Volume XIV, Issue 3

The Gadfly “To persuade and reproach” - Socrates, The Apology

Vol. XIV, Iss. III April 4, 2011

Capitalism Inflicted on Persons “Spoiled”,

is the first word I can think of when I think of the United State’s economy. Stepping into a store such as Wal-Mart, we see untold amounts of products. We rarely question how they get there and then we proceed to buy and, consume.

Pure Capitalism requires a certain amount of moderation that should not come from the State, but from the people that operate it. The effect within society in the United States has had serious repercussions, yet this is not without other options avail-

able.

Granted, we do not have an entirely pure Capitalist system in the U.S., but it is very close. These other roads of economics are pronounced by the Catholic Worker Movement and Pope Leo XIII, which I will expand on later. The first objection to note is the current system, capitalism, then to look into the other choices available that have yet to be used at all.

The capitalistic economic system is just shy of being preached on campus, which I find strange considering Fran-

ciscan University is named after St. Francis of Assisi. The capitalist model is one of attaining wealth, so St. Francis’ statement, “Remember that when you leave this earth, you can take with you nothing that you have received--only what you have given,” especially contradicts the protestant Calvinist urge to accumulate wealth, not far off from the capitalist’s attitude of trying to attain the most profit.

While saying this, I am not ignoring the benefits of capitalism, which has helped build America into a powerful coun Continued on page 5

You can be both Catholic and Republican: A Response to Keith Michael Estrada I will preface my response by stating the following: I am not a Republican, a Capitalist, and (to extents) I am not an advocate of Democracy in the American form. I am more of a Libertarian Distributist Monarchist – a stance I would be willing to debate at another time. My goal is not to defend the Republican Party (or the Democratic Party for that matter), but to defend moral absolutes. I will argue for morality and let the reader decide which party better represents Catholic values.

Upon reading Keith Michael Estrada’s article, I was struck by a certain weakness of his argument – “One Cannot Be Both a Republican and a Catholic” – that needed further exposition and clarification. Estrada seems to equate the pro-life/choice stance as a primarily political stance, but the difference between being a Republican and being pro-life/ choice is great: being a Republican is not a moral question, whereas whether or not one is pro-life is.

Estrada tries to equate the Church’s stance on abortion as one that is fundamentally prochoice. He calls the Church’s decision to be pro-life a choice, but for the Catholic, being pro-life is not a choice but, rather, an obligation. When a Catholic uses the term pro-choice, this is what he is saying: “There can be only one choice – that of life – because the dignity of the human person is above a right to choose and there is no other side to the argument.

There are not many morally Continued on page 4

Page 2

St. Clare, pray for us!

Staff: Keith Michael Estrada (K.M.E.) Maria Cecilia Rocha (M.C.R.) Jeremiah Hahn (J.H.) Gillian LaMuro (G.L.) Alexander S. Pyles (A.S.P.) Angelina Pierotti (A.P.)

Layout Editor: Kimberly Doudna (K.D.)

Editor in Chief: Daniel Romeyn Davis (D.R.D.)

** Please note that the views held in the individual articles do not necessarily express the views of the whole staff. **

Interested in joining our staff?

Email us at notestothegadfly@gmail.com

~Mission Statement~ The Gadfly is an attempt to “bite the sleeping horse” in the spirit of Socrates. It is a student publication whose purpose is to facilitate discussion concerning campus and cultural issues as they pertain to students of Franciscan University. It aims to be a forum for open, well-thought out, and honest discussion towards the end of knowing and loving truth in its most robust sense.

Advisor: Dr. John White Advisor Extraordinaire

From the Editor’s Desk In my first letter from the editor I addressed the issue of freedom of speech. To support my point I cited the Constitution of the United States of America and I attempted to present a defense of the Gadfly. Then in my second letter I mentioned reasons for the Gadfly’s existence and I implored you, the reader, to be patient with what we publish in the Gadfly and to send in your own articles in response to those that have been published.

What is published in the Gadfly is determined by those who read and by those who write for it. You, the reader, are responsible for what is or is not printed for publication in the Gadfly. Therefore, if you disagree with something that you have read in the Gadfly then you should write into the Gadfly for yourself and contribute your own opinion on happenings around campus.

In this issue of the Gadfly I am pleased to publish a number of re-

sponses to articles which were printed earlier on in this spring semester. In light of the arguments made in these responses, in particular those in response to Mr. Estrada’s article about the difficulties with being both a Republican and a faithful Roman Catholic, I have decided to republish an article that I wrote for the Gadfly last year. I believe that Mr. Estrada has a valid conclusion, although, I am uncertain about some of his premises. Therefore, to continue the debate on this subject I present my own argument, with the same conclusion as Mr. Estrada, but with different premises and argumentation. I hope that this republishing will enliven the debate and further encourage you, the reader, to write into the Gadfly for yourself and to let your opinions be known.

In Christ, Daniel Romeyn Davis

Does being a faithful Catholic equal being a Republican?

Oftentimes this question arises because of the Democratic Party’s overwhelming support of abortion rights, something in contrast to Roman Catholic teaching on morals and ethics. Therefore, does this mean that we all must be Republicans in order to be faithful Catholics? I for one say no.

Now for clarification, I myself am a registered Republican in the State of New Hampshire (Live Free or Die). However, I feel that the Republican Party in New Hampshire, and in general New England, tends to take a different approach than the Republican Party of the South and of the “Bible Belt.” NE Republicans tend to be far more concerned with economic issues and states’ rights than they are with social issues. The rea-

sons for this are clear enough, 1) People in NE tend to be more “liberal” than people from the rest of the United States, and 2) The Republican Party in NE draws heavily upon the support of Independents who make up 40% of the electorate in New Hampshire alone.

In response to the nature of NE Republicans, NE Democrats tend to take a far more “liberal” stance than would their counterparts in the US South, for example. Furthermore, in reaction to the lesser amount of liberality characteristic of Southern Democrats, Southern Republicans tend to be far more “conservative” and “Red Meat Republicans.”

This then causes other problems. Either you have Democrats in the U.S. North who are more liberal and Continued on page 3

St. Martha, pray for us!

Continued from page 2

disagree with the Catholic Church’s teaching on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, or you have Republicans in the U.S. South who disagree with the Catholic Church’s teaching on issues like immigration, healthcare, and fairlabor practices (worker’s rights).

Therefore, in response to the opening question, I say that being a faithful Catholic does NOT necessarily mean that one must vote Republican. How one votes must be dependent on a number of important factors that influence the local parties where any said individual lives. For example, in the U.S. South finding Pro-Life Democratic candidates is

Page 3

a lot more common than in the North. Additionally, in the North finding Pro-Life Republican candidates becomes a more difficult challenge than it would in the South.

The final answer then must be that 1) both parties are inherently flawed, and 2) voting is about more than just abortion anyways – there are many political issues that attack the sanctity of life: a few of these are access to healthcare, immigration policies, and “national defense.” ~DRD

Don’t be Squished.

Have your say.

notestothegadfly@gmail.com

Mane Nobiscum Domine Alright, let’s face it. Matt Maher’s run-in with Franciscan was an immense success. Not only was it an incredible opportunity to praise God for all the blessings of this semester, but one to find healing for all the sufferings this semester has brought as well. Matt brought up a good point that, while we were standing in the field house singing catchy songs and bopping to the Holy Spirit, yeah, it was easy to praise God and easy to be happy and say we would totally surrender our lives…but what would it be like in the morning? A week from now? In the summer? After we graduate? What’s it going to take to live this life for God… always? I think this is a pertinent question not only for the concert, but for our experience at Franciscan as well.

I’ll be totally honest. The after-concert high gave in to a wave of doubt for me. How on earth was I going to live this out? And it was then that I remembered reading the late Pope John Paul II’s Mane Nobiscum Domine. (If you haven’t read it, go read it now; if you don’t want to,

suck it up and read it anyway, it’s Lent.) “Mane Nobiscum Domine”…

“Stay with us, Lord.” Stay with us, Lord! How appropriate! In this apostolic letter, JPII encourages proper reverence of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, because in it we not only find our calling to serve, but the strength to do it. Outside of the Mass, adoration is critical for perpetuating the grace we receive from Communion. In the Eucharist, and in our adoration, we are humbled before God and realize that it’s not about us. It’s not about anything we’ve done or anything we want. It’s all about God. I encourage you to look to the Eucharist as a means of living out the amazing grace you’re experiencing on this campus. Leaving Matt Maher’s concert or leaving Franciscan may not be easy, but in the Eucharist we realize that even if it’s not, God will get us through it. Nobody said it would be easy, but they did say it would be worth it, right?

~Oliver Wood

Professor Quotes of the Week:

I invented a word. “Ronix.”

It means to crumple up with meaning to throw away. ~Dr. Symington

Page 4

St. Etheldreda, pray for us!

Continued from page 1

acceptable choices.” Estrada, in his attempt to redefine the term “pro-choice,” defeats his own cause by saying “to say one is pro-choice is…to stamp his seal of approval on someone’s right to chose[sic] differently.”

Saying this of the Church is absurd. It is like saying moral relativism is permissible, although there are moral absolutes, absolutes upon which the Church stands firm.

A second weakness in Estrada’s argument is his inability to highlight life issues in which the Republican differs from the Church. He uses the seemingly homophobic tendencies to defend his antiRepublican treatise, but homosexuality is not a life issue. It is a moral issue, but that is not what Estrada is trying to argue. Remember, his argument is based around the bumper stickers that read “You cannot be both pro-choice and Catholic!” The Republicans supporting the Boy Scouts’ decision to choose to not allow homosexuals into their ranks, or the military choosing to not allow homosexuals is a different topic altogether, one that could be debated at length in another forum (NB: The Church does not allow homosexuals to enter seminary, so does this mean that one cannot be both a pro-priest Catholic?) Keith Michael does highlight two important life issues – Capital Punishment and War – which I

will now get into. The Church’s stance on Capital Punishment is not an absolute. Joseph Ratzinger, while Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, stated that it is permissible for there to be a variety of opinions on the death penalty, as it is both morally permissible and even a traditional stance of the Church to support capital punishment. The death penalty is not intrinsically evil, whereas abortion is. There may be a higher likelihood of rehabilitation for murderers, but it is still morally acceptable to give a murderer the death penalty.

Estrada also tries to show that both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were condemned by the Church as unjust. I will agree on Iraq; I do remember very distinctly the Apostolic Nuncio saying to this to George Bush before that war began. But when was this said about the war in Afghanistan or the War on Terror? The death of innocent lives is catastrophic, and I will not try and defend that action of the military, but this fault cannot be placed on the Republicans. Democrats have supported military force in Afghanistan from the beginning and the soldiers fighting are all over the political spectrum, so is it all the fault of Republicans? Barack Obama is a Democrat, one that has increased military action in Afghanistan.

What about the Bay of Pigs Invasion? John F. Kennedy, a Catholic and a Democrat, brought the United States to the

brink of nuclear war with the Soviet Union and along with Lyndon Johnson, expanded military in Vietnam, America’s longest and most violent war. So, to say only Republicans are to blame for American involvement in war is absurd.

Estrada tries to highlight other issues, but again, these are not life issues, nor are they moral imperatives, so we will ignore them for now.

In closing, although Estrada did try to highlight many issues where Republicans differ from the Church – which are not now, nor will be, issues that involve intrinsically evil acts – he failed to adequately defend his thesis.

It is still unproven why one cannot be both Catholic and Republican. The claim that one can be both pro-choice and Catholic is one that is not open for debate: Abortion is always wrong, period. Catholics must be pro-life, and this choice is not up to the individual. It is Natural Law and it is a moral absolute. Stand on whatever side of the fence you want. Be a Republican or a Democrat. Be a Socialist or a Monarchist. But no matter what party you decide to support, do not sacrifice the moral absolutes.

Be Catholic.

-Joseph Antoniello

St. John, pray for us!

Continued from page 1

try (though it has been on the decline over the past decade).

The first example of Capitalism’s dangerous infiltrations that I can see is the effect it has had on our view of the human person.

The image of personhood has taken a hit over the decades, exacerbated by capitalism's dehumanization. To see the effects of this, we need look no farther than the entity that is Planned Parenthood, which is perpetuated as a ‘good’ institution, yet has the same motives as any corporation, e.g., profit.

Planned Parenthood has also been supported by the capitalist economy since children are considered a hindrance in collecting wealth; this makes abortion and other services that Planned Parenthood provides into commodities. I call children a hindrance, as viewed by Planned Parenthood’s skewed capitalistic perspective, in the sense that it is not only expensive to raise and take care of them, but it takes focus away from your work that you do to gain money.

I find it interesting that such a mentality which grossly misjudges and unthinkingly abuses persons and the environment is held almost indisputable at a Catholic University.

The Catholic Worker Movement (CWM), founded by Dorothy Day, should have a more pronounced platform on campus. Day, who is a Servant of God, founded the CWM

Page 5

in 1933 by publishing the newspaper The Catholic Worker, which held the foundational tenets of the movement.

The tenets— nonviolence, works of mercy, manual labor, and voluntary poverty—all focus on an internalization to make the individual better, so that he can be taken into the world to help society. Day, along with Peter Maurin, a social activist and philosopher inspired by St. Fran cis and Em manuel Mounier, co-founded the CWM (www.catholicworker.org). Th e principles of this movement were drawn from Catholic Social Teaching, which originates from Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum, the first of the social encyclicals.

CWM has called for a greater personalism, which upholds the dignity of the person, especially the working men and women.

Within capitalism, this would mean enforcement of just wages, conditions, and hours, something Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum emphasizes. He states in Rerum Novarum, “Let the working man and the employer make free agreements, and in particular let them agree freely as to the wages…” (Para. 45) CWM calls for daily Works of Mercy, which of course, the Church asks for as well in order to daily live out the faith.

Pope Leo XIII introduces a new economic method which is commonly labeled a Third Way: Distributism. This the-

ory of economics asks for a wider distribution of property, so that the means of production is spread out instead of centralized within major corporations or the State. Leo XIII can better articulate the results of choosing this method: “…property will certainly become more equitably divided.

On the one side there is the party which holds power because it holds wealth…On the other side there is the needy and powerless multitude…If working people can be encouraged to look forward to obtaining a share in the land, the consequence will be that the gulf between vast wealth and sheer poverty will be bridged over…” (Para. 47 Rerum Novarum). In essence, the view of the Church is to hope for an encouragement of this system, which the CWM promotes and carries out where it can within its various communities.

As I mentioned before, I am not trying to bring in socialism. I am only trying to point out flaws that are within Capitalism, since looking critically at systems like Capitalism is almost taboo here at Franciscan.

The social influences should be enough to at least cause further pondering or you can just go out and spend another five bucks for a coffee.

~ASP

Page 6

St. Thomas Aquinas, pray for us!

In Defense of the Latin Mass At the weekly Saturday Tridentine Latin Mass, I noticed on the handout the following quote: "People are very quiet as they come into the chapel before Mass, to show reverence for the Blessed Sacrament and to prepare themselves for the Mass." It got me to thinking that whenever I attend the Latin Mass, I really do notice the prayerfulness, the silence, the sacredness of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass... this is something which has tragically been lost so frequently in the midst of the confusion of the postconciliar era. All of these changes have amounted to a great loss of the sense of the sacred... I make it very clear to d istin gu ish bet we en m y own "Traditionalist critique" of the "New Mass" and that of many other Traditionalists, by saying the loss of the "sense" of the sacred, rather than actually stating the "loss of the sacred". I do this because beyond a shadow of a doubt, nothing any Sacred Council or "New Mass" ever does, could ever ontologically, actually, in any way undermine the sacredness or the holiness of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Receiving Jesus in the Holy Eucharist in the hand, however else, could never diminish the fact that He is really and truly present in His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. The actual sense in which this, among many other postconciliar novelties, can easily undermine the consciousness of the sacred, is an entirely different matter. And statistically it is undeniable that most Catholics today—I would venture to say just about all Catholics today— have lost the radical sense of the sacredness of not just the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, but also of the sacredness and exclusivity of the Roman Catholic Faith, in the postconciliar years. No doubt about it, a greater use of the Tridentine Mass will definitely bring about a greater sense of the sacredness, which our world and, much more tragically, the One Church of Jesus Christ, needs so desperately. It would-

n't be difficult to argue that in our world of technology and busyness, it would be practically impossible to recover a widespread use of the Tridentine Latin Mass... it's too silent, too peaceful, too prayerful, too Christlike and Marylike for a world and even a Church that have become all but caught up in worldliness, loudness, and simply noise. Who knows, if we actually start experiencing more Tridentine Masses, with all of the scary silence and frightening stillness, we might actually start thinking and reflecting about what really matters, namely our eternal salvation and our immortal souls.

The fact is that the "New" Pentecost will only actually occur when the Holy Spirit, through His Church, encourages widespread use (as he is, gratefully, through our Holy Father in these recent years) of the Tridentine Mass, the Mass of all times. Going to this Mass regularly is the sole way in which Catholics will truly experience a "new" Baptism "of the Holy Spirit", by consciously realizing and recognizing the bountiful gifts and graces which the Holy Ghost imparts to all souls both at Baptism and Confirmation. Moreover, the only way the "New" Evangelization will authentically take place, will be when we instruct—as have the great Catholic apologists such as the one who converted me, G. K. Chesterton among others—our fellow Catholics and non-Catholics in the objective Truths of the Faith, the Truths which set us free, the Truths which are everlasting and eternal, not temporary and subjective and relative, which we have sadly become focused on since the Council (and neglected, in a misreading of the actual texts of the Council, to couple this with the objective Truths of the Faith). The Truths of the Faith are made more

manifest to the faithful through the use of the Tridentine Latin Mass, though they are never in any ontological sense undermined through the use of the New Mass.

I recognize that many reading this article may have their own disagreements with much of the content. Nevertheless, I strongly urge everyone who has differing views to at least attempt to open their minds. Please open yourselves to see that, however else the Holy Spirit (Who indisputably "blows where He wills") is working in the One Church of Christ, perhaps He is working too through the authentic "renewal" of the Traditionalist Movement which is restoring and recovering the Traditions of the Faith. As Christians, looking back to Our Lord Jesus Christ in all things, we must admit that our future (to the dismay of the widespread "progressivist" and "liberal" mentality of futurism) is always in the past. There will be nothing new, the Church declares, until the glorious Second Coming of Jesus Christ. One brother once stated cogently that the Tridentine Mass made a great many Saints...such as the Little Flower, St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. Gemma Galgani, St. Faustina, all of the greats whom we look to as models as well as ask to help us as our friends in Heaven. May I suggest that it is surely no coincidence that the peacefulness, the prayerfulness, the encouragement to contemplation and love of God which are all intrinsically part of the atmosphere of the Tridentine Mass, its heavenliness and sheer otherworldliness, all worked together to make these Saints so much conformed to Jesus and Mary. We who desire to imitate them in their holiness and love of God, would do very well to discern the "signs of the times" and seriously ponder whether the Holy Spirit is calling us to "active participation" in the Mass of all times! ~Ed Abdellah

St. Teresa of Avila, pray for us!

Page 7

Another View A response to “In Defense of the Latin Mass” I would like to begin this article by saying that I consider myself to be more “traditional” than “charismatic,” though I do accept and appreciate a lot of the things that the Charismatic Movement has brought to the Church.

My first point is that we, as a Church, have the marks of “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.” The church being catholic (from the Greek καθολικός, meaning “universal”), we have to accept others’ spirituality, whether we think that it would be the best course for ourselves or not. There are Catholics all over the world, and there are many types of spiritualities from crazy tongues-speaking Jesus-praising charismatics to silent, discalced, recluse traditionalists and all shades inbetween. Who are we to say that any given person’s spirituality is not what it should be, just because it is different from our own (of course, as long as it is orthodox)?

Second, I would like to point out that the “traditional” movement has only been around

as long as the Church has been speaking Latin. What did the evangelists write in?

Greek. What did Saint Paul write in? Greek. What did all the other writers of the New Testament use?

Yep, you guessed it, Greek. So, we can easily see that we were not using Latin from day one. Before the Church was traditional, it was charismatic. The birthday of the Church is Pentecost, and what happened on that day? The Holy Spirit came down on the Apostles and Mary and they spoke in tongues for the purpose of evangelization. Now, what does that sound more like…Latin Mass or a FOP? The early Church was not housed in cathedrals or churches, but in people’s houses. It was not a silent meditation upon the divine, rather a social gathering and meal among brothers and sisters in Christ.

Never would I ever say anything negative about the Latin Mass. I love it. I myself went to the High Mass on the 20th of February. I am writing this

solely to point out that while the Latin Mass may bring a feeling of sacredness to many people, it is not the only way to feel close to God, and it is certainly not the universal mode of worship. If John Doe likes praising Jesus out loud and feeling the Holy Spirit course through his veins, who is to say that this is an inferior mode of worship?

I would like to point out this line from Mr. Abdallah’s article “Nevertheless, I strongly urge everyone who has differing views to at least attempt to open their minds.”

I did not find this offensive, but I know that many people would find it so (especially our dear editor). I would ask you to take your own advice, and look objectively at the people who do not appreciate what you and other traditionalists, myself included, see in the Latin Mass.

~Kit Adderley

Pop Culture Seminar Quote: One morning as I shot an elephant in my pajamas, how it got in my pajamas I’ll never know.

Duck Soup (1933)

j|Çx? j|à tÇw jtzzxÜç GREAT AND NOT SO GREAT BOOKS I think Keats said, after looking over Chapman’s Homer, that he felt like fat Cortez discovering the Pacific, which tells you a great deal about the poor nature of English education at the time. But in any case, I think it’s wonderful that there was a time when a poor medical student would stay up all night reading the Classics and then be inspired to write a poem, however ill-informed he was about Spanish explorers and their paunches.

In any case, I believe that Homer has a pretty legitimate status in literature even if Keats didn’t write a poem about him, but I thoroughly question why other lamer pieces are maintained in the pantheon of literature when they are, for lack of a better word, well, lame? Take James Joyce, for instance. I just heard a gasp of horror from PostModerns and frankly I don’t care. While Dubliners is mildly entertaining, Ulysses and Finnegan’s Wake are

absolutely horrible and I mean that in the kindest possible way. First of all, no one understands them, they are slightly gross, and they are no fun to read. And if one of my professors—who is an Olympian athlete in terms of literature—said that she gave up on Finnegan’s Wake, then I a mere mortal, have no use for it.

And who gets to decide what is great and what is not? It’s certainly not popularity. If that were the case, Barbara Cartland would have booted out Shakespeare long ago and I think we would all (hopefully) admit that would be a tragedy. But why do we have to struggle through all these tomes that are mere exercises in endurance? People still read Anna Karenina and Pride and Prejudice for fun (when I meant people, I guess I meant girls), but no one, without the shotgun of grades behind their back, decides to wrestle with Joyce or Pinter for mere love of the chase. Does reading these books make us better peo-

ple? I would argue against that in Joyce’s case since I was often drawn to murder.

I’m not saying that I wish literature was mainly comprised of popular fiction because then we would all have to read Twilight and John Grisham and, frankly, then I actually would kill people. But I do wish we would, like evolution, eliminate the unnecessary and unread pieces of literature that for some reason have been hanging around for ages in the “greats” list without really earning their due. Who put them there? I don’t know.

Furthermore, what exactly are the criteria for literature? Can the people who are forced to read this stuff actually have a say?

You may disagree with me, but you won’t disprove my point, until you read Finnegan’s Wake for fun.

Go ahead. I dare you.

~G.L.