The Rambler Vol. 9 No. 5

rambler the

Veritas Ensis Noster.

In Vino Veritas, Amen.

March 25, 2012- Vol. 9, No. V

In This Issue...

Rambler: Pronunciation: \ram-blər\ Function: noun Date: c. 2002 1. A student organization determined to present truth and withhold nothing, discussing a variety of subjects such as administration, morality, literature, politics, and faith.

the rambler

An Independent Student Journal Christendom College Veritas Ensis Noster

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Savanna J. Buckner BUSINESS MANAGEMENT Conor O’Donnell; Olivia Seidl LAYOUT EDITOR Adele C. Smith NEWS & OPINION EDITOR David Frank ARTS & CULTURE EDITOR Rebecca Willen FAITH & REASON EDITOR Lauren Enk FACULTY ADVISOR Dr. Patrick Keats COPY EDITOR Matthew A. La Fave CREATIVE ASSISTANTS Matthew A. La Fave CONTRIBUTORS Caroline Deucher; Joe Duca; Chris Ferrara; Joseph McGlynn; Matt Naham; Joe Walsh FRONT COVER Adele C. Smith

News & Opinion 5 The HHS Mandate and its Effect on Catholic Institutions

by David Frank

6 The Problem With Painkillers

by Joseph McGlynn

8 Bursting the Bubble

Satire 18 The Kids from the Other Side of Town

by Matt Naham

The Last Word 19 Cntl-C Is A God--What?! by the Editorial Staff

by Chris Ferrara

9 Necessary to the Security of the Free State

by Brendan Vieira

Feature 10 Drink Naked (Or Not)

by Adele C. Smith

Arts & Culture 12 Out & About

by Adele C. Smith

13 The War on Beards

by Joe Walsh

14 The Dangers of Disney

by Joe Duca

Faith & Reason

16 Friendships Within the Catholic Sphere

by Caroline Deucher

17 To the Pure, All Things Are Pure

Cover Photo by Adele C. Smith.

Layout Editor Adele C. Smith and junior Alexis Thornton take on the sacrifice of wine-tasting and educating the Christendom community on three local wineries. See page 10.

by Lauren Enk

Our Mission Statement

The Rambler and its staff are dedicated to training the next generation of Catholic journalists and intellectuals. We prize the liberal arts education received from Christendom College and write about the news, arts, culture, faith, and reason from this gained perspective. We believe we will play an essential part in a renaissance of new leaders, journalists, and communicators for the 21st century.

2 | two

To Contact The Rambler:

134 Christendom Drive Front Royal, VA 22630 E-mail: rambler.editor@gmail.com Web: www.therambleronline.org

Subscribe: An eight issue subscription to

The Rambler may be obtained through a donation of $25 or more. All contributions go to support The Rambler.

collegiate

network

Editor’s Corner

Dear Readers, You eat a fortune cookie and the message inside reads “You just ate poison.”

Disheartening, yes? Often, the present political sphere seems like that—dismal. Why don’t we have a stronger candidate for the presidential elections? How is it that Obama stands a fine chance of reelection after the atrocious happenings of the last four years?

Why don’t people see or care about the consequences of becoming parasites, clinging to an overweight government?

If only it was as easy to spend the energy in action as it is to spend the energy in worrying.

Admittedly, it is true that, as students, our ability to respond to political happenings is somewhat stunted. Time and energy are predominately ordered toward the classroom at this point. Yet, there are real ways in which to stay in touch, and education should be daily inserting us further into reality by heightening our perceptions of our material and immaterial surroundings.

Indeed, the reform we seek in the political sphere starts on a personal level. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn defines progress as “the sum total of the degree of self-perfection in the lives of individuals.” If this is true, we activate authentic progress by perfecting ourselves.

Perhaps it’s not ridiculous to suggest writing for The Rambler as one method of selfperfection. The ability to share one’s personal thoughts and opinions in an educated, articulate manner helps one to know oneself better, and paves the way for better communication with others. Consider the possibility. Pursue self-perfection. Write for The Rambler.

Photos by Adele C. Smith and Niall O’Donnell

You have the staff’s heartfelt wishes that you enjoy this issue of The Rambler. And if life gives you lemons, keep them. ‘Cuz hey, free lemons.

In Jesu et Maria,

Savanna J. Buckner ‘14 Editor-in-Chief

3 | three

News Briefs

We are feeling lazy and rather unmotivated about this segment-and besides, with a campus of 400 students, what don’t we know already?

In Manassas, a city police officer lost control of his vehicle on Friday and slammed into a Manassas home after hitting two other vehicles.

The Officer and two other civilians were hospitalized briefly after the accident. The source of the loss of control of the Police man’s car is still yet to be determined, however no foul play is suspected.

A United Nations-Arab league representative, Mr. Annan, is on route to Russia on a mission to persuade Russia to take a firmer position against the Syrian government. The following week, he will travel to China with a similar mission. Previously both China and Russia have both supported Syria at the UN.

4 | four

On March 23rd the Pope made a visit to Leon, Mexico where he made a public announcement to the faithful there, that he will “unmask the evil” of drug trafficking in Mexico.—a country well known for its gang violence related to illegal drug trafficking resulting in over 50,000 casualties over the course of the past 5 years.

According to the associated press projections, as of 3/24/12 Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has 563 Delegate votes, Santorum has 263, Gingrich has 135, and lastly Ron Paul has 50. Who will come out as the next Republican Candidate for President? Only time will tell.

Well, there’s not much to say about CBDS at this point. Keep an eye out for the next debate. Get your three free drinks. Engage in intellectual stimulation and all that jazz.

News & Opinion

HHS Mandate

and its

Effects

on catholic institutions

by David Frank ’12 On January 20th, 2012, Kathleen Sebelius, President Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), issued a mandate requiring that all employers provide their employees with insurance coverage for sterilization and contraception (including some chemical abortifacients) as part of its “preventive services,” in accord with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), the health care legislation signed by Obama in March 2010. All employers have been ordered to comply within one year. This means that schools, hospitals, universities, private businesses run by people of faith, charitable institutions and even some churches, while not necessarily forced to supply actual contraception or sterilization services, would nevertheless be forced to pay for such services even in violation of their consciences.

Opposition to the mandate was almost instantaneous on the part of many religious groups. Cardinal Timothy Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), immediately denounced the mandate. “In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” said Dolan. He also objected to sterilization, contraception and abortifacients being classed as “preventive services,” saying, “The government should not force Americans to act as if pregnancy is a disease to be prevented at all costs.”

In a similar statement on its website, the USCCB declares, “All the other mandated ‘preventive services’ prevent disease, and pregnancy is not a disease.”

Every Catholic diocese in the U.S. has spoken out against the mandate. The USCCB has issued statement upon statement denouncing the mandate and explaining clearly the bishops’ objections to it. Yet this is not solely a Catholic issue. Recognizing the mandate’s attack on the religious liberties of all Americans and not just Catholics, several prominent conservative political commentators have taken to saying, “We are all Catholics now.” Many prominent non-Catholic religious leaders have spoken out, including Christian pastors of various denominations, presidents of Christian schools, Jewish rabbis, and the entire Assembly of Orthodox Bishops in North America.

On February 10th, President Obama issued a so-called clarification or revision to the policy, in an attempt to appease those opposed to the mandate. In reality, the “clarification” only served to obfuscate the issue and did nothing to remove the morally objectionable aspects of the policy. It claimed to exempt qualifying “religious employers,” a very narrow category, from having to directly include contraceptive services in their employees’ insurance plans, but those

“

employees could still work with the insurance company on the side to add those services to their plan at no separate cost to the employee, such that the religious employer would still be paying for those services.

Of course, this clearly does nothing for religious insurance companies themselves.

Obama’s “revision” is troubling in other ways too, prompting Dolan to write, “For one, there was not even a nod to the deeper concerns about trespassing upon religious freedom, or of modifying the HHS’ attempt to define the how and who of our ministry through the suffocating mandates. Two, since a big part of our ministries are “selfinsured,” how is this going to help us? We’ll still have to pay! And what about individual believers being coerced to pay?”

Since this mandate extends to private insurance, it would apply to Catholic institutions of higher education such as Christendom College and the Catholic University of America. John Garvey, president

The media has been ... portraying the objectors as adherents to the arbitrary dogma of an oppressive and male-dominated system....fortunately the nonCatholic opposition isn’t buying it.

”

of CUA, put it well in his testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee when he said that “there is no real difference between the January 20th and February 10th policies. In both cases the cost of mandated services will be rolled into the cost of an insurance policy which federal law requires the University to buy.”

Of course, the secular media has tried to frame the controversy as a specifically Catholic issue, of no concern to anyone else. The media has been particularly successful in portraying the objectors as opponents of women’s rights, adherents to the arbitrary dogma of an antiquated, oppressive and male-dominated system. But fortunately the nonCatholic opposition isn’t buying it.

Testifying before the Committee, Rev. Dr. Matthew C. Harrison, President of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, pointed out that the problem is indeed one of religious liberty that affects all people of faith: “We deem this recent government mandate as an infringement upon the beliefs and practices of various religious communities. Therefore, we voice our public objections in solidarity with those who cherish their religious liberties.”

At the beginning of March, the Senate voted 51-48 to table an amendment by Sen. Roy Blunt, which included in its stated purpose “to ensure that health care stakeholders retain the right to provide, purchase, cont. on page 7

5 | five

News & Opinion

THE PROBLEM WITH PAINKILLERS by

Joseph McGlynn ’12

W

hat drugs are involved in the deaths of close to 15,000 people every year in the United States? What drugs led to close to 500,000 emergency room visits in 2009 and cost health insurers $72.5 billion annually? You might think that the answer is illegal drugs like heroin or cocaine but it’s not. You might be surprised to hear that the answer is a class of drugs prescribed by physicians to relieve pain—a class of drugs known as opioid analgesics.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(CDC) opioid analgesics describes a class of prescription only drugs that are used to treat many forms of pain and include drugs such as oxycodone (OxyContin), and hydrocodone (Vicodin) as well as synthetic narcotics. As Katherine Eban of Fortune magazine notes, the composition of these drugs makes them very close chemically to heroin.

These drugs are very dangerous controlled substances. They have a significantly high potential for addiction and they are sold illegally on the street to generate highs for abusers.

Given that opioid analgesics are dangerous drugs you might think that they would be very carefully administrated and that a relatively few number of these prescriptions would be written every year. Once again, if you think so, you are wrong. The CDC has noted that since 1999 the use of these drugs and their prescription by physicians has rapidly increased. The increase has been so large that according to the CDC, “By 2010, enough OPR [opioid pain relievers] were sold to medicate every American adult with a typical does of 5 mg of hydrocodone every 4 hours for 1 month.” According to statistics obtained by Katherine Eban for Fortune magazine, this equals 254 million prescriptions for opioids in the United States in 2010 alone.

While these medicines do have some legitimate uses, given the above information one might ask oneself why we have such a problem with these medicines today and why, according to the CDC, do most of the abusers of these medicines fall into the 33-55 year age group?

The answers to these questions are necessarily complex and varied and no one theory or idea can account for all the individual circumstances.

However, the abuse of these medications and their widespread use seems to indicate a misunderstanding of suffering and pain in our culture today.

Pain and suffering are part of the human condition. They 6 | six

have always been with us since the Fall and they will continue to be with us until we die. They are something for which every sane person has a natural repugnance and obviously wishes to avoid. Not only do we not want to suffer, we do not want to see suffering in another—we want to prevent or relieve the suffering. All this is true and good. However, as the example of Christ sets for us, suffering also has value and can be offered for others. This idea of the value of suffering and the ability to offer Christ one’s suffering is something that appears to be largely lost on the modern world.

People today do not wish to be exposed to suffering and pain: they do not wish to be reminded that we all must die. While no one likes to think about death and suffering, many in the world today seem to think that they can eradicate it or eliminate it altogether. Just think about the stories that constantly appear on the news: doctors trying to construct artificial hearts that will never fail: more and more cosmetic surgeries to attempt to stop the natural aging process: multiple organ transplants. All these point to an unrealistic attempt to deny suffering and death in our culture today. In this author’s opinion, this attempt to deny any suffering and pain is most clearly seen in the abuse of prescription pain killers and their frequent prescription. Many people feel that they should never have to suffer any discomfort at all, and that they should be given medicine to stop any pain whatsoever.

In order to understand this more fully and to hear what a physician has to say, I discussed the problem of prescription pain killers with Robert Deucher, M.D., a general internist practicing in North Carolina. Dr. Deucher provided many insights into the problems involved with using these pain killers, and the problems physicians face in choosing whether or not to prescribe them.

When I asked Dr. Deucher if he thought that many physicians were overprescribing these pain relievers, he answered yes, and commented that there are numerous factors contributing to this. Some include pressure from the government, which grades nursing facilities on how well they cope with a patient’s pain, and the fact that insurance companies generally do not reimburse alternative means of pain control as readily as they do prescription pain relievers. Additionally, he commented that in cases other than accidents, surgeries and other trauma, it is often difficult for physicians to determine whether a patient

News & Opinion really needs strong pain relieving medicines. Dr. Deucher commented that “To measure pain is also impossible in that it is subjective more often than objective” and that “to define when and where to use narcotics can be more of an art than a science.”

Given the above information it might seem that the abuse of pain killers today is not indicative of a misunderstanding of pain and suffering in society. However, in the course of our discussion Dr. Deucher made some poignant observations that seem to lend support to this idea. When discussing the history of pain relief in medicine, Dr. Deucher commented that prior to the drug revolution of the 1960s, “one [could] find numerous medical and other societal anecdotes that recognized that suffering with pain was to be expected and to be somewhat commendable,” and that this changed with the revolutions of the 1960s which “popularized the drug culture, both legal and illegal.”

Also, Dr. Deucher noted that “without question I have very few drug

seeking individuals who are geriatric. The culture of anesthesia that developed in the 1960s has blossomed the prescription drug need in that age group down to our current teens.” The CDC’s data on the abuse of these prescription drugs seems to support Dr. Deucher’s observations for the highest number of deaths from prescription pain killer overdoses occurred in those younger than 65, especially those between the ages of 33-55.

So what does all this tell us? The data indicates that the use and abuse of opioid analgesics is becoming more widespread at an alarming rate in our nation. While there are many factors behind this, it is at least possible that a rejection of the value of suffering and an unrealistic attempt to eradicate it from the human condition is behind the increased use and abuse of prescription pain killers. Maybe if society began to understand pain and suffering more, we would not have as large a problem with these medicines as we do today.

HHS MANDATE: cont. from page 5 or enroll in health coverage that is consistent with their religious beliefs and moral convictions, without fear of being penalized or discriminated against under PPACA.” The vote was largely along party lines, but Sen. Olympia Snowe, a Republican, contributed to the defeat of the amendment, while three Democrats voted for it.

In response, on March 14th the USCCB issued yet another statement, spelling out very clearly the issues that do and do not constitute this controversial debate: “This is not about access to contraception, which is ubiquitous and inexpensive. . . . This is not about the religious freedom of Catholics only, but also of those who recognize that their cherished beliefs may be next on the block. . . . Indeed, this is not about the Church wanting to force anybody to do anything; it is instead about the federal government forcing the Church—consisting of its faithful and all but a few of its institutions—to act against Church teachings.”

The statement then elaborates on three central objections to the mandate: “An unwarranted government definition of religion,” “A mandate to act against our teachings,” and “A violation of personal civil rights.” The bishops’ statement also mentioned a forthcoming publication from the bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty, to be titled “A Statement on Religious Liberty.” Even with the failure of the Blunt Amendment, the Catholic bishops of America are showing no signs of backing off.

But neither, apparently, is the Obama administration. On March 16th, just two days after the release of the bishops’ statement, President Obama proposed a widening of the mandate to force colleges to provide students, not just employees, with health care that covers contraception (including abortifacients) and sterilization, without a co-payment from the student. This would even apply to Christendom College and other religious universities, forcing them to pay for services they consider immoral.

Last Friday, March 23rd, LifeSiteNews.com reported that thousands of protesters of all religious stripes showed up outside government buildings in an estimated 150 cities across the U.S. to protest the HHS mandate’s violation of religious liberty.

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon be hearing cases challenging

the constitutionality of the mandate. This is an excellent opportunity for students of Christendom college, through prayer, fasting and action, to respond to Pope Benedict XVI’s Lenten exhortation to all Catholics to take seriously their duty to give fraternal correction.

Formal comments on the recent HHS proposal to extend college-subsidized contraception and sterilization to students can be made at www.federalregister.gov.

7 | seven

News & Opinion

Bursting the

bubble Chris Ferrara ’14 t’s no secret that we here at Christendom tend to be somewhat cut-off from knowledge of current events. As sophomore Michael Scheetz aptly stated, “I feel like I don’t know what in the sam hill is going on in the outside world when I’m on campus.” There are many possible factors that could contribute to this problem, such as the lack of easy methods of accessing the daily news, the absence of campus-wide Wi-Fi, or the fact that we’re located in Front Royal. Whenever someone discovers a piece of news of great importance days (or weeks, or months) after its occurrence, the typical response is to laugh, shrug it off, and chalk it up to “the Christendom bubble.” I myself have been guilty of hiding behind this excuse on more than one occasion.

Although many often treat this issue with levity, ignorance of current events ought to be taken much more seriously, as it can lead to a host of problems. As Catholics we have a duty to be aware of pressing issues which could impact us directly, such as the HHS Mandate. We should not sit idly by waiting to be told when the enemy is at the gates. Instead, we should be watching the news and anticipating what events will become major issues.

But how can one stay informed while trapped in the infamous Christendom bubble? There are many small steps you could take to start to get back into the loop. Instead of aimlessly browsing the internet when stopping by the student center, try visiting a few news sites for a couple of minutes and read up on at least the top stories. If you don’t have time to peruse the news, try opening up several articles that seem relevant and read through them later when you’re no longer connected to the internet. This minor effort will be far more beneficial than any amount of superficially interesting factoids we might absorb whilst meandering around various entertainment sites. As painful as it is for me to say this, the funny cat videos need to take a backseat with our limited internet access on campus.

Another little-known avenue to staying in touch with world news is the Sacred Grounds Coffee Shop. In this cozy little corner in the basement of the library there can be found what is considered a precious rarity at Christendom: newspapers. Consider stopping by and catching up on the news before or after any classes you may have in the library, and it will be time well spent.

Or, if you’re one of the students lucky enough to have a 3G enabled smartphone, then put it to good use. Rather than killing all

I by

“

your spare time with Angry Birds, take advantage of your brilliant piece of technology and make it live up to its name. Glance through news sites during downtime, or take it a step further and download dedicated news apps. “All I have to do is tap the browser for my favorite news sites and within five minutes I know what’s happening around the globe,” said sophomore Steve Miller, when asked about how his smartphone helps him stay in touch with the news. With the privilege of constant access to the internet, one will be hard-pressed to find any excuse for not staying informed about current events.

Above all, the best time to combat the effects of the Christendom bubble is while you’re outside of it. Breaks and vacations are optimal for playing catch-up on all the news you’ve been missing.

With the privilege of constant access to the internet, one will be hard-pressed to find any excuse for not staying informed about current events.

8 | eight

”

Ask about and discuss current events with your friends and family back home who have been exposed to daily news. Upon flipping through a newspaper over spring break, I was shocked and annoyed to find that certain aspects of our foreign affairs had been completely misrepresented by the biased word-of-mouth accounts I’d been hearing while at Christendom. It was this incident in particular which made me realize how insidious it can be to live in an environment where access to the media is limited.

Don’t hesitate to put these ideas into practice: with the primary elections upon us, the importance of keeping up to date is greater than ever. Don’t make the mistake of taking a blasé attitude towards the presidential race just because it’s difficult to keep up with it while at Christendom. Instead, make a serious effort to gather information on the presidential candidates so that you are able to make an educated vote when the time comes.

So please, the next time you find yourself near a Wi-Fi signal, do more than just check your Facebook and laugh at the latest Christendom memes. Admittedly, it is difficult to muster the willpower to do much else when you sink into the ridiculously comfortable student center couches after a long day of classes, but by simply taking a few minutes a day to read up on the news, you will find that it is not so difficult to burst the Christendom bubble.

News & Opinion

Necessary to the Security

of a Free State

by

Brendan Vieira ’14

“T

hat a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...”

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Every conservative talks about the fabled “right to keep and bear arms”. We Americans glory in this right, which indeed sets us apart from many countries that deny their citizens this fundamental right. But do we know what it really means? Do we know the duties which it entails? Do we realize the neglect into which we have allowed its exercise to fall, and what we should do to remedy that neglect?

The purpose of this article is to enlighten you on this subject by answering these questions. It is my fond hope (I pray not the vain hope) that what follows will be food not only for thought and debate, but for constructive social action.

The right to keep and bear arms exists only because men have a duty, individual and communal, to defend themselves, their families, and their countries. The right exists so as to give us the means to carry out the duty. The Militia are the legal embodiment of that civic duty. We, as a nation, abandoned our duty of civic defense when we subsumed the militia into the semi-regular National Guard (eerily enough, the same name as the French Revolutionary forces) at the turn of the twentieth century. Having forsaken our duty, what need have we of the right? At least, that is the common attitude of the enemies of gun rights, even if they do not articulate the premises so bluntly. That philosophy is strong enough to destroy a right that, though cherished, is already weak because it is separated from the duty that is its foundation.

Here it might be useful to elaborate on the nature of a Militia, and dispel some common misconceptions about “militias”. A militia is not a private bunch of radical rednecks in cheap camouflage, running around in the woods shooting things with no authority. A militia is a government entity, established by law, in which the People fulfill their civic duty of homeland defense by training together to be able “to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.” They are, in the words of Virginia's Constitution, “the body of the People, trained to arms”; they are under the authority of the government, and they act by and with the authority of the government. That is the first point: they have the authority of government, the authority of the people. For what purpose? To be “the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state”. In other words, to be equipped and to train for all

exigencies of civic defense - military, police, and otherwise.

A militia is “the body of the People, trained to arms”, allowing them to exercise, under the Governor, the authority of their State by force, “to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions”.

There is a pressing need to revitalize this Militia in modern America: our military is stretched to the limit in foreign wars; abuse of police powers is increasingly common; our police forces are also strained, and will become more so as their budgets are cut drastically to try and save the national finances. While the police lose manpower, they try to compensate by ramping up their paramilitary response capacity. This in many cases has already proved to be a danger to civil liberties. At the same time as the police are being more and more stretched, criminal activity is widening and intensifying. Witness the terrible failure of the “war on drugs” as the killings skyrocket in Mexico and the southern United States. The People need to be able to defend themselves; not alone, but together, as a community. The police cannot respond fast enough for community defense in many situations. There is also the danger of hard times causing riots and social dislocation on a massive scale.

Where would the Militia fit in the present American system?

It would not replace the standing army, rather it would assist them in garrison duty and homeland defense. The various State Militias would be under the command of the State Governor, to be raised and employed at his command to meet military, police, and disaster-response crises.

The police forces, then, would be a special unit of Militia; dedicated specialists in criminal law enforcement, but under the command of the Governor through his subordinate the Commandant-General of the State Militia.

This article is too short to cover all the legal and operational details of the existence of past Militias, or the principles which would govern the revitalization of the Militia structure in the modern United States. This has been an effort to convince you to learn about the Militia, its purpose and necessity, both in the past, the present, and the future.

Do not abandon your duty. You may think that you can enjoy the rights of the free man without the duties; you have been doing it most of your lives; but you will bitterly experience otherwise, and very soon, if you do not act now. Unless you can defend your liberties by force, then all your liberties are subject to the coercion of anyone who has an ounce more force than you – whoever that may be – your Nation's enemies, or perhaps a domestic tyranny. Act now to take up the liberties your fathers did! Or you will lose them forever.

9 | nine

Feature

W

Drink Naked

(Or N by

Adele C. Smith ’12

ine is a gift from God. And God approves of wine and is fully cognizant of the fact that it's needed for good times and happy people—just look at Cana.

Now, I make no pretenses to be a wine connoisseur. I enjoy wine.

I'm more of a white, semi-sweet type of girl, but I recognize when dryer red wines are good, nondescript, or simply awful on a more objective scale of quality. Growing up in the Finger Lakes region of New York, wineries and vineyards surrounded me and in Virginia, wineries are as common as McDonalds (okay, maybe that’s a stretch. But you get the idea). It took me four years to explore a few of the nearby wineries, but better late than never.

And so, on St. Patrick's Day, for your edification, I and Alexis Thornton, '13, volunteered to take on the painful venture of wine-tasting. We did it all for you, Christendom community.

Drinking Naked was the first thing that came to my mind, naturally. Naked Mountain Winery is located in Markham, off of Exit 18 on I-66—so we're talking about that kind of drinking Naked, not the other, you gutter-minded few. Markham is a beautiful little area, insofar as it seemed to entail a peach orchard, a railroad track, some houses, and several wineries.

The first experience with Naked Mountain was the driveway from hell leading to the building itself: a narrow road with a sharp turn makes it impossible to see if a car is approaching from the opposite direction, with your only option being to sound your horn and pray to God that whoever is approaching hears you and pauses—which they don't. However, if you manage to survive, you find yourself looking up at a mildly rustic building, surrounded by sloping vineyards and a pretty little view of the Blue Ridge Mountains.

Once inside, an array of “Drink Naked” paraphernalia attacks your eyes, from magnets to bumper stickers to t-shirts. The wine bar is backed by a long window, letting you soak in the view of the grape vines as you try your wines. A tasting is $5 for four wines and $10 if you try their reserve wines in addition to the showcased five. However, they are currently also throwing in a free tasting of their newest wine, which has yet to be officially released and which this writer cannot remember—but that error 10 | ten

will be defended shortly.

One of the first irritating factors about Naked Mountain was in the presentation of the tasting itself. The wine was poured roughly into the glass and the server seemed only to care about getting the job done, not getting it done well, as he moved down the line at the bar. It was a rushed tasting, and yes, it was St. Patrick's Day and busy, yet that is still no excuse.

But enough complaints, and on to a brief introduction to the wines we experienced.

The 2007 Cabernet Franc is a red wine, with the complex aromas and flavors of currants, spice, blueberries, cherries, plum, and white pepper.

The finish hints at toasted nuts and cocoa. Pleasant and smooth enough, but not nearly as enjoyable as Miss Thornton and I had hoped.

The 2006 Scarlet Oak Red has a rather masculine nose of spice and tobacco, accented with undertones of vanilla and cherry. Of the two reds, this was more preferred—that doesn't say much, however.

The 2010 Make Me Blush was our final sampling of what Naked had to offer. It is a rose of Cabernet Franc (75%) and Mourvedre (25%), smelling faintly of mint and tasting like strawberries and cantaloupe. As an especially fond fan of rose wines, I had my hopes up that this last one would be memorable. It wasn't terrible but it wasn't phenomenal, either, fitting with the theme we were experiencing at Naked.

And due to this completely unmemorable train of wines, this writer cannot remember the new wine Naked is showcasing later in March.

It's their fault, really. As Miss Thornton aptly stated, the best thing about the winery was “the name itself”—that and their “fantastic advertising.

They are to be commended for that. It's a great appeal that really captures peoples' imaginations and gets them to the winery.” Hey, when you’re telling people to Drink Naked, that certainly rouses one’s curiosity at the very least.

After the letdown at Naked Mountain, we drove past a peach orchard and over the train tracks to get to our next stop, also located in Markham—Chateau O'Brien. Driving up a gravel road and under a rustic archway leads you to the beautiful Italian-style villa with a FrenchIrish name. This odd blend of cultures sits on top of a hill, overlooking

Feature

Not) the valley and providing an absolutely breathtaking view of the mountains, perfect for a beautiful day sipping wine.

Unlike many wineries, O'Brien grows all their own produce, neither buying outside ingredients nor selling their own. This gives them absolute control over the flavor and body of their wines, a fact of which they are rightfully proud.

Once done admiring the beauty of the winery itself and after listening to the bagpipes coming from the restaurant area (it being St. Paddy's Day), we began the tasting itself. “I really appreciated the presentation. I thought that it incorporated a very interesting Irish-Italian mix that was really very enjoyable,” Miss Thornton commented. The wine bar was also much smaller than at Naked Mountain, allowing for a more intimate and personal setting.

The 2008 Padlock Red is a dark, rich red wine which “locks” in a sophisticated, well-balanced blend, according to their label description— and which proves true. Personally, I've found few red wines that I've really enjoyed, despite trying numerous varieties and brands—however, this red impressed me.

Another red was served up, the 2008 Buddy's Bistro Red, named after the owners' dog—Buddy. It is in the style of a Pinot Noir with ripe red fruit flavors and a peppery finish. The pepper was mildly strong for my taste, but again, I don't claim to be a fan or a connoisseur of red wines.

To finish up at Chateau O'Brien, we were served the 2009 Virginia Apple Wine—and it is an explosion of flavor on your taste buds, leaving your brain telling you that you never experienced wine until now, and it gives the soul a hint of heaven. This is not an exaggeration. This is a dessert wine that you want to drink for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. It contains a variety of apples but the most distinct is a Granny Smith, tasting smooth, crisp, and fresh from the orchard. Out of the fifteen wines that we tried that day, this was the bottle we purchased. And it's probably the bottle I'd go back to Markham just to buy up the rest of their supplies.

The Chateau also offers light fare of Irish cheeses, fresh baguettes, croissants, and gourmet chocolates—all made by the O'Brien family and staff (they also sell homemade salsas, apple butter—even soaps and body

scrubs, which make for great gifts). The Classic Wine tasting is four wines for $5, with the Cellar Collection at $10 (featuring more dryer reds than the Classic), and then the Private Reserve Cellar Collection, at $35, and aimed more directly at true connoisseurs, not mild enthusiasts. They are open Thursday through Monday, from 11AM to 5PM.

If you don't want to drive to Markham to experience Chateau O'Brien, a few of their wines are sold at the Wine & Duck on Main Street.

Their next most distinct and delicious wine can be found there, the 2009 Northpoint Rose, with hints of strawberries, citrus, and peaches.

Feeling absolutely giddy with our experience at Chateau O'Brien (from the fun times, not because of alcohol), we opted out of getting back onto I-66 and instead drove down Rt. 55 to get back to Front Royal and then head up to Rappahanock Cellars, located in Huntly. They offer a Basic Tasting of four wines for $4, Premium Tasting of eight wines for $8 and then Reds Only, with four reds for $6.

The 2010 Chardonnay had a toasty oak and orange flavor with an exceptional creamy buttery finish. It is very smooth and lingers on your taste buds, making you want more. And the 2011 Viognier had a palate of citrus, orange, lemon, peach, apricot, on the dry side and quite pleasant. The citrus was very subtle and didn't overpower the peach and apricot flavors.

Offering a crisp taste, the 2010 Rose is slightly on the drier side yet still refreshing and a much better quality than that offered at Naked Mountain. Lastly, we sampled a few of the reds. However, being picky, when the reds were brought out, I personally did not enjoy them as I had the samplings at Chateau O'Brien. The 2010 Cabernet Franc has no residual sugar but still has some subtle sweetness to it, which you can tell just from the nose, which hints at fruit jam, and the 2009 Meritage is a classic Bordeaux with a coffee aroma and a palate of spices. The Cabernet Franc was my favorite of the two wines, with the Meritage being too dry and bitter for my tastes.

But please, explore these and other wineries for yourselves.

Ultimately, these are the opinions of two women. We really should be in the kitchen—but as long as there's a bottle of 2009 Virginia Apple Wine, we'll be barefoot and happy.

11 | eleven

Arts & Culture

Out& About by

Adele C. Smith ’12

Every issue, we hope to give students a taste of local attractions and places to go in the Virginia area. If you have any questions or ideas, please e-mail the A&C Editor at rambler.arts@gmail. com.

1.

Located in Middletown in the northern Shenandoah Valley, Belle Grove Plantation, built in 1797, spans 7500 gorgeous acres. It is a historical landmark definitely worth the trip. The antebellum house and grounds are beautiful. It is also an important piece of Civil War history, playing a role in the Valley Campaign of 1864 and the Battle of Cedar Creek. For tours and visitation hours, visit http://www.bellegrove.org/index.php?/visit/tours.

3.

Take the Battle of Front Royal Driving Tour if you want a moving glimpse of Front Royal’s role in the Civil War. Re-live what became known as “The Battle of Brother Against Brother” by following the route. Each stop along the way marks a pivotal point of the battle—an experience that includes Stonewall Jackson, confederate spies, Civil War manors and an exciting finish—you’ll have to find out for yourself which side won.

12|twelve

2.

Deep in the Blue Ridge Mountains and nestled alongside the Shenandoah River, the Trappist Monastery in Berryville has the peaceful beauty and silence of a spiritual retreat from the world along with its historical significance as an important part of Catholicism in the Shenandoah Valley. While you’re there, you can pick up some of their products to help support the monastery—fruitcakes, honeys, and truffles! http://www.hcava. org/pages/visitlocation.html.

4.

Visit Harper’s Ferry at the meeting of the Potomac and Shenandoah Rivers. As described by Thomas Jefferson in 1783, “The passage of the Patowmac through the Blue Ridge is perhaps one of the most stupendous scenes in Nature.” The site now boasts a wide range of indoor and outdoor activities, including living history museums, exhibits, picturesque streets, battlefields, hiking and canoeing. Don’t miss St. Peter’s Catholic Church, built in the early 19th century. http://www.nps.gov/hafe/index.htm.

Arts & Culture

TheWaronBeards by

Joe Walsh ’15

W

ith the primaries coming to an end and the general elections fast approaching, many divisive issues are coming to the national stage. Between the war in Afghanistan, rising gas prices, and sustained unemployment, candidates and representatives from both major parties are engaged in heated debates, all the while forgetting one critical issue that is slowly but inexorably dividing America: the issue of facial hair.

Over the past half century, there has been a ruthless and relentless war waged in an attempt to exterminate the beard. For too long, bearded men throughout the world have been harshly discriminated against and even persecuted. Thus I write today to let this campus, and indeed the whole world, know that the beard will not die without a fight.

First, however, let us examine the studies on this topic and analyze what women, the main attackers of beards, really think.

Groundbreaking new research reveals that men with facial hair do disproportionately worse in job interviews, and that women increasingly judge beards to be unprofessional, unattractive, unclean, and a host of other hair slurs. Although a man’s glory was once found in his beard, now nearly 80% of women view facial hair as undesirable. How can men be expected to be men when one of our most natural and precious inclinations (growing facial hair) is being brutally suppressed?

Of course, to be a true man you do not need to possess facial foliage. I myself do not usually maintain much of a beard but that is because, if I were to grow a beard, no razor or beard brush in the world would be able to hold it back and I do not want to be a distraction to classmates admiring my beard. Thus, I simply plead with the women of campus to allow us men to have the freedom to grow a beard without suffering the merciless discrimination that we now endure for our legitimate choice to grow a beard.

For this war on the beard goes against the wisdom of the ancients as well as traditional values held by men for thousands of years—since the very dawn of time. A beard has always been one of the most efficient and symbolic ways to express one’s manliness. One’s beard represents manliness literally flowing from the body in the form of hair particles. To put it in the Aristotelian sense: the hair is the matter and the form is manly virtue. Whether it be Robert E. Lee, Charlton Heston, Genghis Khan, or Jesus Christ, all these men had beards. In fact, all that really needs to be said on the subject is that when God became man, He chose to become a man with a beard.

Fashions and styles have fluctuated throughout history, but until

Sometimes you get the classic scruffy look, as with Josh Scotto (left), which adds the philosopher look of budding wisdom.

However, looking at Jashua Smith (below), there is a sense of hazard and danger. It’s not the AK-47, my friends. It’s the beard.

Zeus (above) is considered one of the greatest mythical figures, raining down lightening bolts--and look at his awesome beard. Coincidence? We think not. Then look at dear St. Nick (right): who can imagine this jolly fellow without a beard? He wouldn’t be the same.

relatively recently the beard served as a constant for men. Only in Puritanical societies, such as in early America, or in far more radical societies such as during the French Revolution, was the beard discouraged and even condemned.

Yet again, I must emphasize the point that lacking a beard does not necessarily make one less of a man; but having a beard can be nothing but a positive. This is called the beard effect: beards only increase a man’s good looks and manliness. But of course, there are many manly men who are clean-shaven: John Paul II, George Washington, and Will Smith are just a few of the manly, though beardless, men.

These men proved their manliness through other means, yet due to the beard effect, even they could only gain from beards.

In conclusion, I call upon the men and women of campus, our administration, and our politicians to act to end this genocide.

Women of campus, I beg you: let us be men. And men of campus: take heart: a new day is truly on the horizon, a new and hairy day.

13|thirteen

Disney

Arts & Culture

the dangers of

by Joe Duca ’14 grew up watching Disney movies or rather, participating in them.

Over and over . . . and over again. I danced shamelessly with Belle, slipped Cinderella's glass slipper on her petite foot and took many, many magic carpet rides. I avenged my father's death and took back my kingdom from Uncle Scar in all his wicked Jeremy Irons-ness, kicked Gaston's ego-maniacal ass off my castle rampart, went the distance with Hades, and even found time to show Jasmine that you don't have to be a prince to be charming.

I grew up wanting, more than anything else in the world, to love and be loved by a pretty girl. Every night, after Our Fathers and Hail Marys and a bathroom break, I wished upon a star that God would send me a damsel in distress I could save from a dragon, a sorcerer, or any combination thereof. I don't think I was the only kid that did this. I wanted to fall in love more than I wanted to clothe the hungry and feed the poor. I went to church, I said my prayers, but I was more interested in kissing than crosses. By the time I hit adolescence my obsession with romance reached terminal proportions. If I were to recount the amount of indiscretions, miscalculations and pathetically misinformed misfires that comprised my “love life” from ages thirteen to nineteen, you might vomit and slip into a coma.

Exhibit A: At fourteen, I bought a friend a diamond necklace (price: a lot of mowed lawns) in an effort to win her less-than-romantic heart. I could write off this incident and others (like how I ended up giving the necklace to the girl's sister) as the growing pains of your average romantically-inept American adolescent but I wonder if my fixation had roots in something deeper. At the beginning of one of my favorite movies, High Fidelity, John Cusack's music impresario Rob muses: “What came first, the music or the misery? People worry about kids playing with guns, or watching violent videos, that some sort of culture of violence will take them over. Nobody worries about kids listening to thousands, literally thousands of songs about heartbreak, rejection, pain, misery and loss. Did I listen to pop music because I was miserable? Or was I miserable because I listened to pop music?”

I

“

romantic relationships, I wondered: could there be a correlation? If you constantly observe certain modes of behavior, you will subconsciously or consciously imitate that behavior. It stands to reason that if you watch a ton of movies about falling in love and following your heart, you'll seek not just to fall in love, but to fall in love in certain unhealthy ways. Disney movies can be dangerous precisely because they seem so innocent. They seem harmless, but an entire generation weaned on hours of Disney films might just be affected by that.

”

I’m not saying don’t watch Disney movies...[but] perhaps they aren’t as harmless as you’d think.

He is talking about music but the words apply to movies as well. Did my imbibing hundreds of hours of movies about falling in love have no effect on me? People often think of Hollywood as a dream factory, allowing people to see who they would like to be, doing and having things they would like to do and have but can only dream of; movies allow people to see their dreams onscreen. But sometimes the relationship can be inverted; instead of seeing their dreams in the movies, they dream of what's in the movies—especially with Disney movies.

During my early adolescence, as I and kids around me who were equally unprepared and immature were making unwise forays into 14|fourteen

Allow me a tangent. It's night as I'm writing this and I have a serious case of writers block; the six tons of General Tso's Tofu in my stomach are tugging on my eyelids. I can think of no new movie trailers to watch; no random MSN link left un-clicked. The internet has drained my resolve, my attention, and my meager reserves of intelligence. I wanted this to be well-researched and thought-provoking, but instead I find myself listening to German Indie rock and watching a video of Jimmy Fallon and Bruce Springsteen. I simply bring this up to let you know that what you will be reading from here on are the ramblings of a chronic procrastinator’s mad rush to meet a publishing deadline.

In order to write a good essay, you need an introductory paragraph complete with essay map and thesis statement, supporting paragraphs that support that thesis, and a conclusion that tells people over again what you've been telling them the whole essay, except a little different, and you end with a cool/dramatic/ominous clincher statement that ties the whole thing together. So let us take stock of this poor excuse for an essay. If my introductory paragraph had an essay map, somebody lost it. My thesis statement was buried there somewhere; the next paragraph had nothing to do with it. Neither does this paragraph. As it stands the score is Joe 0, essay -3, and procrastination 126, but that is all going to change.

Thesis: Watching movies focused on romantic love from a young age causes you to value that good above all, to get into relationships much sooner; because the primacy of romantic love has been stamped on your subconscious since you were a little kid, you grow up desiring it almost obsessively.

Point 1: If you watch something or someone over and over, it affects your behavior. Films are somethings that have someones in them behaving certain ways. If these behaviors are presented as good the impressionable will be tempted to imitate them.

Point 2: If the behavior or ideas you watch are bad but presented as good, then your behavior will be affected adversely, particularly where love is concerned. As Robert Sklar says in MovieMade America: “Before the movies, the art of love played almost no part in the culture's public curriculum. In movies, however, it became the

Arts & Culture major course of study.” Sklar then cites a lecture of the ’20s sociologist Edward Alsworth Ross, “What the Films Are Doing to Young America”: “Thanks to their premature exposure to stimulating films, their sex instincts were stirred into life years sooner than used to be the case with boys and girls from good homes, and as a result in many the ‘love chase’ has come to be the master interest in life.”

Point 3: Many Disney movies present modes of behavior and ideas that are bad as good. They present the “love chase” as the most important thing in life. Think The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Pocahontas, even Cinderella.

She falls for a dude because he plays the flute well. Her father tells her to stay away from the human world. She disobeys him and basically makes a deal with the devil in order to be with her man (who fell in love when she sang). Their relationship hinges on their mutual respect of the other’s musical proficiency. The devil-lady (I'm going to pretend I don't know her name is Ursula, or who Triton, Ariel, Prince Eric, Flounder, and Sebastian are, and thus preserve a semblance of dignity) tricks her and leaves her to die. Daddy takes her place and the devil-witch becomes head honcho of SeaWorld. But a little bit of girl power and a well-placed splintered bow-strip to the abdomen save the day. Eric and Ariel marry, SeaWorld is saved, and they all live happily ever after.

Moral of the story: falling in love is awesome, you should try it, even if you have to make a deal with a devil-witch-octopus lady, endanger your kingdom, and completely disobey your father. It'll all turn out right in the end if you follow your heart.

Aladdin:

Aladdin is a thief. He doesn't try to get a job or pursue legal means of obtaining his daily bread. But he's got a purple vest and a funny musical number. Jasmine hates living like a princess and getting whatever she wants. Aladdin lies and treats his friends like a jerk when they cramp his style, but he gets what he wants: to fall in love. He does and says anything to be in love; there are no consequences for this behavior, giant snake excepted. But the point isn't so much what he does as why he does it. The emphasis is on romance as the highest good.

She endangers her people for Mel Gibso…I mean, John Smith. Her fiancé dies. She betrays her father. John Smith gets shot by some fat British Governor. All for love. It works out though, as she and John Smith facilitate peace between white men and Indians, ending racism against Native Americans for the rest of U.S history.

Let's be real—Prince Charming only falls for her because she's cute.

They dance and take a walk. That's all they do and within ten minutes

of seeing each other this is what they're singing: So this is love So this is what makes life divine I'm all aglow, And now I know The key to all heaven is mine . . . And I can fly I'll touch ev'ry star in the sky So this is the miracle that I've been dreaming of So this is love.

Then, thanks to some crafty mice, she makes it in time for the shoefitting and marries the prince. Happily ever after. Again.

I don't mean to say that all the themes in Disney movies are bad; in fact there are a lot of positive messages about courage, friendship, and self-sacrifice. But every Disney movie presents romantic love as the highest good. Furthermore, the obsessive pursuit of romantic attachment comes with no long-term negative consequences. If you have these two themes pounded into your head from a very young age, don't you think it would influence the way you see love?

Conclusion: Watching Disney movies from a young age, over and over, encourages a skewed vision of what love is and how to get it; that it's simply a spontaneous and “indescribable” feeling, that you should do whatever it takes to get it, and that it's pretty much the greatest thing ever and obtaining it is the whole purpose of life. Falling in love equals happiness.

There I said it: Disney movies might cause kids to pursue relationships obsessively and well before they're ready. I don't think it's a stretch to say that while Disney movies may not have any overt objectionable content like foul language, sex, drugs, or strong violence, they have a great many overarching themes that aren't necessarily healthy. Try to think of a Disney movie that isn't ultimately about how great it is to fall in love, and how it should be pursued whatever the cost. Look at the parallels: I knew so many kids in high school with an overwhelming desire for romantic companionship, including myself.

They disobeyed their parents to pursue it, pretended they were people that they weren't, and lied and betrayed their friends, all to experience this thing called “falling in love.” If they didn't feel “in love” after a few smooching sessions, they moved on to someone else. Was this because they watched too many Disney movies as a kid? I don't know, but I am willing to say that might have something to do with it. Just look at some of the lyrics to the best known Disney love song: Tell me, princess, now when did You last let your heart decide?

No one to tell us no Or where to go Or say we're only dreaming...

In a nutshell, that’s the way a lot of people pursue relationships, and not just kids: follow your heart, and don't let anyone say you can't.

That philosophy led me and a lot of other people to heartbreak. I'm not saying don't watch Disney movies, I'm just saying perhaps they’re not as harmless as you'd think.

15|fifteen

Faith & Reason

Friendships Within the by

Catholic Sphere

Caroline Deucher ’12

T

here is a trend now-a-days called “the sassy gay friend.” This styling describes a strong friendship between a guy and girl that is not only obviously non-romantic but also contains a degree of equality not found in other male/female friendships. Now some guys at Christendom are worried about getting into any form of relationship with a girl simply because they are terrified of dating any other girls besides “the one.” This idea leads to two problems: they don’t have any female friends and they don’t understand girls. Here’s where a number of people will roll their eyes and say “here we go again,” but we aren’t dealing with dating or understanding women; we’re dealing with male/ female friendships.

Other guys act, and sometimes even say things, expressing their contempt for women, particularly when it comes to philosophy. Perhaps women aren’t as suited to abstract thinking as men, but there are many things at which they excel wherein men fail. Besides, there shouldn’t be a competition about this at all, since men and women are different yet have the same goal in reaching Heaven.

But let us now philosophize. Most everyone on campus has heard Aristotle’s definition of friendship—friendship is the willing the good of/for another. “Willing the good” for someone is great—it’s just not really Catholic; it’s commonly known as philanthropy. Catholics are called to charity, which is like carbonated philanthropy—it’s got something more. At the same time, no one can really want what’s best for another if they don’t know the person, and that’s where hanging out comes in. If you truly want to get to know someone, if you truly want to be their friend, you have to put in the effort and show it. You don’t really know what something or someone is worth until you work for it and then you understand its value.

The “showing” is the most crucial element to friendship because humans are made of a spiritual aspect and a material aspect. Just think: you can’t possibly know that someone wants what’s best for you.

They might say so, but how often do we simply think “Yeah, right”?

It’s in actions, which take place in the material world, that we come to know what’s unseen. Look at a crucifix and you will understand that God isn’t just talking when He says He loves us.

It is at this point that we should turn to Blessed John Paul

“

II’s Theology of the Body. He points to Genesis as his basis for saying men and women are equal but different. Adam and Eve both shared in a common humanity—the “image and likeness of God,” which they passed down to all of us. Men and women are meant to be different because their differences enable them to help each other.

As Catholics, we know there is no greater good than Heaven, so as friends we are obliged to help each other reach this prime good.

It’s much easier to do this within our own little spheres, just willing the good for someone. Perhaps we’ll bother to show it to our friends of the same gender, but as Catholics we are called to be the same kind of friend

Both genders, but especially men, need to realize that the other is a person and should be treated with a certain degree of respect and on an individual basis since each person is a unique individual worthy in and of themselves.

16|sixteen

”

to everyone—men and women. Both genders, but especially men, need to realize that the other is a person and should be treated with a certain degree of respect and on an individual basis since each person is a unique individual worthy in and of themselves. The whole idea of “cooties” shows a lack of maturity, which the acceptance of “personhood” dispels.

If men spend their time degrading women—even unconsciously—they’ll find themselves constantly being put down in their turn. Girls feel like they have to be tough to survive the negativity they run into daily but they don’t realize it is fine to be a “marshmallow.”

Guys quite frequently fail to realize that girls are different—or at least guys fail to treat them with the respect they are due as women (they aren't just "one of the guys"). However, ideally the same naturalness should be present in both guy/guy friendships and guy/girl friendships because if we are sincerely striving to be good Catholics we should have only one face—His.

Faith & Reason

“To the pure, all things are pure” by

I

Lauren Enk ’14

n the 1941 British film Pimpernel Smith, Leslie Howard plays a seemingly-mild-mannered archeologist history professor who secretly rescues fellow intellectuals from the clutches of the Nazis.

In one scene, at a high-society soirée, the professor refers innocently in the course of a conversation to the fact that the ancient Greek statue of Aphrodite he unearthed was (of course) nude. Shocked by his frank simplicity, the prim-and-proper bystanders are a bit flustered; the Professor, realizing their embarrassment, mildly replies; “Oh, well, to the pure all things are pure.”

When I saw this film for the first time, this quote fascinated

“

theology of the body.”

As coming across that line from Paul in the context of the film made me realize, what Paul and Pieper say easily applies not only to art but to daily conversations and thoughts. The first incident that came to my mind was when I recently recommended a song to someone.

“The lyrics are very sweet,” I said, “Except for one line which implies something inappropriate.” When my companion asked me what the line was, I told him; with a puzzled look on his face, he replied, “Um, that doesn’t have to be something bad. That could be interpreted as something wholesome.” I felt abashed by my friend’s purity of heart.

Where I followed the trail of innuendo, his thoughts remained on a simpler, more innocent plane.

Impurity in our hearts can especially affect daily conversation in the realm of gossip—when a nasty rumor spreads quickly around a community and swiftly mushrooms completely out of proportion. One foul mind can defile a situation by its own perception, and pass it on thus contaminated to others. Take, for instance, the story of Marian the librarian in The Music Man. “She was seen going and coming from his house,” the chattering ladies of town begin whispering to each other, and the mutterings crescendo to wild misjudgments of her character: “She made brazen overtures!” As it turns out, Marian’s actions—paying a visit to a family friend—were completely innocent, but the society gossipers saw her only through their own tainted lens.

It is so easy to make similar misjudgments of others, to unfairly project motivations or actions onto the characters of others: to assume, for instance that the elderly lady in the back of church prays loudly for attention, not because her hearing aid is off; or that the person who leaves daily Mass early does so disrespectfully, and not because it is the only way he can both attend Mass daily and make it to work on time; or that the young woman in the supermarket dresses immodestly for deliberately sinful reasons, rather than out of simple ignorance.

But to the pure, all things are pure. So we must strive to be supremely careful in our judgments of others, because if we take a look at the way we see others, it will be a reflection not of their character, but of ours. Our sin clouds our vision of our neighbor—and that means that ultimately it clouds our vision of God. Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God.

We must strive to be supremely careful in our judgments of others, because if we take a look at the way we see others, it will be a reflection not of their character, but of ours.

me, so I determined to look it up. As it turns out, the line originates with St. Paul, who wrote in his letter to Titus: “To the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure; their very minds and consciences are corrupted.”

This little line struck me so deeply because, as all sophomores recently studied in Ethics, there is a fundamental connection between the way we perceive things and our purity of heart. During the course, we reviewed the writings of Catholic philosopher Josef Pieper on chastity in The Four Cardinal Virtues. Selfishness is blinding, he argues, because it makes one see only one’s own private good as good. Unchastity, then, is uniquely blinding because it is uniquely selfish in an area—sexuality— where man is called to be especially unselfish. Our purity of heart or lack thereof, Pieper concludes, dramatically affects our moral vision. On the other side of the coin, chastity makes you see things clearly, as they really are.

Pieper’s point makes perfect sense, and coincides exactly with Paul’s. A person who sees things through the lens of purity will not see indecency or innuendo where there is none to be seen; but the man who sees all things by the light (or darkness, rather) of unchastity will see sinfulness in all things. Adam and Eve saw each other’s nakedness with pure eyes before the Fall; once their vision was altered by sin, they felt the need to cover themselves. Similarly, Michelangelo’s paintings that bedeck the Sistine Chapel have been condemned by various puritanically-minded groups and figures throughout history who felt they were more pornographic than sacred. But John Paul II reverently defended the artwork, calling the Sistine Chapel the “sanctuary of the

”

17|seventeen

Satire

The Kids From the Other Side of Town by

Matt Naham ‘13

O

ne sobering eve I glowered at the mirror form of myself, in the privacy of my candle-lit room, beside a flame-less hearth, analyzing a broken countenance. I reflected upon the swelling, the throbbing of the upper region of my left cheek, the ugliness of my blackened eye, the eye that was deformed at birth, fixed by procedure, and then repeatedly blackened again by my own stupidity—and much to the delight of the kids from the other side of town.

As ridiculous as it may sound, I wasn’t the only kid in town with the same problem. In fact, my town is entirely made up of kids, kids who are just like me, with the same black eye, albeit some are simply less-conscious of it and others completely oblivious, typically by choice; these others are the kids from the other side of town. I always wonder how they can be so blind as to ignore the one thing we can say we all have in common. We all have different heights, weights, likes, dislikes, but this black eye is something we all have, it almost appears natural to me. The kids like me, we were a very select group these days; we recognized our disfigurement, endeavored to do something about it, yet were persecuted, persecuted even by some of our own brethren.

The irony of it! The ones self-conscious enough to recognize their sorry state mocked! Mocked by brothers, sisters, and cousins, links to our very bloodline, links aware of the problem in belief, but in practice?

And even worse! Mocked by the ones much too preoccupied with more tangible things to wonder or worry about their own disfigurement. And to what end? For the sake of liberty, equality, unity? I never understood how anything would ever be settled if we couldn’t all agree on what it was we all had in common.

We were always free to roam about the town as we chose.

It was a wonderful town founded by a timeless elder, whose name, although always cherished—reverenced even—by me, was slowly fading away into obscurity, and at the behest of the kids from the other side of town—amazing how the timeless can pass away. There was only one pillar left to stand for our society, and all the worse, many of Her stewards, helpers throughout the ages—Sophia, Faith, Hope, Charity, Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, Temperance—were all, one by one, cast out by the kids from the other side of town, rendering Her speech speechless. Lately it’s seemed as if we kids were on our own from here on out, or so I’d think if it weren’t for Her.

The town had a centre, where the heart was located, a group of seven large houses, mansions if you will, which sheltered the kids like me, my brothers and sisters, each of us with our own rooms, each containing a window for looking out over the courtyard, for keeping watch. It’s a shame most of our windows were much too often clouded 18|eighteen

by the dirt and grime brought upon by the forces of nature. I’ve always tried my best to keep my window clean as a whistle to keep my outlook on the world clear, pristine, and pure. Sometimes I just fail to notice how dirty it is—the ache of my chronically bruised and blackened eye being ever distracting to me—but eventually I regain my focus, even if it takes a while. I always wonder, though, how some of my brothers and sisters justify letting their windows go untended. I wonder how they remain satisfied and unconcerned, settling for a grimy lens of a worldview.

Moreover, I wonder how they can so cavalierly disregard how such filth will look to our neighbors just outside the center of town. Personally, I find it scandalous that nothing is done about these windows, for we are all guilty of standing by and remaining passive, silent about them—I myself am guilty of this. I’ve read about the days when She would do something about these brothers and sisters who obstinately refused to tend to their windows—especially if they led others to pollute their panes— but maybe She’s just too old now, too often tired to deal with some of our wayward own, let alone our wayward neighbors. Sadly but truly, there are many more vacancies in our houses than ever before as many brothers and sisters have moved just outside the centre, some all the way to other the side of town. Sometimes I wish more would follow in their lead, for in many cases, the inhabited rooms might as well be vacant.

Suddenly, I heard a knock, which snapped me out of my lostin-thought state and sent me scurrying to the door. I opened it, and behold, an ostensibly old woman stood hunched, with a lit candle in her left hand. It was just light enough for me to identify Mama, as She was commonly called by Her “children”—she always fancied calling us her children. She was the elderly presence of the town and had tenants for as long as I can remember, from what seems like the beginning of the Common Era. It has always puzzled me as to why she continued to let us places to stay, even after all the transgressions, the futility, the inability to clean even the most fundamental and basic of things; I’d always supposed it was because it was what the town founder would have wanted, yet nonetheless I felt a great deal indebted to Her.

Just then, on this occasion of uneasiness, She took three steps forward and raised the candle to Her face, revealing a grief-stricken, yet spotless countenance. In that moment, Her mournful glance enlightened me: the woman’s consolation was my consolation and my distress Her distress. My eye had ceased to ache, the hearth was ablaze, and the room was as well-lit as day. She reached out to me with Her immaculate right hand, I accepted, and we went forth into the world together.

The Last Word

Thumbs

Another opportunity for presenting our opinions on campus occurences. Agree? Disagree? Have an opinion of your own? Then stop being lazy and let us know.

Christendom Memes, started by a god-like anonymous student, have been providing ample amusement throughout breaks, midterms, thesising sessions...if we had hats, we would tip them to you.

Hey seniors. Guess what? As of March 25th, only 48 days until graduation. Get ready to leave The Bubble, kids.

The Rambler has 150 likes on Facebook. If we can double that by the end of April, when the next issue comes out, a random student will be picked to win a gift certificate to Applebees. So hey, start likin’.

Okay, who really likes the paint job in front of the Commons?

Really?

The Eastern Roman Empire fell to the Turks. Yeah, we know that was in 1453 but it still makes us sad. It’s not like we were printing The Rambler in the 15th century.

Christendom, Y U No Have Wi-Fi?!

CTRL-C IS A GOD– WAIT, WHAT? by the editorial staff he times are changing. The Modern Language Association has created guidelines for citing a tweet. And two months ago, a nineteen year old philosophy student by the name of Isak Gerson established an eerie, new religion: the Missionary Church of Kopimism (Missionerande Kopimistsamfundet in the original Swedish). According to their website, Kopimists compose “a religious group centered in Sweden who believe that the copying and the sharing of information is the best and most beautiful that is.”

Kopimists profess that the meaning of life lies in the “copying, distribution, and remixing of information.” The site continues, “To have your information copied is a token of appreciation, that someone thinks you have done something good.” That last bit is slightly awkward for us, for we copied that line purely with the intention of critiquing it.

Tenets of the so-called religion include: information has intrinsic value irrespective of content, the act of copying information is ethically right, and the internet is holy. True to its missionary title, the site asserts that it seeks to “influence others to adopt a more Kopimistic approach to life.” Perhaps the Missionary Church of Kopimism is merely a ploy for blatantly campaigning piracy. With their prophesies of doom for copyrights, it is not surprising that Kopimists have already been linked to illegal file-sharing. Certainly, Kopimisim effectively takes the debate surrounding copyright laws to a new level.

Regardless, it would seem that Kopimists have ulterior motives for wanting state-recognized religious status. The fact that they consider Ctrl-C andCtrl-V to be

T

sacred symbols can hardly be taken seriously, and it is difficult to believe that they mean it seriously in the first place. The organization’s underhandedness is accentuated by the fact that, while demanding to be officially recognized as a religion because it fulfills the “belief system with rituals” requirement, a marked disrespect for Christianity suffuses Kopimistic websites. For instance, they state aggressively, “To create is to copy. That something occurs out of nothing is an absurd idea.” Such a declaration just goes to show how little respect one can have for anything if he professes to respect everything.

So, as of January, the Missionary Church of Kopimism is recognized by the courts of Sweden. We think this event is significant as an example of philosophy gone wrong. We do not endorse copying Isak Gerson and his cultish following.

Missionerande Kopimistsamfundet may seem humorously absurd, but it actually serves as a new name for idolatry—the website itself calls information the “holiest of the holies.” The so-called religion has spread to the U.S., and Kopimists may come knocking at your door soon. So consider yourself warned.

19|nineteen

Career Fair

Work Day Work out

Cosponsored by the Prince William Chamber of Commerce and Human Resources at George Mason University

Looking for a Job? EvEnt: DatE:

timE:

Location:

Work Day Work oUT CarEEr Fair Thursday, March 29, 2012 10 a.m.–3 p.m.

Freedom aquatic & Fitness Center Prince William Campus, George Mason University, 10900 University Boulevard, Manassas, Va 20110

Workshops: resume/interviewing/Employer Experience Job Seeker Frustration/Process oNET/Economic Context/High Demand Federal applications/online applications Workshops provided by DC DOES.

Looking for EmpLoyEEs? Exhibitor fee: $250 per exhibit space; $25 additional fee if electricity is needed. Two free lunch tickets will be provided to each exhibit space. Deadline to register for a table is Friday, March 16, 2012.

To lock in your exhibit space or become a sponsor, contact Molly Grove, George Mason University, 703-993-4705 or e-mail mgrove1@gmu.edu.

Admission is free to All job seekers.