May 2019 by The Fenwick Review

The Independent Journal of Opinion at the College of the Holy Cross

Quod Verum Pulchrum Volume XXVI, ISSUE V May 2019

Mission Statement As the College of the Holy Crossâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s independent journal of opinion, The Fenwick Review strives to promote intellectual freedom and progress on campus. The staff of The Fenwick Review takes pride in defending traditional Catholic principles and conservative ideas, and does its best to articulate thoughtful alternatives to the dominant campus ethos. Our staff values Holy Cross very much, and desires to help make it the best it can be by strengthening and renewing the Collegeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Catholic identity, as well as by working with the College to encourage constructive dialogue and an open forum to foster new ideas.

Disclaimers This journal is published by students of the College of the Holy Cross two or three times per semester. The College of the Holy Cross is not responsible for its content. Articles do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board.

Donation Policy The Fenwick Review is funded through a generous grant from the Collegiate Network as well as individual donations. The Fenwick Review is a student organization affiliated with, but not funded by, the College of the Holy Cross. We welcome any donation you might be able to give to support our cause! To do so, please write a check to College of the Holy Cross (memo line: The Fenwick Review) and mail to: Michael Raheb and Seamus Brennan P.O. Box 4A 1 College Street Worcester, MA 01610

Like Us: @FenwickReview

Email Us: fenwickrev@g.holycross.edu

Visit Us: www.thefenwickreview.com

May 2019

Table of Contents Letter from the Editors......................................................................4

Staff 2018-19 Co-Editors in Chief Michael Raheb ‘20

Michael Raheb and Seamus Brennan ‘20 Death, Graduation, and Being an Easter Person......................5 John Buzzard ‘19

Seamus Brennan ‘20

Deputy Editor

Get Uncomfortable, It’s College.....................................................7

Cameron Smith ‘20

Marisa George ‘21 Faculty: Please Don’t Deprive the Ciocca Center of Koch Support ..................................................................................................9 The Editors

Social Media Editor Ryan Foley ‘21

Layout Editor

On Homosexuality and the Church.............................................12

John Buzzard ‘19

Andrew Buck ‘22 Don’t Worry, Your Paper Usage Is Not Causing Deforestation......................................................................................14 Professor David Schaefer, Political Science In Support of Priestly Celibacy......................................................16 Matthew Corrigan ‘21

Staff Writers Margaret Anderson ‘21

Matthew Corrigan ‘21 James Dooley ‘20 Jack Rosenwinkel ‘21 Jonathan Klinker ‘21

In the Name of Freedom................................................................17

Marisa George ‘21 Andrew Buck ‘22

Andrew Buck ‘22

John Pietro ‘22 In Defense of Our Freedoms.........................................................18

John Pietro ‘22

Faculty Advisor Professor David Schaefer Political Science

Cover Photo Seamus Brennan ‘20

May 2019

Editors’ Note

Thank You We must reserve the space to offer a heartfelt thank you to our benefactors, without whom The Fenwick Review would not exist. We extend our profound gratitude to the Collegiate Network and the generous individual and alumni donors to The Fenwick Review, for their ongoing enthusiasm and support of our mission. Mr. Robert Abbott ‘66 Mr. Guy C. Bosetti Dr. and Mrs. Paul Braunstein Mr. Jim Carter ‘59 Mr. Kevin Collins Dr. and Mrs. John P. Connors Dr. Thomas Craig MD, MPH, ‘59 Mr. and Mrs. Michael Dailey Mr. John J. Ferguson Mr. Michael F. Fox

Dr. Dennis C. Golden Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Gorman Mr. Robert W. Graham III Mr. and Mrs. Thomas W. Greene Mr. Paul M. Guyet Mr. Patrick D. Hanley The Hon. Paul J. Hanley Mr. Robert R. Henzler Mr. William Horan

Mr. Joseph Kilmartin Mr. Brian Kingston, ‘68 Mr. Robert J. Leary ‘49 Mr. Bernard Long ‘62 Mr. Francis F. Marshall ‘48

Dear Reader, Thank you for picking up this year’s very final copy of The Fenwick Review. We hope you enjoy reading it; we’ve packed this issue so full that we had to omit the little space-filling picture of Fenwick Hall beneath the table of contents. If you miss taking a look at Fenwick Hall’s noble exterior, head over to our new Instagram page (@fenwickreview) or our new website (thefenwickreview.com). The website is beautiful, contains embedded digital magazines of all our issues since 2012, and has a stockpile of over 70 articles in text (and, once we add this issue, even more!). Yet otherwise, so ends a chaotic year. Perhaps, instead of ending on a sour note—as we jaded members of the Review are so wont to do—we should end on a happier one. Mr. John Buzzard, our layout editor and perhaps our most loyal writer, is the only graduating senior on our staff this year, and we will miss him dearly. (And, perhaps, if you have been reading his work all along, you will miss him too.) Yet his article in this issue, “Death, Graduation, and Being an Easter Person,” demonstrates a profound love for and understanding of Christ’s Resurrection on Easter that we should all embody in our own lives. Even in spring, it’s a breath of fresh air. What is there left to say? We are basking in Paschaltide, moving on to summer vacation, and leaving Holy Cross behind, for the moment. But we’ll be back soon, and with as much fire as ever. We’ll see you again in September (unless you keep track of our website and Instagram page, where you might see us earlier!). Thank you for reading and supporting our publication, and we sincerely hope you have a wonderful summer. Seamus Brennan & Michael Raheb Co-Editors-in-Chief Dr. Ronald E. Safko Dr. William Sheehy ‘59 Mr. Sean F. Sullivan Jr. Mr. George Van Setter Dr. John Verdon

Dr. James E. Mulvihill ‘62 Mr. Kevin O'Scannlain Fr. Paul Scalia

May 2019

Death, Graduation, and Being an Easter Person John Buzzard ‘19 “Do not abandon yourselves to despair. We are the Easter people and hallelujah is our song” –Pope Saint John Paul II

explain to a child why his Great Aunt isn’t with us anymore? How do you explain to a teenager that the Grandmother who was the strong Matriarch and glue of his family has passed away? How do you explain to a college student that one of his dearest friends and role models has died very suddenly? How does a young adult face the fact that his parents, his family, his friends, At the time that this article is written, we are still in and all the people he loves will one day die? How does the Easter period. By the time that this article is pubhe face the fact that he too, will die someday? These lished, at some point in May, it will still be Eastertide. aren’t easy questions to answer, and they’re reasons Christ is risen - Christ is risen indeed - so let us be glad behind why people look toward religion for the answer. and let us be joyous that our Savior has risen from the In my faith, I have found solace in that I am a member dead. Let’s face it: if Christ of the Body of Christ and this did not rise from the dead, Body has conquered death. he would have been another I am no theologian, nor so-called prophet that was will I ever say that I have all put to death for his radical of the answers to life’s chalideas. It is not enough to lenging questions. I trust that limit the Resurrection to a the thousands of years of metaphor and it is not Church scholarship have alenough to pretend that it ready approached these subwas just a part of a nice stojects and offer a much more ry. Jesus Christ was senarticulate answer than I ever tenced to death on the cross, could. It took a while for sure, died between two thieves, but when I was willing to take descended into Hell to free a leap of faith and trust in the heroes and prophets of God for the answer I found the Old Testament, rose that things made sense. from the dead, walked Thankfully, we are subject to among us again, and then the mercy of Christ, a mercy ascended into Heaven. That that included walking among is what we believe, that is us, teaching us how to live, what we defend, and that is dying for us, and ultimately what we should be in awe of opening up the gates of heavevery day of our lives. To be en to all people. Thankfully, Christ-like, among other there is an outline in the form ways in which to emulate of the Catholic Church as to Him, is to assert that death how one can follow Christ’s Image courtesy of pixabay.com has no dominion because we are an footsteps and conquer death. It makes Easter people. We are focused on the Resurrection. sense that if we don’t follow the instructions, we are When I was growing up, I attended many wakes and going to have a hard time and ultimately fall victim to funerals for deceased family members and friends. the temptations of Hell, a place void of God (which, sufFrom an early age I was exposed to the grim realities of fice it to say, is devoid of love, hope, charity). Hell is not death and to face this fact of life head on. How do you the place to be, no matter what people may try to sug-

May 2019

gest. To say that you want to be devoid of all that is good is just a blatant lie to yourself and others. We are not meant for Hell, we are meant for Resurrection, and we are meant to be constantly living in the model of Easter. All of this may seem grim, and frankly, a talk about death is going to be grim and uncomfortable. In navigating our discomfort with the subject of death, we can find the joy that Christ died in order to bring us: we don’t need to be afraid of death. If we are truly an Easter people, death is just another motion toward Eternal Life with the Body of Christ. That Body is the Communion of Saints, those holy souls who dedicated their lives to serving Christ and to serving others. That Body includes our family and friends who have answered Christ’s call to community, compassion, and all things that are good. In dying, we are not alone. That part is particularly important because we must face the reality that we are all probably going to Purgatory first, which is not a bad thing. It is that final purification before Heaven and we, as the Church on Earth, can pray for the souls in Purgatory and help them along their journey. Please always pray for the deceased, as they may need all the help that they can get. The Venerable Fulton Sheen has a beautiful quote on this connection, saying, “As we enter Heaven, we will see them, so many of them, coming toward us and thanking us. We will ask who they are and they will say: ‘A poor soul you prayed for in purgatory.’” There is nothing but love in our call to prayer. To wrap up this idea and, ultimately, my final article as an undergraduate, there are many things in life that seem to offer the opportunity for despair in a similar manner to death. For example, as a graduating senior there are many times that I feel like I’m dying in a certain way. I feel like I’m losing a part of my identity and, in a sense, this may be true. In graduating from college and Holy Cross in particular, it seems like a whole world is being left behind. Post-grad seems a type of ‘Purgatory’ before getting a job or establishing myself. It is so common to get into these nostalgic daydreams of desolation as the doomsday clock seems to tick ever so closer to midnight. Yet I cannot stress this enough:

we are an Easter People. Graduation isn’t death, it is a resurrection of one’s own self that has been aided by four life-changing years. We don’t have to leave everyone and disappear. We will see each other again and true friendships will last. Death, or rather graduation in this sense, will only have as much power as we will let it. Do we fear it and run from it or do we have the faith and confidence to trust that it is not the end? I trust that my graduation is not the end of my connection to Holy Cross nor is it an end to any sort of life. I will forever be grateful for the guidance, for the people, for the challenges, for the heartbreak, and most importantly, the outpouring of love from my friends and family. We are an Easter people. We are an Easter campus. We are meant for something greater than death or graduation; we are meant to rise into new life with Christ. May we always be comforted by Christ’s love and mercy and may you, reader, find solace in the victory of Christ over death because you are meant for Heaven and meant to be loved.

“I have found solace in that I am a member of the Body of Christ and this Body has conquered death.”

May 2019

“We are not meant for Hell, we are meant for Resurrection, and we are meant to be constantly living in the model of Easter.”

Image courtesy of pixabay.com

Get Uncomfortable, It’s College Marisa George ‘21 Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist and an expert in the psychology of morality, gave a talk at Holy Cross in April as the Hanify-Howland Memorial Lecture’s distinguished speaker. He currently teaches at NYU in the Stern School of Business, has won three major teaching awards, has had over 3 million views on his TED talks, and has written countless articles and three books. His latest book, The Coddling of the American Mind, cowritten by Greg Lukianoff, was released in 2018. This book was the focus of Haidt’s talk. Although Haidt’s speech was quite good and I heartily recommend buying his book, I would like to emphasize one topic from his ideas: exposure to discomfort and its necessity on the campus. One of Haidt’s key points in his speech and book is “How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas are Setting Up a Generation for Failure.” In other words: covering up triggering material and preventing controversial speakers from speaking at universities, which supposedly helps college students, hurts them in the long run. Sure, listening to controversial material might be uncomfortable. A socially conservative student learning about transgenderism and LGBT culture in a Gender Studies class may feel uneasy, but many others would emphasize the importance of being exposed to such ideas. Exposure provides a better understanding of American society, where understanding other perspectives is - or at least should be - important. That idea of exposure applies on both sides, however, which many college students (and nowadays professors) often forget. Why was it acceptable for protestors at UC Berkeley, for example, to scream at Ben Shapiro to the point where the University spent $600,000 on security? Students insulted Shapiro as he went by and several

were arrested. Yet he in no way, shape, or form has tried to incite violence or harm at any college campus. His ideas, such as those on abortion and transgenderism, might be uncomfortable, but he has openly denounced white supremacy, says he does not support hate, and emphasizes that respect for those with different views is critically important. Rather than protesting and preventing controversial speakers from coming to their universities, students should willingly endure discomfort in order to better understand their own views. I do not expect anyone reading this to magically change their political and moral ideologies, but they need to be openminded and respectful of all views. That often does not occur on college campuses. Since becoming a writer of The Fenwick Review, I have become more aware of how people view its content. When I hear it mentioned, I usually hear “it’s trash,” “let’s rip this garbage up,” and so on. One of the latest, and more public, comments I have seen is on the Gossip at HC Instagram page, where someone submitted “Don’t have gossip. I just want to drag The Fenwick Review. I saw a copy and ripped it up. Thank God Claude is gone.” The Instagram page responded with “He is sorely (not) missed and hopefully the FR just fades out of existence soon.” They then posted the caption as follows (note the asterisks are for profanities): “Ding dong the witch is dead, the wicked witch, the wicked witch. F**k the Fenwick Review and the alumni that fund them. All it does is divide campus and fuel hate. Do we need to talk about Prof. Liew and the bulls**t they started?” Most people read this and will not even blink an eye. In fact, many of you may even laugh and agree. No, I am not going to find the person who wrote that and tell them how hateful they are. No, I am not going to

“Exposure provides a better understanding of American society, where understanding other perspectives is - or at least should be - important.”

“I do not expect anyone reading this to magically change their political and moral ideologies, but they need to be openminded and respectful of all views. That often does not occur on college campuses.”

May 2019

respond with hateful speech or insult views that are different from mine. I do, however, think this perception of The Fenwick Review shows a subtle way that the problem of polarization and avoiding discomfort is continually growing. The Fenwick Review prides itself on its conservative and Catholic ideals, which many people do not agree with. Instead of entertaining an article against the ENGAGE Summit or an article where a conservative professor speaks about problematic student behavior, many students simply call them “trash.” They imply - or even explicitly state - that conservatism and Catholicism are wrong, hateful, or both. I am not saying that the Review has never published a controversial article (on the contrary, in fact). However, college is an optimal time for students to learn and grow. Only reading The Spire, going to talks that align with one’s views, and taking non-controversial classes does not encourage true learning. It creates a false sense of security in one’s beliefs. Since being at Holy Cross, I have considerably deepened my own views and beliefs, but the times I have grown most were when I was pushed out of my comfort zone. I had always gone to small, private, Catholic schools where I learned little about topics like gender, sexuality, and race. I took an Anthropology class my freshman year which included contemporary subjects such as transgenderism, immigration, economic systems, and white privilege. I was also introduced to more

Image courtesy of Sira Anamwong at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

foreign concepts, such as cultures with nontraditional ways of living: walking marriages, headhunting, and circumcising women. In some classes, I had knowledge of the subject matter and was excited to participate and learn more. On other days, I felt uncomfortable and entered class without understanding how some cultures could hold their respective views. Although I did not suddenly change my beliefs about every subject, I did, however, learn much more than I expected to. After taking that class, I am now better able to speak more confidently on my views while also respecting the perspectives of others. Similarly, during my first semester this year, I attended a combined College Republican and College Democrat meeting. Although I was excited, I was worried that both sides would devolve into yelling and insults. Instead, we calmly held small group discussions on gun control, immigration, and healthcare. Everyone at the meeting seemed to enjoy talking openly about their views, even the most controversial ones, and at the end of each topic, the groups shared what they agreed upon. Sometimes the agreement was plentiful; at other times, there were only one or two points of agreement. Creating an open environment allowed for healthy discussion on uncomfortable, controversial topics. I tell those anecdotes not to pat myself on the back, but to demonstrate that we should let ourselves be uncomfortable. While maintaining your convictions, let yourself be exposed to different views. It’s similar to exposure therapy in psychology: an individual with anxiety improves more quickly and for a longer time by exposing themself to what makes them anxious. They fall deeper into anxiety by shielding themselves from it. Next time you walk into Kimball, pick up a copy of The Spire and The Fenwick Review. Go in with an open mind. If you disagree, have an intellectual conversation with a friend who disliked your favorite article. Instead of just going to Rehm talks for your classes, go to talks with controversial subjects. If you agree with the speaker, talk to a professor who disagreed. Discuss each others’ viewpoints. If you disagree, ask the speaker a considerate question. If you are still unsatisfied, you at least will leave there having learned about a different perspective and its reasoning. Being uncomfortable is the only way to grow. And in case you were wondering, The Fenwick Review is not fading out. We’re here to stay.

May 2019

Faculty: Please Don’t Deprive the Ciocca Center of Koch Support The Editors In April 2019, The Fenwick Review obtained access to a set of faculty-authored letters and petitions aimed at terminating the recently established financial agreement between the Charles Koch Foundation (CKF) and Holy Cross’s Ciocca Center for Business, Ethics, and Society (CBES). The documents, which were distributed to some faculty members last month, include a letter to the provost requesting that the College terminate the agreement as soon as possible. Also included were four additional petitions asking the administration to reject the CKF funding, to suspend the activities of the CBES, to establish a Committee on Academic Programssanctioned review of the CBES, and to institute a faculty committee tasked with investigating the CBES. The Review is not at liberty to directly quote any of the circulated material. As this issue of The Fenwick Review went to print, the letter to the provost had received 91 signatures from present and former faculty. In an email sent to some faculty on April 19, the petition organizers wrote that by accepting funds from the CKF, the College of the Holy Cross has contradicted its mission and has potentially compromised the faculty’s own personal and professional ethics. The circulators of the petition suggest that the agenda of the CKF is antithetical to Catholic social teaching because it embraces capitalism, an economic system they believe unjustly favors the wealthy. The petitions were to be discussed and voted on at a May 7 faculty assembly. The first petition, which calls on the administration to reject funding from the CKF, alleges (without any supporting evidence) that the Koch brothers, who fund the Foundation, advocate an unregulated free-market system that is incompatible with Catholic social teaching. (The Kochs certainly favor free markets, but hardly “unregulated” ones – e.g., the elimination of laws punishing fraud or restricting air and water pollution.) Additionally, the Kochs are accused of violating Catholic doctrine for supposedly denying the existence of climate change and for profiting from the production of fossil fuels. The petitioners cite Pope Francis’s 2015 encyclical Laudato Si’ as the basis for the Kochs’ supposed incompatibility with Catholic teach-

ing. Acceptance of CKF funding, per the circulators of the petition, would imply endorsement of the Kochs’ unacceptable business practices and environmental beliefs. The second petition seeks to fully suspend the activities of the CBES until the College formally disbands the CKF-CBES agreement. The petition suggests that the CKF-CBES contract poses a threat to the College’s institutional autonomy and academic freedom. Use of funds from the CKF, the petitioners write, could set a dangerous precedent that might interfere with the College’s hiring and pedagogical practices, ultimately stifling academic freedom and surrendering to external political influences. The third and fourth petitions motion to institute a review of the CBES, which would be authorized by the Committee on Academic Programs, and to constitute an ad hoc committee of faculty to oversee and investigate the academic and hiring practices of the CBES, respectively. The ad hoc committee would include six designated tenured faculty members – each of whom also signed the letter to the provost – and would give members the power to supervise the makeup of the Business, Ethics, and Society minor curriculum. These petitions and arguments present some crucial issues. The petitioners’ attempt to ground their opposition to accepting funding from

May 2019

“If faculty members are so concerned that College programming conform to Church dogma, it seems strange, if not simply hypocritical, that they have nothing to say about… the College’s refusal to abide by Church teaching on other socially progressive causes...” 9

CKF in Catholic social teaching is puzzling, given that several Holy Cross academic and extracurricular programs, such as the annual production of “Vagina Monologues,” certainly violate Catholic doctrine, yet have never prompted protests from the faculty. If faculty members are so concerned that College programming conform to Church dogma, it seems strange, if not simply hypocritical, that they have nothing to say about the College’s complete silence on matters relating to abortion as well as the College’s refusal to abide by Church teaching on other socially progressive causes – which are infallibly enshrined in the Magisterium and further reinforced in the Church’s Catechism. Unlike matters of faith touching on familial and sexual life that are fundamental to the historic teaching of the Church, papal judgments on questions of science (climate change, astronomy, etc.) and of political and economic systems do not necessarily reflect any unique insight that faithful Catholics are obliged to respect. When it comes to science, one need only recall the Church’s condemnation of Galileo to see how unwise it is for Church officials to offer final judgments of scientific truth. Indeed, the Magisterium of the Church freely admits that papal infallibility only extends to faith and morals—not science and politics. As the distinguished Catholic political theorist Daniel Mahoney points out in his recent book The Idol of Our Age: How the Religion of Humanity Subverts Christianity, Pope Francis’s Laudato Si’ contains a multitude of highly questionable factual judgments about both climate change and politics. Apparently reflecting his background in Peronist Argentina, the Pope even lamentably blames “capitalism” for generating “debris, desolation, and filth” while naively disregarding the far worse environmental (and human) record of communist regimes (recall the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, resulting from faulty reactor design, and note the vast air pollution churned out by today’s Chinese coal-burning factories). As Mahoney points out, Francis even praises subsistence farming as a way of life – one that the poor themselves are desperate to escape. While radically underestimating the contribution that free markets have made to promoting socioeconomic mobility (see Deirdre McCloskey’s Bourgeois Equality), the Pope has regret-

tably expressed admiration for the murderous Cuban tyrant Fidel Castro, apparently under the illusion that communism has improved the lot of the poor – there or anywhere else in the world. Perhaps the most concerning component of this faculty movement is its attempted imposition of partisan political criteria on College donors and financial supporters. Should we, as a community, be applying political tests to respectable, philanthropic businessmen who are offering to fund nonpartisan College programs that align with the school’s mission? To those concerned about the possibility of unethical behavior by businessmen, what could be more meritorious than a program designed to address the relation between business and ethics? Furthermore, considering the dependence of this College’s growth and prosperity on donations from successful businessmen – the source of funding, for instance, for the Luth athletic complex, the reconstruction of the field house, and the forthcoming arts center – shouldn’t faculty feel a certain gratitude to the free-enterprise system, and the philanthropic endeavors it encourages, rather than adopting a posture of contempt towards that system, à la Bernie Sanders? And what about all the alumni donations that support faculty salaries and student scholarships? As stated on its website, the CBES exists to prepare students “to become ethical leaders and critically engaged citizens of a society deeply shaped by business” and to offer “opportunities to explore questions about how business can contribute to the common good and promote real, long-term sustainable value for society.” The aim of the CKF’s grant-making is described on its website as being “to advance an understanding of what it takes to move toward a society of equal rights and mutual benefit, where people succeed by helping others improve their lives. We support a diversity of viewpoints and perspectives that foster respect for all people and protect human dignity, developing creative solutions that will help make the world better for all people. We reject racism, sexism, and any discrimination that impedes equal rights.” What is objectionable in such a mission statement? Further, the Kochs’ philanthropy has extended as well to such entirely nonpo-

“… papal judgments on questions of science (climate change, astronomy, etc.) and of political and economic systems do not necessarily reflect any unique insight that faithful Catholics are obliged to respect.”

May 2019

litical, charitable causes as art museums, orchestras, and assisting the poor. Above and beyond these facts, knowing the outlook of the Holy Cross administration and faculty as a whole, as well as the credentials of the faculty who will be leading the CBES, only a fantasist could imagine that this new center is going to become an apologist for “unregulated” free markets and climate-change “denial.” In fact, there is every reason to believe that the anti-Koch petitions arise not from any identifiable partisan dangers embodied by the CBES, but rather from pressure by a national, extremist political group, UnKoch My Campus, which has set out for partisan reasons of its own to remove any element of Koch presence from America’s colleges and universities – because of the group’s scorn for free enterprise and refusal to tolerate any dissent from its anti-fossil-fuel ideology. For the sake above all of preserving Holy Cross’s mission of pursuing truth on the basis of both reason and the authentic Catholic tradition, we earnestly hope that

the faculty will vote down the petition to defund the CBES. And regardless of the outcome of the faculty vote, which may not even reflect the views of a majority of the faculty as a whole (only that of the attendees), we hope that the College administration will determine to maintain the CBES, which can only be of benefit to the Holy Cross community.

“For the sake above all of preserving Holy Cross’s mission of pursuing truth on the basis of both reason and the authentic Catholic tradition, we earnestly hope that the faculty will vote down the petition to defund the CBES.”

Image courtesy of pixabay.com

May 2019

On Homosexuality and the Church Andrew Buck ‘22 A Priest, a homosexual, and a drag queen walk into a chapel. No, this isn’t the start of some joke, but a scene I was honored to witness at a special morning mass the Sunday of this year’s IgnatianQ conference. This event, a conference for members of the LGBTQ community at Jesuit colleges (as well as Notre Dame), brought students to Mount St. James from across the country in order to discuss the relation of faith, Ignatian Spirituality, and LGBTQ identity. Though invited, I refrained from attending the conference, save the aforementioned mass. Due to my lack of attendance, I will not attempt to discuss the mission or credibility of this conference, though I’ve heard positive responses from friends in attendance. Nay; sparked by the once in a lifetime scene from that 9:00 A.M. mass, I would rather discuss the complicated (and oft times misrepresented) relationship between the Catholic church and homosexuality. For now, I will discuss solely homosexuality, as addressing each LGBTQ identity would be excessively long for one article. In doing so, I will omit my personal biases about the Church’s teaching and simply present the teaching as it stands. I must start by addressing a disparity between how our contemporary culture and the Catholic Church conceptualize the very idea of homosexuality. Our society describes homosexuality as an identity: that is, a group one belongs to based on their attraction to the same sex (gay for males, lesbian for females). However, in order to address homosexuality as a moral issue, the Church can only speak on homosexuality as an action. In a Catholic sense, morality is dependent on action. In other words: a person cannot be morally good or evil in themself, but can act in a good or evil fashion. It is important to note that conscious thoughts as well as physical deeds constitute actions. If, for instance, a lustful thought (or otherwise unholy notion) pops into your head and you chose to dwell on and entertain that thought, you have committed a morally evil action. So, to address homosexuality in a moral context, we cannot continue (for the sake of this article) to consider

homosexuality an identity. There is no morality within an identity to discuss. Thus, I will be addressing homosexuality as an action. Further, to be judged morally, this action must be “freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience” (CCC 1749). A homosexual act into which a person is unwillingly coerced or of which they are invincibly unaware cannot be deemed morally good or evil either. Conscientiousness is muddled in a state of vincible ignorance (ignorance that can be removed through reasonable search for the truth) because the culpability of the moral action varies from case to case. Thus, throughout this article, I will be addressing homosexuality as a freely chosen action made with insight from a well-formed conscience. This establishes that attraction to someone of the same sex is neither morally good nor evil. An attraction is not an action. In conjunction with an action, however, this attraction can have moral weight. A good action inspired by this desire renders the desire good, and vice versa, meaning that if a homosexual attraction inspires a morally evil action, that attraction is rendered morally evil (CCC 1768). As the word “homosexuality” blatantly points out, a homosexual act is a sexual act. The Church is very specific about the role and purpose of sexual desires. The role of sex, for the Church, is simultaneously unitive and procreative (CCC 2351). A sexual action should only take place if it deepens the bond between married spouses and is open to the creation of new life. The pleasure derived from sex is a gift from God to encourage and bless this holy act of sex. However, the holy pleasure of and desire for sex can be very easily tainted. This tainting is Lust, wherein one seeks sexual pleasure for the sensation of pleasure itself, disconnecting sex from its sacred connection to Procreation and Unity (CCC 2351). It follows that a homosexual act is disordered because it can never be open to procreation and, as it is done outside the context of marriage, cannot contribute to the unity of spouses. A sexual act performed between two members of the same sex is, therefore, a morally evil action. For

“Thus, throughout this article, I will be addressing homosexuality as a freely chosen action made with insight from a well-formed conscience.”

May 2019

quite the same reason, however, so are sexual acts between an unmarried man and woman. This leads into perhaps the most controversial teaching of the Church on homosexuality: “Why can’t gay people get married? If gay people could get married then they could have sex, right?” The answers to these questions are relatively simple. To answer the first, we need only follow the same argument that explains why homosexual acts are disordered: they are closed to fertility. A Catholic marriage must be “open to fertility” (CCC 1643). As a gay couple cannot reproduce, they cannot be married. Christ instituted marriage as a sacrament in which a man and women are bound in union with the express purpose of procreation. This is completely unavailable in a homosexual union. As to the second question, the answer to the hypothetical is simply “no.” Again, their sex is still not procreative. Due to the inability to procreate, homosexual relations are “intrinsically disordered,” and “under no circumstances can they be approved” (2357). None of this, however, means that the Church denies the validity of Same Sex Attraction, nor does it condemn those with such an attraction. In fact, the Church teaches the exact opposite. To elucidate this fact, I will lift a large passage from the Catechism of the Catholic Church to assure no words are omitted or glossed over: “The number of men and women who have deep -seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.” (CCC 2358) This constitutes a state of mind that I doubt anyone would disagree with. Knowing that the Church does not condemn, and in fact supports, people with same sex attractions - but

“None of this, however, means that the Church denies the validity of Same Sex Attraction, nor does it condemn those with such an attraction.”

also considering that homosexual acts and marriages are prohibited - begs a question. What is the place of men and women with same sex attractions within the Church? Everyone is called to a specific vocation by God. Whether the vocation is to married life, religious life, or single life, each human has a certain call. For gays and lesbians, it boils down to either religious life or the single life. Both of these vocations call for homosexuals to be chaste. This does not disavow the potential for deeply loving relationships between members of the same sex. Priests and Brothers can maintain profound love for one another, as can Sisters. Lay single men and women can participate in similarly loving relationships. One could, perhaps, even argue that a chaste relationship between two members of the same sex is not anathema to Church teaching. One could question the purpose of this relationship; romantic relationships are a sort of marriage interview and, without the culmination of marriage, that might leave same sex romantic relationships purposeless. This question is not explicitly answered by the Church, so I will not speak to it myself, though I find it necessarily raised. Chastity, however, is not a restriction. The Church expounds that chastity is a great freedom in which human passions are correctly governed by reason. This chastity is a virtue and so must be practiced and built, freeing us from subservience to our desires and giving us the discipline to control them instead (CCC 2339). In this sense, just as all other Catholic men and women, homosexuals are called to be free from the slavery of desire. Living and practicing their faith in such a way, with the help of the sacraments, friendships, and prayer, men and women with same sex attraction can live up to the call of every human to Christian perfection (CCC 2359). I would even propose that, perhaps postulating a bit too much, there are special graces these men and women can receive in staying faithful to Christ during their unique struggle. In this way, I consider homosexuality a gift. It is a gift by which the faithful can unite the sacrifice of personal desires to Christ, and, in return, be the recipients of great grace.

“It is a gift by which the faithful can unite the sacrifice of personal desires to Christ, and, in return, be the recipients of great grace.”

May 2019

Don’t Worry, Your Paper Usage Is Not Causing Deforestation Professor David Lewis Schaefer, Political Science Recently I and, I gather, all other members of the Holy Cross community received the first of what promise to be an endless series of personalized monthly “paper usage reports.” The report compares my paper usage with that of my departmental colleagues; my department’s usage with that of other departments; and the College’s overall use compared to what it was a month previously. I might take pride in the fact that I used 92.04% less paper in March than my political science colleagues, and 72.89% less than the average Holy Cross employee – were it not for the fact that I am on sabbatical during the current academic year, am thus on campus only occasionally, and have no need to print out materials such as my lecture notes since I’m not currently teaching. On the other hand, while my department printed 13.75% fewer pages in March than in February, we might still be liable to blame for using 79% more paper than the average department did. (Of course the reduction from February to March might have something to do with the near-absence of faculty on campus during the March break.) Most alarmingly, it was reported that so far this year alone, my department’s paper usage is responsible for the “deforestation” of 4.99 trees. These statistics – compiled, I have learned, by a private monitoring service that the College employs – are based largely on meaningless comparisons, for such reasons as those I have offered. (Additionally, it is quite likely, I would surmise, that heavily “verbal” disciplines like political science, history, philosophy, and English would tend to engender more paper use in the normal course of work than such fields as the natural sciences, mathematics, and perhaps foreign languages.) They have the same irrelevance as the statistics that the company that supplies my family’s electricity is legally obliged to provide on how our usage compares with those of other similarly sized houses in the neighborhood: of necessity, the statistics cannot take account of

varying family sizes, whether anyone is home during the daytime on weekdays, or the presence or absence of central air conditioning. What is most ridiculous about the paper usage report, however, is the charge that all such usage is responsible for “deforestation.” This is an utter misuse of the term. Deforestation, properly speaking, refers to the more or less permanent elimination of large forests in areas like the Amazon basin (where settlers keep clearing land in order to settle and farm – just as Americans did from the time colonization began until the settling of the West was completed.) (In the American case, however, with the decline of small-scale farming in the Northeast, much of the cleared land was subsequently re-forested.) It is particularly a problem in the Amazon because of the possibly major role that the enormous rainforest plays in the global ecosystem. It has led to a major, permanent environmental disaster in Haiti, where the thoughtless removal of most of the country’s forest some time ago led to heightened vulnerability to flooding and the loss of essential topsoil, thus impoverishing the nation. And recently, it is reported, Russian forests are being cut down by Chinese lumber companies on a large scale, without any effort at replacing them. (The Chinese are able to buy the timber cheaply, and don’t particularly care about the long-term future of Siberian forest land. It’s not their country.) None of these dangers has any application to American paper usage. Our paper doesn’t come from the Amazon or Siberia. Leaving aside a relatively small quantity of “high-end” paper derived from rags, it comes from forests – largely in the U.S. and Canada – that are either owned or (in the case of American national forests) managed by private companies, whose practice is to replace the trees they harvest with new seedlings, and to do so on a schedule that guarantees that the overall size of the managed forest will not shrink. The lumber

May 2019

companies engage in this process essentially because it is in their long-term interest to do so: the trees are their “capital,” and destroying their capital would ultimately put them out of business. So they are not guilty of deforestation at all. When I made this point to the highly qualified person in the IT department who is responsible for transmitting (not writing) the paper usage reports, she acknowledged that the “deforestation” claim was misleading, but justified it on the ground that it was a useful means of motivating faculty, staff, and students to avoid wasting paper – thus reducing the net cost to the College. In other words, the claim is something like the “noble lie” of which Socrates famously speaks in Plato’s Republic. Speaking for myself, I believe that wasting useful resources of any kind (to say nothing of raising tuition costs as a consequence) is something to be avoided. As a child I was taught by my parents (like many other kids of the postwar era) not to leave food over on my plate, because (at the time) people were “starving in Europe.” (Unfortunately, for a while this may have led me to an undesirable weight gain, as it left me with the semiconscious impression that the more I ate, the less others would starve.) To this day, when I see a light left on in an unused room at the College (or at home), I reach in to turn it off. (My wife is sometimes irked by

this practice, as when I shut off the TV when she leaves the family room for a limited time.) I do not believe, however, that a publicly desirable goal justifies misleading the public, as the College’s paper-monitoring service is doing with its misuse of the term “deforestation” – least of all at an institution devoted to the pursuit of truth. Nor, in fact, do I see much merit in issuing individualized monthly paper reports to faculty who, I think it can safely be assumed, do not go out of their way to waste paper. And if some students are engaged in egregious, unjustified overuse of paper, why not simply charge them a modest sum for exceeding their monthly quota? (The net savings to the College might – who knows? – result in a slightly smaller tuition increase for the following year, unless it is swallowed up by the appointment of yet another associate dean for some politically correct cause.) We are bombarded regularly, on campus and off, with an endless stream of often fact-free political propagandizing, regarding issues of race, gender, or even (per AOC) the destruction of the Earth within a dozen years owing to the supposed dangers of climate change. Please, let’s not add to it. Whether it’s printed on paper or not, such propagandizing causes infinitely more harm than wasting paper does.

“… trees are their ‘capital,’ and destroying their capital would ultimately put them out of business. So they are not guilty of deforestation at all.”

Image courtesy of pixabay.com

May 2019

In Support of Priestly Celibacy Matthew Corrigan ‘21 Not long ago, an article was published in The Spire about the abuse scandals surrounding the Catholic Church and included some suggestions for reform within the Church. As with many of the suggestions from college students, most suggestions were discernible by any thinking Catholic as radical and intrinsically wrong. That being said, there was one suggestion that continues to be controversial within the Church and can indeed be changed: the requirement of priestly celibacy. Various groups of Bishops have discussed this topic recently, and in the Byzantine rite, it is indeed allowed. However, just because something can be changed does not mean that it ought to be changed. When it comes to question of marriage for secular priests, the answer ought to remain the ideal: priests should stay celibate. As Russell Kirk said, if we want to make real, just change within society, we must look back to “custom, convention, constitution, and prescription.” We must examine the history of the Church on this issue and above all the reason for this particular custom, this tradition of our Church. When it comes to the history of priestly celibacy, an objector is always inclined to point to the fact that some of the Apostles were married, and that in the early Church there were plenty of married clergy. One can skip over the question of the Apostles who, being part of the establishment of the Church, can be viewed as an exception. In terms of other married clergy, as the Vatican will tell you “one has to desist, when faced with this incontrovertible fact, from assuming that this necessarily excluded the co-existence of an obligatory celibacy discipline.” In reality, the Church had clerical celibacy even in the patristic era. “The first legislative expression of this is found in the eastern councils of Ancyra (314), c. 10, and Neocaesarea (ca. 314-325), c. 1, for deacons and priests respectively.” The prohibition “is clearly expressed in the Apostolic Constitutions and Apostolic Canons of the late fourth century.” Furthermore, “Canon 14 of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451) likewise endorses this discipline… and it is found in other documents of the fifth

and subsequent centuries which consider the practice to be an ancient and timeless tradition” (emphasis added). From these examples and countless more from the early Church, it is clear that, at least on paper, priestly celibacy was a recognized tradition of the Church. As recent times have shown us, while some priests may disobey laws of the Church, the laws themselves nevertheless remain valid. Since a foundation has been established from the early Church for priestly celibacy, one must now look to see if the long-held tradition is itself valid by examining the pros and cons. The main reason for priestly celibacy is the attachment that marriage brings at the expense of the type of spiritual life that a priest requires. Marriage comes with sexual, familial, and financial obligations. As for the sexual component, as Saint Augustine writes, “Nothing is so powerful in drawing the spirit of man downwards as the caress of a woman and that physical intercourse which is part of marriage”. This is of course not to suggest that sex in itself is inherently evil, or that married people cannot be highly devoted to God. Marriage is a beautiful sacrament that shows the beauty of the Trinity through its love, but a married man cannot love and serve God with the same devotion that a celibate priest can, for he has a strong earthly attachment to his wife. A priest ought not have attachments to anything of this earth, but to God and the spiritual life alone. As for familial obligations, the priest is required to work incredibly long hours, including working on holidays, and is bound to have little time for his children or for his wife. To give an idea of those hours: the priest is required to say Mass everyday as well as attend the Sacrament, say the Divine Office, teach classes or run a parish, and perform spiritual direction. For a married priest, there is bound to be strife between the priest’s hereditary children and his spiritual children, for a good priest is a father to many within his flock. Financially, a priest will find it extraordinarily difficult to support a family with his meager salary, especially considering

“… it is likely that a married priest will be conflicted in his obligations to his wife and those to God, will have familial problems, and will struggle financially…

May 2019

that Catholic parents tend to have a large families. With all of this in mind, it is likely that a married priest will be conflicted in his obligations to his wife and those to God, will have familial problems, and will struggle financially, which are all are bound to the detriment of his flock in his preaching and in his saving of souls. In conclusion, there is much talk today about radical reforms within the Church that are meant to favor supposed “progress” over long-standing tradition. But change is not necessarily improvement, and is often a derailing perversion cloaked with the euphemism of “progress,” an eloquent wolf sneaking into the flock. To quote Henry Ford: “Change is not always progress… A fever of newness has everywhere been confused with the spirit of progress.” When one looks at most of the problems in the world today, one can usually find the

answer to them in old traditions and thought. Our ancestors, who compiled much knowledge, were far wiser than us. In line with that previously mentioned Spire writer, I will make my own suggestions for reform in the Church. The Church ought to return to its traditions and roots by proclaiming with more fervor and boldness its sacred doctrines, especially the ones that even many Catholics do not think about or practice. Specifically, the Church ought to focus on countering this perverted and sexually disordered society by proclaiming far and wide the Word of God, and clinging hard to the principles of Natural Law, as expressed by those such as the Angelic Doctor Saint Thomas Aquinas, for there are few greater sources than these. In any case, traditional Catholics need not worry about ridiculously radical reforms, for as Christ said about His Church, “...the gates of Hell shall not prevail.”

In the Name of Freedom Andrew Buck ‘22

May 2019

In Defense of Our Freedoms John Pietro ‘22 The Second Amendment is not only one of the most misunderstood amendments of the US Constitution, but is also (somewhat ironically) one of the most important. The fundamental freedoms Americans hold dear can only be protected by an armed populace. A government without that supreme check on its power is a government unrestrained, and a people without the ability to defend themselves are mere subjects. In this article, I will outline both the key arguments about the Second Amendment and some of the basic solutions for solving the very real problem of gun violence. First, it is important to clarify the purpose of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. In order to pick apart its meaning, it might be useful to state the Amendment itself: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the safety and security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” (US Constitution, 1787). On its most elementary level, the idea was to protect against the potential tyranny of government. The ability to protect oneself and “check” the government, moreover, entails having weaponry at parity with what the government offers. That often engenders the response that one would have to own drones and fighter jets for true parity with the government’s military power. That response, however, is completely false, as can be seen in any of the US’s major wars. Ever since Korea in the 1950s, none of our enemies have had comparable weaponry to the US Armed Forces; when looking to Afghanistan in particular, we can see that the nation’s militias managed to drag on the fight for over a decade with nothing but the most basic of modern weaponry. Additionally, as with any law, one has to read it understanding its limits. For example, the Eighth Amendment, stipulating that there can be no excessive bail or cruel and unusual punishment, does not mean one can not be put in prison or that bail of $100 is too high. Even though the Amendment does not explain the particulars, it can be reasonably assumed that prison or bail of over $100 are not unconstitutional. As with weaponry, the right to bear arms is not all-encompassing for every conceivable weapon. What weapons are included will be further outlined later. Parity requires basic modern weaponry, but we must

also entertain who will be holding those weapons - and what they will be - by examining the terms “militia” and “arms.” “Militia” is often mischaracterized as meaning a national-guard-like organization under the purview of the government (state or federal). Yet this is misguided; in context of the late 1700s or in a textualist interpretation of the Constitution, the term “militia” encompassed any and all able-bodied male citizens who were not employed directly by the state. (Since citizenship is no longer limited by gender, “militia” would now include any able-bodied citizens.) Second, some assume that the term “arms” actually does not include modern weaponry. However, because the Second Amendment was meant to keep the government in check, and thus for the people’s parity with the government, “arms” would include modern weaponry. The Armalite AR-15 rifle is a popular example. In addition, the founding fathers were not naive; they would have certainly understood that, eventually, technology would change. The Puckle Gun, for example, was an early repeating (semi-automatic) firearm, and many experimental examples followed suit, like the Austrian Girandoni rifle, a myriad of revolvers, and other new technologies of the 18th and 19th century. Since I have established the basis of the Second Amendment, I must address a few points of modern debate to explicate the conservative argument for gun rights. Following the shooting in Parkland, Florida, many states and the federal government have taken up, or have considered taking up, legislation raising the purchasing age for firearms to 21. This would be patently unconstitutional. Raising the purchasing age would establish a precedent whereby the federal government could raise the age for any of the rights presented in the Constitution. It is a Pandora’s box that should never be opened. Constitutional rights are restricted for minors (under the age of 18) for that very reason: they are minors, under the protection of their parents or guardians. To restrict the rights of adults is an affront to the very foundation of the Constitution. The definition of an adult would have to be changed for such an act to be constitutional, which would entail raising the voting age, the age for joining the military, among others. Another common argument (which completely disregards the Second Amendment) is that the federal gov-

May 2019

ernment could enact a mandatory buyback like the Australians did in 1996. Despite there being over 1 million firearms in Australia in 1996, the government only managed to obtain 650,000 (Barrett, 2017). Even despite the 650,000 firearms taken, by 2016, there were more guns in Australia than before the buyback (Geary, 2016). In addition, according to a comprehensive study by Gary Kleck from Florida State University, the homicide rate changed only negligibly, and even at that, mass shootings were quite uncommon before the buyback. The cluster of shootings that caused the buyback encompassed only about a decade of Australia’s history and are a statistical anomaly (Kleck, 2018). Disregarding Australia’s abysmal failure just by the numbers, when we consider the fact that there are well over 300 million guns in the United States, we must realize that it would be logistically impossible to implement a similar program in America (Barrett, 2017). Another point on that topic: by removing weapons from law-abiding citizens, weapons will only be in the hands of criminals, who by definition do not follow the law. The massacre in the Bataclan Theatre in Paris, France in 2015 could very well have been prevented, or at least mitigated, had some of the theatre-goers been carrying weapons (What happened at the Bataclan?, 2015). It is worth noting the fact that France, and Europe in general, have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the Western world. Police can not appear on the scene the second something horrible happens, so the people on the scene at the time of the shooting have the best chance at stopping it. This tragic event occurred in a country, and continent, with some of the strictest gun laws in the world, which should speak to the lack of efficacy of strict gun policy. By contrast, when in 2017 a terrorist began shooting at a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, he was stopped by an armed resident who owned an AR-15-like weapon (Montgomery, 2017). This event exemplifies the necessity of being able to own weapons with a high stopping power (ability to incapacitate), particularly in time-sensitive situations. The same holds true for areas where police are miles away and cannot reach the area in a timely manner. In regions around the Southern border or in the countryside, being able to have a high-capacity, high stopping power rifle can mean the difference between life and death. We cannot always count on the presence of police, and the citizen in danger often has the best chance at saving his or her own life. Lastly, it is important to recognize that while mass shootings have become ever more common in recent

years, guns have become less available and at the same time have not changed in any significant manner since the early-mid 1900s. Weapons like the M1 Garand or other semi-automatic weapons of the like existed for over 40 years until the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 banned automatic weapons produced after that date (S.49, 1986). This simple fact further diminishes the idea that the availability and type of weapons is the issue, rather than sociopathy or other mental complications. Of course, there must be some overall regulation on the purchase and ownership of firearms, which very few people dispute. Anyone with a criminal history, serious mental health issues, etc. should be withheld from owning a firearm. NICS (the National Instant Criminal Background Check System) should forcibly include criminal information from all states. Gun violence restraining orders, like that proposed by David French of the National Review, should be implemented. These would allow someone of close relation with a gun owner or prospective gun owner to file for a restraining order preventing that person’s purchase and ownership of a gun, but the person in question would be able to challenge the order in court and must receive a verdict in a timely manner (French, 2018). Serious mental health issues must also be addressed, which may include the resuscitation of many mental institutions in America to provide better care for those suffering from mental illness. Simple, obvious solutions like these must be the future of gun reform, not the so-often-proposed restrictive, unconstitutional solutions.

Image courtesy of pixabay.com. Sources of quotes are online.

May 2019

The Fenwick Review Is Proudly Sponsored By:

@FenwickReview

fenwickrev@g.holycross.edu

www.thefenwickreview.com

@fenwickreview 20

May 2019