December/January 2014/15
Volume XXII, Issue III
The Fenwick Review
The Independent Journal of Opinion at the College of the Holy Cross http://college.holycross.edu/studentorgs/fenwickreview/index.html
@FenwickReview
1) Nature and World 2) Divine 3) Self 4) Global Society 5) Core Human Questions 6) Contemporary Challenges
The Ethics Requirement: A Contemporary Challenge Anthony John ’16 Staff Writer Given the challenge to live in the truth, how, then, shall we live? This was a question I encountered frequently as a first year student in the Core Human Questions Montserrat cluster. Since we’ve all had our own unique Montserrat experience in subjects ranging from philosophy to the social sciences to the natural sciences, sitting through a mandatory firstyear seminar has become ingrained in our Holy Cross education. This year, in addition to the five thematic, interdisciplinary clusters: Core Human Questions, the Divine, Global
Bobos and Revolutionaries ..........Page 6
Society, the Natural World, and Self, the College has added a sixth cluster: Contemporary Challenges. Of course, the size of the Class of 2018 played a factor in the formation of this new cluster, but, ironically, its establishment presents a contemporary challenge for Holy Cross in including ethics as a Common Area requirement. The sixth cluster incorporates various courses that follow current issues, but it also raises the question as to why Holy Cross students lack a separate classroom experience that would focus solely on ethics. Moreover, the title of this new Montserrat cluster encourages one to “ask more” about the academic curriculum on Mount St. James,
one which isolates ethics as a concept that is otherwise rooted in the college’s Catholic, Jesuit identity. Montserrat, in and of itself, is a relatively new program (less than a decade old), yet it has played a major role in the academic curriculum. Montserrat may foster a sense of belonging to a lively intellectual community, but it fails when it comes to the knowledge needed to pursue further intellectual, personal, and spiritual growth. An ethics class, however, aims at working directly on students’ attitudes and indirectly on student behavior outside the classroom. Recent studies have examined the influence of ethics classes on college students’
self-reported moral attitudes, suggesting that university ethics classes have a small, short-term effect. As a Catholic institution, however, Holy Cross should not be limited to this type of evidence if a significant majority of students, which, in fact, is the case, desire an ethics requirement. In a recent Rehm Library panel discussion on the 25th anniversary of the death of the UCA martyrs, the topics of the newest Montserrat cluster as well as an ethics requirement were raised, not to mention the idea of advocating student protest. Continued on page 8
Muggle Metaphysics ...... Page 9
The Fenwick Review
2
Mission Statement As the College of the Holy Cross’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 College’s Catholic identity, as well as working with the College to encourage constructive dialogue and an open forum to foster new ideas.
To The Benefactors In this issue, as in every issue, we must reserve 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. You are always in our prayers, and with each issue we publish, our first goal is to justify the incredible faith you have shown in us. Mr. Guy C. Bosetti Dr. and Mrs. Paul Braunstein Mr. and Mrs. Michael Dailey Mr. J. O’Neill Duffy Mr. and Mrs. Richard Fisher Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Gorman Mr. Robert W. Graham III Mr. and Mrs. Thomas W. Greene Mr. Paul M. Guyet Mr. Robert R. Henzler Mr. William Horan Mr. Joseph Kilmartin Mr. Robert J. Leary ‘49 Mr. Francis Marshall ‘48 Mr. J. O’Neill Duffy Mr Kevin O’Scannlain Fr Paul Scalia Dr Ronald Safko Mr. Sean F. Sullivan Jr.
December/January 2014/15
Contents December/January 2014/15
The Ethics Requirement: A Contemporary Challenge (1,8)
Volume XXII, Issue III
Anthony John ’16
The Death of God: Blessing or Curse (4)
Chase Padusniak ’15
The Anti-Unity of Multiculturalism (5)
Brooke Tranten ’17
Proceed With Caution (5) Bobos and Revolutionaries (6)
Kilian Bede White ’18
Diarmaid King ’15
Catholic Immigration and the Libertarian Option (7) Polarizing Polar Bears (8)
Nikolas Churik ’15 Austin Barselau ’18
Muggle Metaphysics (9) Steven Merola ’16
Dialoguing Religiously (10)
Nicholas Jalbert ’16
How do you define yourself ?(11) The Editorial Staff
The Distraction of Moving Mountains (11) Joseph Murphy ’16
December/January 2014/15
3
The Fenwick Review
The Fenwick Review 2014-2015 Staff
Letter from the Editors Dear Readers, Thank you for picking up The Fenwick Review, Holy Cross’s Independent Journal of Opinion. In this issue, the writers have provided a good spread topics. Welcome back to this spring semester! We hope it will be successful, enjoyable, and we daresay memorable for everyone Mr. Barselau and Mr. Murphy look at the perennial questions of climate change and charitable giving. Mr. John suggests an additional requirement for the curriculum: Ethics. It is worth noting that ethics, under the guise of moral philosophy, was one the essential studia humanitatis, along with grammar, rhetoric, poetry, and history. These were, of course, staples of education in the past. Ms. Tranten thoughtfully considers the value of multiculturalism and diversity. Messrs. White and Churik discuss current topics of political interest. Mr. Merola continues his work of religious investigation, while Mr. Padusniak responds to Mr. Merola’s last article. Switching gods to Mammon, Mr. King takes a critical look at consumerism. Finally, Mr. Jalbert offers insights on (ir)
religious dialogue. The issue you read now (we hope) was meant to be printed in the last semester, but due to matters outside of our control, which have now thankfully be resolved, it is only now hitting stands. We hope, nevertheless, that the subjects are no less timely. Perhaps, in fact, it is better that some time has passed since they were written, so that they can now be read with fresh eyes. As always, we hope you find what you read in The Fenwick Review enjoyable, interesting, or, at least, thought-provoking. Sincerely, Chase and Nik
Interested in Layout Development and Ditigal activation? We have a position for you! APPLY for the following LEADERSHIP positions:
- Assistant Layout Editor - Social Media Co-ordinator - Webmaster APPLY via email (resume and desired position) to Claire Mahoney at csmaho15@g.holycross.edu
Co-Editors-in-Chief Nikolas Churik ’15 Chase J. Padusniak ’15
Executive Layout Editor Claire Mahoney ’15
Staff Writers
Amber Alley ’16 Anthony John ’16 Austin Barselau ’18 Kilian Bede White ’18 Brooke Tranten ’17 Diarmaid King ’15 Eric Kuhn ’16 J. Alex Cicchitti ’15 Joseph Murphy ’16 Marian Blawie ’16 Micala Smith ’16 Nicholas Jalbert ’16 Steven Merola ’16
Faculty Adviser Professor David Lewis Schaefer Political Science
Disclaimers This journal is published by students of the College of the Holy Cross and is produced 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 an organization incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. We welcome any donation you might be able to give to support our cause! To do so, please write a check to: The Fenwick Review and mail to: Chase Padusniak and Nikolas Churik P.O. Box 4A 1 College Street Worcester, MA 01610
Letter Policy We at The Fenwick Review encourage feedback. All comments, criticisms, compliments, and opinions are welcome. As we are striving to promote intellectual freedom and progress here at Holy Cross, opposing viewpoints to anything we print are especially appreciated. Finally, we reserve the rights to print and edit any letters for clarity and length that we receive.
The Fenwick Review
4
December/January 2014/15
The Death of God: Blessing or Curse Chase Padusniak ’15 Co-Editor-in-Chief In our society, there is currently a lot of debate about the degradation of our traditional morality and culture. Some see “relativism” and related ideas as movements in the right direction, freeing previously oppressed groups and breaking age-old grips on power. Others think we are descending into a moral abyss, writhing sick and sad on the dark floor of time. It is no secret that this journal tends toward the latter position, and, I think, for good reason. That said, I think we spend too much time attacking Nietzsche and post-Nietzschean philosophy. We buy into
“ We may experience periods of suffering, sadness, and even seeming hopelessness, but in the end God will win; joy will be victorious.” this idea of historical regress. Instead, however, we would do best to see this time as an opportunity for renewal, that is for the confrontation of new
challenges and therefore for rebirth. “Gott ist tot! Gott bleibt tot! Und wir haben ihn getötet.” In plain English, “God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him.” That’s that. Cue secularism. But it is not quite that simple. In Christian theology, God is providential. He acts in time and brings about His will not only through victories but also through defeats. Judaism posits the same idea. We need only turn to the prophets who decried Israel’s sinful ways. To take only one example: “We have greatly offended you, not keeping the commandments, the statutes, and the ordinances you entrusted to your servant Moses. But remember the admonition which you addressed to Moses, your servant, when you said: If you prove faithless, I will scatter you among the peoples” (Nehemiah 1:7-8). I’ve chosen one of the more obscure prophets to drive the point home: the bad times are just as fruitful as the good ones. God brings suffering from joy. Blessed be the name of the Lord, etc. Nehemiah’s name means “comforted of the Lord,” and he rebuilt Jerusalem following the Babylonian Conquest. Talk about a period of immense, seemingly impenetrable sadness, and yet he was comforted. Our time is a difficult one, but I think we spend too much time emphasizing the difficulty and not enough living the joy of suffering. If we are Christians and we accept God’s victory in, over, and through the world, we have nothing to fear, only things to learn. To take an example from the
medieval world (I am, after all, a medievalist), Julian of Norwich, a 14th-century English mystic, relates that when she saw Satan she noted three qualities: earnest, game, and scorn. The first because the Devil is a real and present threat who cheats and manipulates human beings. The second because God is ultimately victorious; Satan’s power is a joke in comparison to God’s. In this sense, he’s a quaint trope. The last because he will be scorned on Judgment Day, that is he can never be the ultimate victor. And it is those final two words that matter “ultimate victor.” He can win in the short term; we may experience periods of suffering, sadness, and even seeming hopelessness, but in the end God will win; joy will be victorious. In this sense, God’s death may
Anima Christi Soul of Christ, sanctify me. Body of Christ, save me. Blood of Christ, inebriate me. Water from the side of Christ, wash me. Passion of Christ, strengthen me. O Good Jesus, hear me. Within your wounds hide me. Permit me not to be separated from you. From the wicked foe, defend me. At the hour of my death, call me and bid me come to you That with your saints I may praise you For ever and ever. Amen. -St. Ignatius of Loyola
- See more at: http://www.ignatianspirituality.com/ignatian-prayer/prayers-byst-ignatius-and-others/anima-christi/#sthash.BHptiIz8.dpuf
not be the worst thing. A period of suffering is also a time for self-reflection and renewal. How can we cast stones at the world when we refuse self-examination? How can we struggle against a failing world when we ourselves show no joy in and through our suffering? Admittedly, this period is difficult, and I do think we must stand up for what is right. But such stands often come with too little self-evaluation; they note other’s specks and not our own beams. That’s not the Christian way. And so, the next time I hear “God is dead.” I might not lament; I might say “maybe to you; maybe to society, but maybe that’s okay. God loves you. He loves the world. And that is what matters.”
The Fenwick Review
December/January 2014/15
5
The Anti-Unity of Multiculturalism Brooke Tranten ’17 Staff Writer Receiving a barrage of emails day after day is a common cross all students and faculty on Mount St. James must bear. Unity Week, in this respect, was no different, yet there was something different. I noticed that mass emails related to Unity Week were sent daily starting the week before its opening Mass. Other events, such as Alcohol Awareness Week, were the subject of only two campus-wide emails. I will not speak about the specific events that were apart of Unity Week this year, but rather the larger concept behind it: Multiculturalism. Let us start from the beginning. What is multiculturalism? Multiculturalism is without a specific definition, but we may separate two major strains of it. The Patristic scholar John Rist, in a talk given at Assumption College in the spring of 2013, identifies the first type of multiculturalism as “plain,” which holds that cultures can be improved upon and enriched by other traditional cultural practices. Nobody will disagree with Professor Rist on this brand of multiculturalism, and it should indeed be encouraged. Multiculturalism in practice, however, is much different and far less innocuous. Rist calls it “ideological multiculturalism,” and that is what we have to con-
tend with here. Ideological multiculturalism is based on one principle: All cultures are equal in value and one singular culture is not allowed to become predominant. What is right for one culture is fine, although it may be abhorrent to another culture. A woman being stoned to death for adultery in Afghanistan, a practice directly sanctioned by law and a common occurrence in that coun-
“We cannot say that something is always bad or always good, because that implies a morality that actually judges deeds and thoughts.” try, hardly causes a blip on The New York Times’ radar, but if a woman were stoned to death for adultery in Arkansas, the screech of radical feminists and the mainstream media would resound on every news channel and social media for weeks. Multicultural-
ism entails a rejection of good and evil, true and false. Father James Schall, SJ, now retired from teaching political philosophy at Georgetown, boils it down nicely, “The established ‘truth’ is that there is no truth.” Longtime Boston College professor William Kirkpatrick points out that multiculturalism is yet another form of radical individualism. We are encouraged to sample other values and pick and choose what is best for us… unless we happen to fancy traditional culture, of course. Traditional Western values, namely Christian values, are bad, because they represent the old, “medieval,” intolerant past. Those who happen to have a traditional view of culture must be silenced. The radical feminist Camille Paglia calls out the basic trait of the multiculturalist, “….the cagey hypocrisy that permeates fashionable campus leftism, which worships diversity in all things except diversity of thought.” Diversity is not viewed as a two-way street, because it is imposed from above, whether it is from a university’s “Diversity Leadership Team” or an editor of a major newspaper who wants to be known as tolerant and progressive. The problem of multiculturalism comes down to the cliché, modernist mantra that objective truth is dangerous. We cannot say that something is always bad or always good, because that implies a morality that actually
judges deeds and thoughts. Judgment of any sort is anathema to the multiculturalist, but the entire multicultural program is based on personal cultural preference, which implies judgment by its very nature! St. Thomas Aquinas said that plurality is only said to be united so far as it approaches one, one end. The plurality of multiculturalism has no set end, because it is allergic to anything objectively fixed. The only end that the multiculturalist agenda has is to dismantle traditional Western culture in order to create a fuzzy, milquetoast utopia where no one’s feelings can get hurt. The vague, self-affirming phrase of “celebrate who we are” Unity Week means nothing, because it means everything. It is not we who define ourselves; our identity does not depend on how we feel at one particular moment in time. There are other things in existence outside of me and what I want or think I need. Multiculturalism is based upon an irrational resentment of the past, and an irrational confidence in the future. On this note, I leave you with a final quote, from the one of the most reasonable men of the last century, GK Chesterton, “Men invent new ideals because they dare not attempt old ideals. They look forward with enthusiasm, because they are afraid to look back.”
Proceed With Caution Kilian Bede White ’18 Staff Writer The 2014 midterms were a windfall for Republicans. The GOP gained 8 seats in the Senate, clinching a majority there, and solidified its hold on the House, winning twelve new seats there. Two more states also elected Republican governors. Incoming Republicans, however, still have to contend with a Democrat in the White House. And as we have already seen, that will be no mean feat. The challenges began almost before all the votes were counted (and indeed, a few elections have yet to be decided). Addressing the press on November 5th, President Obama appeared irritated: “Obviously, Republicans had a good night. And they deserve credit for running good campaigns.” He continued, “beyond that, I’ll leave it to all of you and the professional pundits to pick through yesterday’s results.” The president threw down the gauntlet last Friday with his executive action on immigration reform. In his capacity as chief executive, Obama will use “prosecutorial discretion” to protect 4-5 million illegal aliens from deportation. In his speech unveiling
this new program, Obama addressed the new Republican majority, saying, “to those members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill.” The president continued, “The day I sign that bill into law, the actions I take will no longer be necessary.” President Obama has already issued a formidable challenge to incoming Republicans. Despite having the largest majority in almost 80 years, Republicans have good reason to proceed with caution. The last time Republicans took a hard line against the president, it resulted in the 2013’s sequestration. The dramatic photos of “closed” signs on national monuments still flash in voters’ heads, and the fact that Republicans ultimately lost that battle is not lost on party leadership. The GOP has control of Congress for the next two years, but to hold it any longer, they cannot afford to alienate voters. And with the 2016 presidential contest on the horizon, the party will be trying to garner as much positive press as possible. So where does all this political
contention leave us the people? The Republican Party has gained a reputation as “the party of no.” That image sold while the Republican House sat impotent in the face of an antagonistic Senate and President. With their new
“The last time Republicans took a hard line against the president, it resulted in the 2013’s sequestration.” majority, the GOP has no excuse for inaction. There are many issues that require action. Firstly, President Obama has forced the issue of immigration. It is widely agreed that from a constitutional standpoint, the president’s actions set a dangerous precedent. The Republican Party will be working in the nation’s interest if it can stop, or better
yet, replace the President’s current immigration scheme. America is also in need of a serious international facelift. President Obama’s foreign policy record ranges from the ill-advised (his support of Syrian rebels) to the downright disastrous (abandoning Iraq). A united Congress could exercise considerable power over how America conducts itself overseas. On the domestic front, Congress must move to confront the issues facing America’s citizenry. Out-of-control debt is still a problem, especially among students. Concern mounts over the growing militarization of America’s police departments. Social stratification continues, in spite of the feelgood rhetoric of the “recovery.” 2014 was a banner year for the Republican Party. But the newly-elected must not take their position for granted. What the American people want is change. Not the capital-C buzzword type that “they can believe in,” but a tangible difference in their lives. If our elected officials cannot offer that kind of change, they will be tossed out like their predecessors before them.
The Fenwick Review
6
December/January 2014/15
Bobos and Revolutionaries Diarmaid King ’15 Staff Writer A friend recently told me that Nokia was making a new phone. In describing the phone, he used the term ‘revolutionary.’ At first, I brushed off the use of the word, since I have constantly heard it, often next to the problematic phrase ‘new and improved,’ almost every time I turn on a television. Later that day, after reading the exploits and writings of Steve Biko, an anti-apartheid activist who was killed in a South African Police Station in 1977, I was taken aback by testimonials of family, friends, and fellow freedom fighters. Most described him positively as a noble revolutionary, fighting to defy the system at large for liberty. I could be wrong on this account, but I don’t think Nokia’s new phone will try, or succeed, in subverting any systems of authority. So what does it really mean to be “revolutionary?” There is a dictionary definition, which helps. The adjective “revolutionary” means “engaged in promoting political revolution.” Is Nokia’s new phone, Ford’s new car, or Purina’s new mystery chow really attempting to change or subvert the U.S. government? If that is the case, then they are doing a terrible job, fodder only for the craziest of conspiracy theories. Joking aside, they are not. In fact, all those companies really enjoy the generally corporation-friendly stance of the United States. By using the term revolutionary, they invoke the ideas of subversion, of militancy, of an outright disregard for the order of the day. Well then, why is this term being used to describe a phone and how did it become so popular? In true patriotic fashion, let us blame the 1960s. These years were a time when the world was in a social uproar. The Civil Rights Movement, decolonization, the development of two hegemonic powers, and the protests of the Vietnam War, helped to create a more open, and contentious, politi-
“Groups began to coalesce around exclusive ideologies and identities, and the global Left lost its gusto.” cal environment. Diverse movements and groups were formed in this period that were successful in mobilizing large groups of people. As the decade progressed, the social uproar dissipated, in large part because these groups did not have a united political goal. Differences caused revolutionaries to stop fighting “the Man,” and instead
to start bickering amongst themselves. The radicals and revolutionaries of the ’60’s were less those looking for a solution to problems as they were those prepared to take up a struggle because struggle seemed to intriguing and, at times, to work. As the ’60’s melted into the ’70’s, radical groups, while still extremely prevalent, lost their importance on the world stage. Groups began to coalesce around exclusive ideologies and identities, and the global Left lost its gusto. The 1970s, however, were still a decade in which the revolutionary attitude was not only edgy but also commonplace, taken up by the upper and middle classes, those whose parents in the ’50’s and ’60’s probably would have opposed social change. This new class of people took revolutionary fervor, introduced it to
“They, of course were working 9-5’s to survive, and therefore would be risking their jobs for revolutionary action.” capitalism and made it a social status to strive for. This culture generated what David Brooks calls “the Bobo:” the bourgeois bohemian. If you ever wanted to know why athletes and musicians all drive Escalades (US) (or Land Rovers in the UK), what is so good about yoga, why Williams and Sonoma exists, or why Los Angeles is the undisputed worst city in the world, then you will find your answer in Bobo culture. Bobos are essentially yuppies who reject the greed culture of the 1980s and see themselves as much more important and knowledgeable than their predecessors. Bobos attempt to fuse the minimal, the artistic, and the functional, creating the need for products that show a distinct lifestyle choice. This lifestyle is centered around opening one’s mind up to the suffering of the world, understanding that there are other ways to experience and know the world, and buying things to prove it to friends. In an almost condescending way Bobos, ‘feel’ for the lower classes, buying items that are ‘made in America’ and which reduce their own fuel emissions and other consumer by-products. The intent is good, but the reality is unsettling. This type of ‘support’ is, however, directed at a system, which is anything but subversive. It is this new class of people that has taken the term revolutionary and changed it dramatically from a
word of power to one with commercial value. This commercialization of revolution is an affront to real revolutionaries, right? Not really. The simple fact is that these revolutions benefit the wrong people and fail to achieve meaningful solutions. The assertion that the proletariat is the revolutionary class has been presumed at least since Marx. The “have-nots” it is believed, will see the system that they are living in and rise up to overthrow it. People who invoke the specter of the ‘havenots’ do not take into account the personal struggles and the economic hardships faced by this group of people. How can any member of the lower classes go out and protest their work conditions, their paid hourly wage, their access to healthcare, or their political voice, when they have mouths to feed at home? The Occupy Wall Street movement considered by its leaders to be ‘revolutionary’ is a perfect example of this disparity of representation based on class: students and graduates of Columbia University, people of some type of shared privilege, made up the bulk of protesters at the event. Where were the single mothers who struggle to provide for children? Where were the men of color working minimum wage jobs just to live month to month? Where were the rural white families whose access to medical resources and education opportunities is extremely limited? They, of course were working 9-5’s to survive, and therefore would be risking their jobs for revolutionary action. Without immediate popular, even lower-class, support, revolutions are left to the most revolutionary of classes: the “have-some-butnot-as-much-as-the-person-aboveme” types we like to call the middle class. Emiliano Zapata was from a minor aristocratic family. George Washington was a plantation owner, a surveyor. Lenin was from a wealthy family, who afforded him the opportunity to go to law school. These men built the ideology behind their respective revolutions, enticing and cajoling those less fortunate to believe in a brighter future through struggle. Most revolutions, it would seem, are at the very least voiced by a member of the middle class, if not completely imbued with the ideals of that group. Even if a revolution achieves some success, there is no chance that its champions will follow through with its goals. In a way, this leading group shares a common ignorance with the Bobos. The new ruling class of these changed states, the old middle class, becomes too caught up with the act of revolution to actually make lasting changes. After the communist revolutions of Russia and China, the ruling parties of these countries became concerned with preserving the control of the party (and therefore the control of the
government, resources, and the military) through totalitarian means, rather than promoting the policies of equality and justice they were supposed to be fighting for. The USSR imploded more than 20 years ago, and China’s new economic policies are widening income gaps between the rural poor and the new middle class. Too often the action of the revolution is considered to be its most important element. This action however only serves to introduce a new ideology as dominant. In order for “real change” to occur, the revolution must be supplemented by serious and thoughtful consideration of what occurs afterward. The new ruling class must use this new ideology to allow the lower classes into the conversation and put forward a plan of action to reach specific goals. If both these steps are not met, then distrust of the revolution and the party will occur, forcing the ruling class to adapt to preserve itself, or become the captains of a sinking ship. In this sense, Bobos and revolutionaries are really pretty similar. They are both formed from more privileged members of society who act out of their own interest while not having a lot contact with other groups. They are obsessed with the idea of being revolutionary. For the Bobos, the new Nokia phone might be revolutionary. They see the new device, designed to reduce aerodynamic drag from pocket to ear by 40 percent, and blessed by a shaman from Africa, as powerful and capable of enacting change .These middle class revolutionaries do not want to worship at the altar of commercialism, rather they are interested in the noble ideas of governance and
“Is anything gained by the implementation of a poorly constructed and thought-out system just because it is new?” equality, especially if they get to dictate and define those terms. Both of these groups have made the term “revolutionary” meaningless through commercialization, selfishness, and self-preservation. Sure, the middle-class revolutionaries might work towards the dictionary definition of the term, but does that in itself achieve anything? Is anything gained by the implementation of a poorly constructed and thought-out system just because it is new? Revolution needs thought, criticism, and openness if it is to work in any sense. It must open up the debate. It must not become misused as a political tool or a tagline à la Madison Ave.
December/January 2014/15
The Fenwick Review
7
Catholic Immigration and the Libertarian Option Nikolas Churik ’15 Co-Editor-in-Chief “I strongly urge Congress and the President to work together to enact permanent reforms to the nation’s immigration system for the best interests of the nation and the migrants who seek refuge here. We will continue to work with both parties to enact legislation that welcomes and protects immigrants and promotes a just and fair immigration policy.” - Bishop Eusebio Elizondo Following President Obama’s address on immigration, there has been no lack of uproar on any side of the issue. We should put aside the topic’s political capital for both sides of the aisle and consider what the Catholic Church suggests on the issue. First, then, we might look at what the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has put forth concerning immigration. The statements from this conference stem, of course, from the reserves of the Scripture and Catholic tradition. The Bishops of the US break down their views on immigration into three overarching points. Within the Catholic principles regarding immigration, the first is the ability and right of people to move and migrate in order to sustain their lives and their families. This first point is balanced with the second that assures the right of states to regulate boundaries. The state’s work is understood as necessary for maintaining the well-being of its own people. It is realized that immigration has causes, which are
often negative. Ultimately, though, as the third point requires, border regulation must be done with justice and mercy. With these principles in mind, we are more able to discern good policy from bad. Now one might be able to return to the realm of politics the President’s address in order to consider his points. The President’s first point is to patrol the border with “additional resources for our law enforcement personnel so that they can stem the flow of illegal crossings, and speed the return of those who do cross over.” This point fits well with the second from the USCCB. By focusing on removing criminals and not generally law-abiding undocumented workers, the law changes courses and emphasizes order, instead of separating families. For his second point, the President states, “I’ll make it easier and faster for high-skilled immigrants, graduates, and entrepreneurs to stay and contribute to our economy, as so many business leaders have proposed.” Although it seems reasonable from an economic and political perspective, it appears to be morally questionable. While it is, of course, the prerogative of the state to set immigration laws, this pronouncement seems to commodify the individual through a purely utilitarian position. Because the person is useful and beneficial to the State’s purposes, he or she should have an easier time immigrating. Again, this act makes sense when trying to attract well-educated immigrants to stay stateside, but it does, conversely, diminish and
cheapen the struggle of the average immigrant. The USCCB’s guidelines exhort the reader to remember that, “a developed nation’s right to limit immigration must be based on justice, mercy, and the common good, not on self-interest.” The law must maintain the primacy of family and of the necessity of treating all people from every level with justice. The President’s third point offers, “If you’ve been in America for more than five years; if you have children who are American citizens or legal residents; if you register, pass a criminal background check, and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes -- you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily without fear of deportation.” This, too, seems to fit with the essential Catholic requirements and views on immigration. The President’s plan seeks to keep families together, while still trying to remain close to the rule of law. Undocumented immigrants will be held accountable for breaking the law, but will not have to suffer the penalty of deportation. The concern for the family exists as a sine qua non of the Church’s teaching on immigration. While the maintenance of law is critical, the preservation of the family and its stability is absolutely essential. Previous presidents, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush in particular, paid serious attention to the importance of family when they took action on immigration reform. Why then contend with President Obama’s solution? As sever-
al commentators have already pointed out, Presidents Reagan and G.H.W. Bush took unilateral executive action in order to adjust immigration policy. But, one might note a difference: the two earlier presidents took the action in order to adjust oversights in pre-existing and recently passed immigration legislation, whereas President Obama is using executive action to contravene Congress, perhaps in hopes of forcing new immigration reforms. The earlier changes, as previously mentioned, extended the existing law to ensure that families were not unduly separated, rather than unilaterally reconstituting the law itself. Although there has been much criticism of the policies suggested by the President, it is important to note that the Libertarian Party has suggested similar reforms at least since the last election. The scope of the reinterpretation is questionable, but the content is, in fact, not. Not only do the propositions conform generally to Catholic social teaching but they also reflect, to a great extent, what the Libertarian party has been proposing for years. The Libertarian party has suggested the transitioning of workers and their families into society, rather than stringent deportation; the free association of employers and employees; and the prioritization of border patrol. Human lives are not political capital, and unilateral bandage solutions do not provide long-term stability.
The Fenwick Review
8
December/January 2014/15
The Ethics Requirement: A Contemporary Challenge Continued from page 1 Margaret Freije, Vice President for Academic Affairs and Dean of the College, mentioned that “Ethicscentered courses could, in fact, be included in the Contemporary Challenges cluster, but there have been faculty members in the past who have been hesitant to act on the subject.” Montserrat, CBLs, SPUD, and immersion trips are important in the sense that they offer both a theoretical and practical approach to working in solidarity with the marginalized, but a classroom experience that teaches ethical values to which all goals and actions can be compared would help all these extracurricular organizations to attain deeper meaning. Our ultimate standard of value, the goal in which an ethical individual must always aim, is arrived at by an examination of one’s nature, and recognizing one’s particular needs. Montserrat places students of the same cluster in the same residence hall, allowing them to share different perspectives on the same subject matter, but we must recognize
that our interaction with others is a separate matter from our own well-being and happiness. Ethics, therefore, provides a complementary perspective on human nature that gives individuals the opportunity to challenge themselves on matters related to what is just. “Between Shadows & Reality” was the title of my Montserrat seminar with Prof. James Kee of the English Department. As one of the highlights of my first year at Holy Cross, the literature and philosophical questions that complemented the texts we read, such as Tolstoy’s A Confession, encouraged me to really ponder how I was to “live in the truth.” Although I’m still struggling with that question today, I benefited greatly through classroom lectures (when I wasn’t dozing off from listening to Prof. Kee’s soothing voice), as well as the discussions that involved contemporary issues. A Montserrat seminar, then, certainly offers a significant amount of material from which one can enter ethical debates, but to have ethics as a Common Area requirement would
give insight into not only how we should go about approaching contemporary issues but also how it relates to the type of person (men and women for and with others) that Holy Cross strives to produce. In the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson, a famous humanist and nonconformist: “What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.” Because faculty and students remain
divided on the establishment of an ethics requirement, I cannot help but wonder how and when Holy Cross will formulate such a condition. We find ourselves comfortable studying the humanities, natural sciences and social sciences, and yet lack knowledge of a concept that is central not only to our nature as humans but also to what makes Holy Cross what it is: an ethical Catholic institution dedicated to achievement, virtue, and tradition.
Polarizing Polar Bears Austin Barselau ’18 Staff Writer In a landmark deal motivated by mutual concerns over climate change, the United States and China have agreed to collaborate on reducing carbon emissions in the coming decades. As part of the bargain, the US government has pledged to cut carbon pollution 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. China has committed to capping its emissions by 2030 and increasing its use of non-fossil sources to 20 percent. President Barack Obama reinforced the urgency of the change during a November 12 news conference when he stated, “As the world’s two largest economies, energy consumers and emitters of greenhouse gases, we have a special responsibility to lead the global effort against climate change.” The deal should remind us that its raison d’être, human-caused climate change, is rebelliously questioned or denied by a sizable chunk of the US population. To understand more about the climate debate, look at the facts. Carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is now over 400 parts per million, higher than any period over the past 800,000 years. The amount of carbon humans emit into the atmosphere is now over 40 billion tons per year. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that surface temperatures have increased by 0.85 degrees Celsius since 1880. At this rate, we will blow past the target of a 2 percent increase in temperature by the end of the century. Most importantly, the incidence of anthropogenic climate
change is generally settled in the scientific community. An extensive and widely cited survey conducted by John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli indicates 97.1 percent of scientists believe that humans are changing the climate. All signs point to the same conclusion: climate change is real and has serious implications if we fail to pay attention. Despite the deluge of evidence for human-caused climate change, far too many prefer to bury their heads in the sand. For example, an AP poll earlier this year showed that only 33 percent of respondents “were confident” that human activity is causing global warming. The contrast grows starker among self-identified conservatives. According to the Pew Research Center, only 25 percent of Tea Party members believe in global warming. Republicans on the whole are 30 percent less likely than Democrats to believe scientific endorsements of anthropogenic climate change. Much of the public does not consider climate change a long-term problem. In line with the surveys, many upper level Republicans also deny anthropogenic climate change. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK), the incoming chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, is among the most persistent of deniers. He calls climate change “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.” As expected, Inhofe quickly lambasted the climate deal with China, calling expectations “hollow and not believable.” Incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said that carbon regulations would create “havoc” around the country. A major-
ity of conservative figures in both Congress and in state government deny or question whether humans cause adverse effects on climate. Many prefer instead to fling around buzzwords like “conspiracy” or “data manipulation” in place of actual discourse. Notwithstanding the blinding denialist overcast, the US and the world are making strides toward reversing some of the toxic effects of climate change in recent years. A UN report has found that Earth’s ozone layer is recovering to its 1980 level as a result of the 1987 Montreal Protocol, which phased out harmful chlorofluorocarbons in commercial products like refrigerators and air conditioners. Before the deal with China, the US had already cut carbon emissions by 10 percent below 2005 levels and new regulatory authority by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will lead to more carbon regulations on existing coal-fired power plants. New US fuel-efficiency standards require that new cars and light trucks reach the average fuel standard of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. Across the world, countries are reducing their carbon footprint. A study by the Global Legislators Organization found that 64 out of 66 countries were enacting climate change legislation, including nearly 500 laws in countries that together account for over 90 percent of global emissions. Investments in green technology are also on the rise. China now invests more in renewables than all of Europe and the US also has increased its production and use of green energy over the past
decade. While progress is being made on the environmental front, there is still more work ahead. The US-China climate deal is another important step towards cleaning up the environment. The flagship species used in the debate over climate change has to be the polar bear. The tableau of a lone, stranded creature, baffled as it floats towards extinction on a shrinking ice floe, is frequently called to mind every time global warming enters the conversation. There’s something in the pathos of innocent life struggling against the cold indifference of nature that reminds us of life’s fragilities. Unfortunately, we spend too much time bickering over whether climate change exists and too little time attending to solutions. Despite the fact that politics has polarized proven science, the problem of climate change transcends party boundaries. People may be entitled to their own opinions, but interpreting scientific consensus to fit political agendas is both wrong and unethical. Systemic disinformation among the public is also harmful. While we may not all be scientists, we can look at evidence produced by actual members of the profession; that evidence overwhelmingly signals disastrous consequences if we fail to act. Climate change, particularly anthropogenic climate change, is not a hoax. That can be proven. Maybe we see ourselves in the polar bear – desperately hoping to stay afloat, but slowly drowning in a rising tide of misinformation.
December/January 2014/15
The Fenwick Review
9
Muggle Metaphysics: The Material, the Immaterial, and the Transcendent in Harry Potter Steven Merola ’16 Staff Writer In August I retrieved a wellworn copy of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire from my shelf and began to read it voraciously. Several months immersed in strange and complex apologetic treatises (and many sunlit summer days passed alone in a library) had taken a heavy mental toll on me, and by the end of it I had come to a state of giddy delirium. A friend, upon seeing me in my pitiable state,
“In Rowling’s world, only what is truly supernatural (i.e., love) can transcend the world’s limitations.” recommended that I take a respite from my research and return to the exploits of Harry, Ron, and Hermione. I chose to heed his counsel for (not only could I see the fear in his eyes as he gazed in horror before my maddened countenance) I could see the wisdom in his advice. At any rate, I was eager to return (if only for a while) to books that were orderly and familiar, and I confess that the Harry Potter series always brings back fond memories of my childhood. And so, expecting the expected, I returned to the series’ fourth installment. My expectation, however, was not realized. Rather than merely enjoying the book’s familiar plot I instead found that J.K. Rowling had painted a picture of the world that serves to challenge modern assumptions about the material and the immaterial. In the world of Harry Potter, both operate in
the same plane of existence, and the immaterial’s limitations are evident. In Rowling’s world, only what is truly supernatural (i.e., love) can transcend the world’s limitations. Part of my reflection arises from a prevalent cultural confusion of the preternatural and the supernatural. In a world largely shaped by Enlightenment rationalism, the idea of anything existing that cannot be empirically observed is foreign at best and unthinkable at worst. Because of this naturalist impulse, confusion arises about what is merely nonphysical and what is truly transcendent, or supernatural. This distinction is lost on the popular culture, and even on the popular discourse about belief in God. Many modern atheists (and a fair number of believers) perceive God as some preternatural, invisible object that mechanically arranges the cosmos. This is why belief in God is often treated on the same lines as belief in fairies or magic. Perhaps an example from popular culture can illustrate my point. In Richard Linklater’s film Before Sunrise two strangers (Jesse and Céline) develop a romance over the course of a day spent in Vienna. As the couple discusses whether relationships are ever worthwhile, Céline remarks: “You know, I believe if there’s any kind of God, it wouldn’t be in any of us – not you or me. But just this little space in between….if there’s any kind of magic in this world, it must be in the attempt of understanding someone, sharing something.” Céline’s sentiment is beautiful: she understands that, in the attempt to understand the Other, we can experience an ineffable joy. Yet, if we look again at her statement, we can see that she sets up an odd equation. The words “God” and “magic” are both used to express the same thought. Céline thinks they express the same idea. “Magic” and “God,” however, are not synonyms. The former describes phenomena that, while not subject to the laws of nature, are a
part of finite existence and thus have limitations. God is the infinite source and sustenance of all things. He is not a discrete object within the world, but the ground of the world’s being. Magic, if it exists, would only be an object that is sustained by God’s being. It may be something that is not natural (beyond nature and thus preternatural), but it would still be defined. God is above the natural order, paradoxically not of it but still present in all of it, and is thus supernatural. Amid all this confusion, the world of Harry Potter helps to distinguish between the preternatural and the supernatural. When reading the books, we become so accustomed to the presence of magic that it becomes nearly unnoticeable. Consider, for example, how strange the words “Potions Class” sound when uttered out of context. To our materialist ears it seems laughably childish, like something belonging to a benighted and superstitious culture. But in the context of the Harry Potter series those words seem perfectly natural. Rowling is also careful to make the limits of her characters’ magic evi-
“ God is not a discrete object within the world, but the ground of the world’s being. Magic, if it exists, would only be an object that is sustained by God’s being. “ dent. The spells in her universe are as frail as any other human faculty. They often backfire and occasionally prove to be more of a burden than a benefit. Her magic certainly has no objectively good or evil quality, and is conformed to the will of its caster. Beholden to
any of the laws of nature, magic is merely a tool to be used for good or ill. And in many respects it is powerless. A love potion is incapable of effecting real love, and no magic can transcend death.
“Rowling levels the earth between the magical and the muggle, between the material and the immaterial, and so demonstrates their essential consistency.” Rowling levels the earth between the magical and the Muggle, between the material and the immaterial, and so demonstrates their essential consistency. Magic may be beyond non-magic, but it is certainly not above it. The only things in the Harry Potter Universe that can transcend worldly conditions are things unspecific to the magical realm. On two occasions (the death of Harry’s mother and Harry’s self-immolation to Voldemort) an act of selfless love destroys evil and conquers death. Voldemort’s efforts to gain immortality magically prove futile, while the unlikely sacrifice of a teenager triumphs over the grave (sound familiar?). Magic may be involved in these incidences, but it is not the primary cause of anything. The magic is subordinate to the greater (super) acts of love. The Harry Potter series is ultimately about how love, and not magic, can transcend death. And, as St. John tells us, God’s name is love. Love is essentially a total self-gift, and God freely gives the world existence and sustains it. And, Incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ, God freely redeems the world by the total gift of Himself on the Cross. Take what you will form these reflections. At the very least, Rowling clarifies the distinction between the immaterial and the supernatural, lowering the former from its falsely-exalted status and the raising the latter to its proper place. Should you feel any impulse over the Christmas break (when, conveniently, we celebrate the birth of the Incarnate God and his redemptive gift) to return to this beloved series, perhaps consider what truly moves the world in the universe of Harry Potter.
The Fenwick Review
10
December/January 2014/15
Dialoguing Religiously Nicholas Jalbert ’16 Staff Writer It seems that one of the hottest debates on the internet is the “Christians versus Atheists” inferno that has scorched nearly every internet forum out there. Apologists of religion and advocates of scientism duke it out across thousands of digital pages and to no effect. The debate is useless. It is not valuable or productive for the faithful to debate atheist for two reasons. First, if the aim is to redeem the faithless, confronting them and challenging them is the entirely wrong thing to do: such aggression makes people defensive and hostile and galvanizes them against any differing points of view. Second, genuine piety warns against such confrontation: it is a manifestation of hubris, either overt or subconscious, that makes someone think they are either capable of or called to the defense of God against the protestations of others. I would like to spend a bit of time exploring these issues. The former of the two issues is more self-explanatory. Debate can be seen like a form of combat: two combatants spar with rhetoric until one triumphs over the other. This shame can have just as profound an effect on the psyche as physical violence can have on the body. Faithlessness is a condition brought on by something; disillusionment is often the result of some trauma; bitterness and anger can be the consequences of emotional wounds. In the same way one should not kick an injured person, one should not lash out at someone going through a time of faithlessness. Antagonizing one who is out of faith is destructive because it deepens emotional wounds. Though pride might compel someone of faith to do so, it is an urge that must be restrained. Each goes through their own journey and engaging only to harm or attack is damaging to the spiritual wellbeing of both parties. In addition to the risk of driving people farther away from faith, engaging in the “Christians versus Atheists”
debate is counter to what genuine faith asks us to do. There is a meme floating around somewhere that says, basically, that the scientist is humbler than the theologian because the former “admits to ignorance” while the latter “thinks the answers to everything are in a book.” This notion comes from another type of ignorance altogether.
The humility that religion invites is the ultimate humility, the most liberating humility, and also the most challenging humility to take up.
because those terms belong to wholly separate worlds. If authentic religion is to accept the limitations of humanity and its inability to comprehend God, to try to understand God through contemporary reason is contradictory to religion. Furthermore, the dichotomy between “religion and reason” or “religion and logic” is utterly false: as if Jerome or Augustine were ‘unreasonable’ or ‘illogical!’ Consider the opening to John Paul II’s Fides et Ratio, “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth.” It’s in the etymology: Theology-- the logos of the Divine. The Catechism, section 1.II.42, tells us “God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God — “the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable” — with our human representations. Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God.” Regarding that meme mentioned earlier. Trying to position the scientist and the theologian as frictional or contradictory is an equally false exercise. The scientist who falls
The humility that religion invites is the ultimate humility, the most liberating humility, and also the most challenging humility to take up. To be religious in a meaningful sense is to acknowledge the limitations and shortcomings of man by understanding that the ephemeral world exists in apposition to unwilting and eternal Divinity. The supposed “humility” of the “scientist” in question is actually hubris: it presupposes that man is in the position to achieve complete understanding of all things. It derives from the humanistic notion that humans are at the center of all things-- this is patently false. This humility is at the core of why debating to defend religion is pointless. hubristic, and contradictory. To defend God with the brand of reason to which the New Atheists subscribe is to imprison Him within their limitations. The creator of all cannot be confined within His own creation: the boundless can never be wrapped up in the finite. One cannot victim to the idolatrous cult of scisupport faith with “concrete evidence” entism is doubtlessly hubristic because
SERIES OF IMAGES
PULL QUOTE
he assumes all mysteries can be solved with time. Yet, science is not scientism: it is a set of tools by which we can come to comprehend the earthly. In the same way that science has rightly overcome primitive superstition, which wrongfully brought the divine into the realm of the earthly, Divinity must never be shackled by the earthly systems that can never and will never know it fully. The good scientist, though not necessarily religious, maintains the theologian’s sense of humility: he knows that he is fallible and willing to acknowledge whenever he does wrong. Although engaging with the unbeliever by tumbling in the “Christians versus Atheists” quagmire is a fruitless exercise, we are still called to aid in the redemption of the unbeliever. There is still a means by which they might come to an understanding. The exercise of humility, kindness, grace, and charity, core virtues of the faithful, will do more to convert than proselytizing aggressively or defensively jumping to faulty apologetics. Both testaments encourage the humble quiet, and genuine practice of faith, rather than the loud spectacle of religiosity. In the purest humility that religion invites, there is fertile ground for the growth of kindness, compassion, forgiveness, and love. Those who would denounce the eternal with faulty reasoning are not to be hated but to be pitied. Let them see the true meaning of faith, the true gift of piety: the sort of humility that tames aggression with peace, calms hubris, and disposes of fleeting desires in favor of eternal fulfillment. And if they refuse? If they continue on in unbelief? Then you have endeavored to instill goodness and even in failing to convert others, you have succeeded in being a good person. Refraining from aggression in favor of genuine goodness will do more for you and for those around you than any debate could ever manage.
December/January 2014/15
The Fenwick Review
11
How do you define yourself ? The Editorial Staff
What they call History is nothing to vaunt of, being made, as it is, by the criminal in us: goodness is timeless. -W.H. Auden, “Archaeology” Last semester ended with an impromptu, but well-produced, week of solidarity, and this term has begun with the announcement of a semester long project in the same vein. To understand what this might entail, one
PULL QUOTE
might first consider the etymology of “solidarity.” At its root, the word has cognates meaning “whole” and
“safe,” and arrived in English from an Encyclopedist coinage meaning “interdependent.” Perhaps, then, one can view this event as an attempt to explore the necessary interdependence of individuals for the wholeness and safety of all. That is, of course, the project of living, is it not? Before all of this, though, one might ask what it means to be an individual, a person. Although the lectures and programs have offered a greater understanding of the racism and oppression suffered locally, domestically, and internationally, they have not yet reached the critical depths of these issues. That is to say, while they have addressed problems people face, they have not asked what it means to be a person. While we do of course need to contend with the problems of racism, interpersonal violence, and the myriad of other forms of de-humanization, we need first to ascertain how to humanize, that is, to do the human thing. We have been reminded that the cura personalis is a cornerstone of the Jesuit tradition, but, as true as this is, we still need to understand what a persona is before we can have care for it. Constantly we are told to respect human rights and human dignity (as we ought), but we cannot properly enact such essential respect without understanding what a human is or, at least, does. If we objectify other humans (whomever that entails), we cannot determine the root cause until we learn how we have denied their human subjectivity. Before we can try
to live in solidarity with one another, we have to determine how we have failed in the ethical obligation to the other. We might first consider precisely what constitutes our personhood and humanity and then examine local and global oppression. During the Solidarity week programs we were exhorted to raise our voices for those whose voices will not be heard. Without doubt, this is the Catholic project: we are enjoined to do for the least of our brothers. As we work on this life-long endeavor, we might seek a greater ressourcement to Catholic values, wherein we can find the basis for this call to solidarity. Doubtless, the call for a greater movement towards solidarity is a good and
necessary one. Loving and caring for and about others comprise an essential aspect of the Catholic faith, the foundation of the Jesuit tradition. Dostoevsky observed that history is in fact monotonous because it is nothing if not the tale of perpetual violence. Attempts at solidarity are critical, then, because they (try to) punctuate that monotony with moments of interest. The events that have occurred and are still to come for the Solidarity Semester will, we hope, prove to advance this movement towards a greater understanding of the causes of human suffering, while concomitantly increasing our understanding of what it means to be human.
The Distraction of Moving Mountains Joseph Murphy ’16 Staff Writer When a student accesses the Holy Cross website, the first thing you read is “What’s it like to live on a hill among people who aspire to move mountains?” Holy Cross students have great ambitions. Many of us aspire to be scientists, scholars, or executives. In other words, we expect successful lives because we have put in the work at an excellent academic institution (also, if you go to school for over $60,000 a year, it’s reasonable to expect a strong return on investment). But we also take pride in our college mission: “Men and women for [and with] others.” I’m sure many of us look to change the world and the lives of people, who live in it. But I think in our attempt to change to world, we sometimes forget to take advantage of what we can do for the world right now. For instance, I like to think of myself as a caring person. But how do I explain the times when I see food drive boxes at school and do not donate? How do I explain all of the times at mass that I have not made a donation because I forgot to bring my wallet?
Opportunities surround me to make a difference in the lives of others but I do not always take them. I focus on academic work, athletics, job hunting or various other tasks, but sometimes my work distracts me from fulfilling the mission of the college. Obviously I do not expect myself or anyone else to make large donations to any particular cause; it is unrealistic to think we can give large amounts of money to numerous organizations. But too often I find that I do nothing at all. I get so caught up in trying to find the solutions to big problems that I forget about the small changes I am perfectly capable of making. Starting with this issue, The Fenwick Review will set up a fundraiser through the website Water.org. It is an organization that attempts to provide safe water and sanitation to communities in Africa, South Asia, and Central America. The second leading cause of death in the world for children under 5 is simple and preventable- diarrhea; it causes the death of about 1.5 million children a year, which is more than the deaths caused by malaria, measles and AIDS combined. We take water for granted in the United States, but
globally, women and children spend 200 million hours collecting water for domestic use; this is time taken away from school or earning money through the labor force.
term solutions to water-sanitation issues. Hopefully, this program can assist Holy Cross in offering itself to the global community. This is not a solution to the problem of war. It will not end poverty or infant deaths, but it can make a difference in the lives of a few people. We can debate for days, weeks, or even years about the best way to help people in developing countries, but I think this project is simple enough so that everyone can contribute no matter what they believe is the best way to end poverty. As we enter the Christmas season, I invite Holy Cross to think about this charity project; it is a challenge to me, as well as for anyone else who often thinks they are too busy to worry about people they cannot see. No donation is insignificant. “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything- all she had to live on” Water.org has been active since (Mk. 12:43-44). 2009. The project was founded by Wa- terPartners International in 1990, but it came into its current form after merging with H2O Africa. It is a reputable organization, and it searches for long
“But I think in our attempt to change to world, we sometimes forget to take advantage of what we can do for the world right now.”
December/January 2014/15
The Fenwick Review
12
In Gratitude to Our Sponsors and Partners Want to advertise in the Fenwick Review? email Chase Padusniak cjpadu15@g.holycross. edu