the paragraph sound a bit repetitive; try synonyms. And second, what kind of tangent are you going on this time? No, I can’t say I’ve ever pictured the Holy Queen or any of the saints scantily clad. I see the point you were trying to reach, but I would’ve gone about it differently. That whole analogy was very strange. But I’ve got to hand it to you, Baron Buckner, you sure have a wild imagination.
all blame on the woman. Now, I’m no man-hating bleeding heart liberal, but if one thinks that women should know better than to dress promiscuously, shouldn’t he also think that men should know better than to lust after a woman? It’s a two-way street, but it’s not being treated as such. Reason #2: Our society bombards people every day with sexual content. Do I agree with that? No, of course not; I want to help victims of the commercial sex industry. But I know full well that the way to make this change is not to preach Church doctrine at people. Doing that merely diminishes each human’s free will. The Compendium of the Catholic Church claims, “The right to the exercise of freedom belongs to everyone because it is inseparable from his or her dignity as a human person. Therefore this right must always be respected, especially in moral and religious matters, and it must be recognized and protected by civil authority within the limits of the common good and a just public order (Compendium 365). In order to best protect this notion of freedom, we need to respond to these situations with love. And not the kind of love Mr. Buckner thinks is inspired by modest apparel. We’re talking about true, unconditional love embodied in solidarity. CatholicSocialTeaching.org states, “Solidarity is about valuing our fellow human beings and respecting who they are as individuals.” And if there’s one thing I’ve learned from doing street evangelization in downtown Steubenville, it’s this: as Catholics, we must meet people where they’re at. I mean, what if you were to meet someone who has been told her whole life that dressing immodestly is the way to get attention? In that situation, is there any other appropriate option than to try to change her way of thinking in a gentle, Christlike way? The last thing she needs is to be condemned. We cannot call ourselves pro-life if we condemn people for not dressing modestly. It’s not an effective way to lead people toward God, nor is it just.
“What sensible woman would look at her closet and say, ‘Hmm, what should I wear so people treat me like an object today? Or, how can I dress so that I cause people to commit sins?’”
9
“Here’s the thing: all of us come from some palce of wanting to be seen, understood, accepted, connected. Every single one of us wants to be believed.” Amanda Palmer
10
“We shape our buildings; therefore they shape us.� Winston Churchill
11
Tabernacle Troubles Isodoro LaGrange
Hanging on the wall upon the entrance of Christ the King chapel is a crooked, plastic plate with a wooden veneer reading, “EUCHARISTIC CHAPEL → ” People walk into the nave, some bowing at the altar, some genuflecting at the altar, all trying to play Hide and Seek with Jesus. But it is not Jesus who decided to hide, we are the ones hiding Him. There has been recent debate on campus regarding the placement of the tabernacle in Christ the King Chapel. This conversation began because of a bill introduced in the Student Government which, if passed, would have officially suggested a central tabernacle to the University administration. According to the meeting minutes posted on fusgovernment. org, a majority of senators voted down on the bill with no reason recorded. The Troubadour reported on the issue and included quotes from students who desired a central placement of the tabernacle to better foster prayer. However, it seems that the university chaplain feels that it would not be feasible to bring Christ to the centre due to the architectural layout of the chapel. How much research has been done to consider this option? Are the friars truly tending to the spiritual needs and desires of the student body? Is the current placement of the tabernacle truly an issue? In this article, I hope to shed some light on the tabernacle issue by digging into the Tradition of the Church as well as proposing a solution. Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament has always been reverent, but has changed throughout the millennia. In the early church, it was the duty of the deacon to bring the Eucharistic to a special room known as the ‘Pastoforio.’ Inside there was a large Narnian wardrobe-like cabinet in which the Eucharist was held. Okay, it wasn’t exactlllly like that, but you get the picture. A shift occurred in the 9th century due to major Eucharistic controversies, a sense of unworthiness among the laity and an increase danger of profanation due to barbarians. At this time there was not a uniform standard for where the Eucharist was kept. Sometimes it was kept in a small chest placed on the altar (similar to a tabernacle), in
the sacristy in a special chest, in a suspended metal dove, built into the wall on the Gospel side of the altar, or in a Sacrament Tower. When the Protestant Revolution occurred, the Magisterium upheld the importance of Eucharistic reservation but did not specifically state where it ought to be held. Instead, popular piety of the bishops, especially St. Charles Borromeo, led to a ‘Roman custom’ which placed the Eucharist in a tabernacle on the main altar, or another altar if it were more worthy. The Second Vatican Council brought about great confusion to the Church due to the lack of clarity in many of the documents. The only mention of tabernacle placement in the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy was that, “there is to be an early revision of the canons and ecclesiastical statutes which govern the provision of material things involved in sacred worship” (128). People knew changes were coming, but they did not know exactly what the end result would look like. Some priests thought this would mean greater devotion of their congregation, others thought it was time to evangelize the aliens. Now we know why CTK looks like a rocket! Some documents that came out later in the 1970’s called for the tabernacle to be “truly preeminent” for a greater devotion of adoration and prayer. The general consensus according to the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship was that this would be “achieved more readily if the chapel is separate from the body of the church”(Holy Communion and Worship of the Eucharist outside Mass 9). They called for this especially in churches where there are many weddings, funerals, visitors, pilgrims; basically to be free of major distractions. However, when the revised edition of the Code of Canon came out, it said that the Eucharist ought be in a place that is “prominent, conspicuous, beautifully decorated, and suitable for prayer” (Canon 938). So yes, the tabernacle needs to be in a place suitable for fruitful prayer but this cannot be done by placing it in a place unworthy of Our Lord. For those of you who have been to Europe, I am sure you remember that in the great cathedrals
12
and basilicas there were side chapels were people could pray away from all the obnoxious tourists. They were not always conspicuous, but they were certainly prominent and beautiful places for prayer. I am not a Canon Lawyer, Church Historian, nor do I have the space to fully examine all of the documents ever written in the Church regarding Christ’s dwelling place, but the general consensus seems obvious. I will close this section with a quote from our favorite, the text of our time, the Catechism. Cat majors, memorize this one! In paragraph 1183 she (the Church) says, “The tabernacle is to be situated in churches in a most worthy place with the greatest honor. The dignity, placing, and security of the Eucharistic tabernacle should foster adoration before the Lord really present in the Blessed Sacrament of the altar.” So what does this all mean for Christ the King Chapel? CTK was built in an era where there was still much experimentation in the liturgy with many abuses occurring frequently. Originally the Eucharistic chapel was not as majestic as it is today, but rather it had ugly purple-tinted windows and a lonely tabernacle on the concrete slab without an altar, the choir stalls, or the hanging flying-saucer. It did not seem to be a place that was “prominent” or “beautifully decorated” as the Code of Canon Law states. Renovations have occurred making the Eucharistic chapel a place of beauty (well….) and prayer. But it still is not a place of prominence! Why must there be a crooked sign directing people towards the King of Kings instead of it being in a place that is quite obvious? As being the best catechetical institution in the world, why must our chapel be so embarrassing and liturgically confusing? Yes, a new chapel is in the works, and it is going to be beautifulllly beautiful, but isn’t there something we can do in the meantime? Fr. Shawn claims that, “It would be difficult to do this in Christ the King due to the structure and layout of the church.” But my question is, has this been given serious consideration? The Solution: Easy. The Cost: Virtually nothing. Instead of a priestocentric, MusicMinistryocentric chapel, let’s make it a Christocentric chapel, first by removing the presider bench from the back wall. It is not attached, so no damage will be done to the
wall. Next, we either take a spare altar on campus or purchase an altar stand from a religious provider. The most beautiful of tabernacles ought to be placed upon it, so I would recommend bringing up the one from lower campus to set as the jewel of our main chapel. Fr. Shawn has already demonstrated the importance of cleaning things up as he tackled the clutter in the narthex. Now we need to remove the clutter from the sanctuary. Music ministry is distracting in the sanctuary. For a guy, it is much more innate for his eyes to fall upon the attractive woman rather than pay attention to the consecration! Music ministry could then be moved just a few feet to the right… they can be the front row of the EC which could be known as the choir loft! They will have more room and the rats nest of wires will no longer exist. The folding chairs used at 10:30 Sunday mass can then be placed behind music ministry and can be left up all the time. The choir stalls and altar can be removed which will make even more room for seating inside the cramped chapel. A majority of the students kneel for communion, or would like to if a rail were available so why not move the EC kneelers to the edge of the sanctuary, just as done in the Extraordinary Form? By moving our LORD to the centre, the University will receive many profound graces as well as allowing students, visitors and pilgrims to experience His presence in a new way. The solution I propose is simple. Upon the leadership of our wise friars, I am sure we can join together as a community, possibly even one Saturday afternoon, and place Christ not only in the centre of our hearts, but finally as the center of Christ the King Chapel.
“As being the best Catechetical institution in the world, world, why must our chapel be so embarrassing and liturgically confusing?” 13
“Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice.� Thomas Paine
14
Vices in human sexuality Pablo Boteyo
The Sexual Revolution of the late 1960’s is an ongoing phenomenon. Recently, TIME Magazine had Laverne Cox, transgender actress, on their cover with the title “The Transgender Tipping Point: America’s Next Civil Rights Frontier.” This affirms the Sexual Revolution’s ongoing process. As a club, Franciscan University’s Anscombe Society focuses not only on such sexual issues, but also how to discuss and defend sexual integrity in the everyday life. Beyond the Catholic sphere, the world is no longer concerned with the dignity of the human person, but is instead concerned with defining human sexuality. For example, certain schools are publically acknowledging transgendered students, and other schools are enacting their own agendas to deal with the transgender issue. Prime examples of these agendas are genderless bathrooms. These are bathrooms both men and women can use, whenever they so choose. This is meant to foster a “safer” atmosphere for the new transgender frontier, yet, why have genderless restrooms where sexual violation has space to rise, regardless if men and women who use them are making the transition to the opposite sex? The Sexual Revolution of the 1960’s has made such progress that the concern is no longer about redefining marriage or sexual equality; it is now about sexual freedom, as was expected. This is a problem, not just for the Catholic community, but also for society as a whole. The problem is not that sexuality is no longer constrained, and not that it should be in the first place, but rather that society is not paying it the attention it needs. This might come as a surprise considering how sexuality is rampant in the social media. No matter how rampant it may be, society’s problem with Catholicism is that society believes Catholics are focused on repressing, titling, and assigning sexuality rather than defending sexuality.
Yes, it may seem that the counter culture, the culture against the hook-up/sex culture, is constantly saying something that is in this regards, and Franciscan University students are educated well enough to be able to minister to the surrounding culture. But that is not the case for the rest of the Catholic community. As previously stated, the constant clash with Catholicism and society is that society sees Catholicism as an oppressor. Pope Francis is doing a great job to show that the church does not have an agenda of repression, but he should not be the only one. There are a plethora of chastity speakers that the Catholic youth are aware of: Jason Evert, Emily Stimpson, Matt Frad, Christopher West, Chris Stefanick, and so on. Yet, there are speakers who are known locally that are starting to make a change. David Prosen, for example, recently visited Franciscan University to give a speech on how to react properly when someone struggling with samesex attraction trusts someone enough to be open about this issue. This is the type of attention that human sexuality needs; the attention of love, care, and respect for the person. People who struggle with their sexuality in many forms are human, and should be treated as such. At the start of the year, the Anscombe Society discussed an article entitled “Against Heterosexuality,” in which Michael W. Hannon argued that the terms “homosexual” and “heterosexual” are social constructs that society has construed into titles. He formulates his argument by giving history, and continues to explain why such social constructs became a need. He says in the article, “Sexual orientation has not provided the dependable underpinning for virtue that its inventors hoped it would, especially lately. Nevertheless, many conservative-minded Christians today feel that we should continue to enshrine the gay– straight divide and the heterosexual ideal in our
15
popular catechesis, since that still seems to them the best way to make our moral maxims appear reasonable and attractive.” In this perspective, the virtue of the gay-straight divide has become part of the vice in not giving human sexuality the attention it truly deserves. Human sexuality deserves good virtuous attention not only because it is a part of every human being, but also because it is at the core of the human being. This belief repeatedly appears in the teachings of a man who is practically the patron saint of love and human sexuality: St. Pope John Paul II. Hannon and John Paul agree that human sexuality is at the core, and Hannon continues to construct the idea of the human sexuality being simply just sexuality with normal attractions. This should be the case in the general case, and many queer theorists (homosexual theorists) would agree that terms like “gay,” “straight,” and “bisexual” are simply just social constructs that obstruct our view. The obstruction of human sexuality thus leads to the lack of care it needs, and the abundance of repression. To create a true counter culture, one must agree that human sexuality is not to be repressed, but accepted. Society would completely be in shock to hear this from what they see as a strict bigot telling them how to dress, act, and talk. Society would be happy to hear this from the Catholic society, but the trick to this is knowing how to continue it once the act to create a counter culture is created. This counter culture is needed strongly, especially in the younger generations. The argument may be made that human sexuality should be taught to grades 7 and up due to reasons of maturity. Yet, the truth of the matter is younger children are becoming more aware of the things around them due to the society around them. For example, our current president, Pablo Boteyo, went on the Arizona Mission to Loretto Catholic School (K-8 Private School), where students as young as
fifth grade are asking about homosexuality, samesex marriage, and many other questions. When asked, a teacher said that students are infatuated with these issues because they are surrounded by them. Some students have family members, some just become interested, and some of it is due to having a rebel spirit in a Catholic school. As one can see, the issue of sexuality, heterosexuality and homosexuality, is growing, and one cannot simply expect a simple sex-education course to cover. Paraphrasing Elizabeth Anscombe, it is the parent’s job to not only give the child the words they need, but also the knowledge he/she may need to live in the real world. It is not society’s job to educate children, but rather the parents. As Catholics, we are also called to educate those around us on issues of faith and reason, human dignity, chastity, and sexuality. These are issues that are no longer a simple revolt striking conversation in the 1960’s, but a part of the real world and life that we live in to this day. Thus, the attention needed for these issues needs to be refocused. Catholics must educate themselves on what the church says about sexuality, chastity, marriage, and much more, so that attention can be refocused, and as a society, we can work to reeducate those around us. The ripple in the pond has started with videos such as “The Third Way” and “Desire of the Everlasting Hills,” as well as with the wave of chastity and sexuality speakers previously mentioned. Now, as a collective whole, the Catholic community should work to completely shift society’s view of it as an oppressor, to a supporter and liberator of those struggling with same-sex attraction, transgender feeling, and ultimately sexual sin. At the end of the day, that’s all these issues are: issues struggling with the human sexuality and dignity of the person. Nothing less, and nothing more.
16
“The more I do my job, the more I realize that humans lack good mirrors. It’s so hard for anyone to show us how we look, and so hard for us to show anyone how we feel.” John Green
17
Generation Youtube ClareWiker
In the spring of 2014, the University of Cambridge arranged a debate between six different British Youtubers, two of whom were Jackson and Finnegan Harries of the popular channel Jacksgap. The argument in question was whether or not Youtube will become the dominant broadcast media in the future. After a lengthy and formal debate it was decided no, this would not be the case. The noes in the sacred halls of Cambridge outweighed the ayes. The importance in this is not the result, but that Cambridge University found it a significant enough issue to merit a formal debate. After watching the video of the debate posted by Jacksgap, I both agree and disagree. Perhaps Youtube won’t become the single most dominating broadcast media, but it is clear that it is on the rise. In my personal Cambridge debate, I would argue in favor of Youtube claiming a significant place as an uncensored media outlet. Unlike mainstream media there is no producer or director deciding what agenda should be placed before viewers. In just a few short years, Youtube has developed into a tool for both entertainment and entrepreneurship never seen before. It’s an underground culture which most are unaware of, and is often swept under the rug if it is noticed. Even those who are already aware of it are often dismissive as if it has no real bearing on daily life. I would argue that Youtube is already affecting culture here and now. While people are often unaware of the Youtube culture, and oblivious to the faces that define it, they would recognize what it has given us. John Green, author and Youtuber, is perhaps the most famous example of this. Not long ago it was hard to walk into a store without seeing the poster for YA novel The Fault in Our Stars, recently made into a film starring Divergent actors Shailene Woodley and Ansel Elgort. The book debuted at number one on the New York Times Best Seller list for Children’s Chapter Books, remaining there for seven weeks in a row. It was number one
on the Wall Street Journal bestseller list, first on the Indiebound bestseller list, as well as being the New York Times Book Review Editor’s Choice. As of January 2013, there are nearly 1 million copies in print. John Green, and his brother, Hank Green, are also the founders of VidCon, a convention for video viewers and creators, which is one of the largest of its kind. John and Hank Green started out by making videos of themselves discussing various subject and posting them to Youtube. The same can be said for internationally-known hiphop violinist, Lindsey Stirling. Voted off America’s Got Talent because she was ‘too different’, Stirling turned to Youtube and posted a video where she played an original song, “Crystallize”. Today this song has 130,707,824 views. She has since released two albums and is touring the country with her band. While it is clear the Youtube stars are already being influenced by popular culture, with LGBT stars like Tyler Oakley being singled out and given special attention, there is still a strong current of legitimately free content creators. One of the best is Jacksgap, which strives to create original and organic videos that not only highlight relevant charities, but showcase new artists, conservationists, and the beauty of culture. Jacksgap has become so relevant that leading British newspaper, The Guardian, ran a story by Finnegan Harries on the environment, saying that this is the first generation to deal with climate change, and the last that can do anything about it. The power of connection through Youtube is immeasurable. It should boggle the mind of the average person that a young man who made his start by posting humorous videos could mature, through a social media outlet, into an intelligent voice on a precarious issue. It’s an opportunity that no other generation has experienced. While Youtube may not be the leading broadcasting media to the world in 2015, it is well on its way to becoming so. To Generation Z, it already is.
18
Growing up in the age of technology, the ability to choose from multiple genres of entertainment is important to the new generation. The freedom to watch or listen to a video or song when it is most convenient is also imperative to young people, as evidenced by the rise of Netflix and other streaming services. Young people want to feel as if they are a part of something that paradoxically reflects their individualism. Youtube caters to this mindset. Followers of particular Youtube stars are generally grouped together into a ‘fandom’, which creates a sense of belonging, a virtual home. However, the fact that they can choose this channel, that they watch it whenever they want, and can cease whenever they choose, grants the individualism and freedom. No more is the concept of watching something simply because it’s the only thing on television. As result of this, standards are higher--entertainment is more easily dismissed than ever before. The average time it takes to lose or gain attention on a Youtube video is six seconds. A generation of short-attention spans is one reasoning for this, but it could also be that Generation Z are free thinkers. They don’t want to watch something when they’re told to, and they definitely won’t watch the whole thing. Youtube is the net that catches anything relevant in the world, packages it, and stores it for later. Generation Z is also the only generation with that ocean of knowledge and resources at its fingertips for virtually free. The opportunity is powerful. So if John Green can flood stores with The Fault in Our Stars, if Lindsey Stirling can sell out concerts, if Finnegan Harries can write for the Guardian, there should be no limit to what can be done with Youtube. It is an untapped resource in mainstream culture. If Youtube were used to its full potential, with intelligence and a drive for social change, it could create a generation like no other.
“In just a few short years, Youtube has developed into a tool for both entertainment and entrepreneurship never seen before.... If Youtube were used to its full potential, with intelligence and a drive for social change, it could create a generation like no other.”
19
“There is an advantage to be found in most everything that happens to you, even if it is not immediately apparent.� Jennifer Donnelly
20