December 2012

The Fenwick Review The Independent Journal of Opinion at the College of the Holy Cross December 2012

www.fenwickreview.com

Volume XX, Issue II

Ceiling Mosaic of the Arian Baptistry, Ravenna, Italy

The Myth of Liberal vs. Conservative Catholicism

Thomas Arralde ‘13 Staff Writer

and female ordination. These have even been labeled as “civil rights” issues, equating them with the en The effect that the American franchisement of women and minoripolitical system has had on how Cath- ties, and desegregation in American olics view their Church is enormous. political history. The real issue at hand A generation of Catholic Americans is a fundamental misunderstanding who have been poorly educated about of what the Church lays claim to, and their faith, but actively engaged in what our government lays claim to. national politics, has led to the errone- The Church lays claim to truth beyond ous equation of the Roman Catholic the opinions of the majority. Our Church with the United States Govgovernment claims to serve its people, ernment. Because labels like liberal and will change its policies according and conservative are used so widely in to popular opinion. Nowhere is the political discourse, and because Catho- misunderstanding of this concept lics see themselves as fitting into these seen more acutely than the issue of categories, they apply them unthinkcontraceptives. It has been argued that ingly to religious beliefs as though a majority a Catholics today use conthey were analogous to political views. traceptives, and therefore the Church

The preeminent issues on should change its position on forbidwhich so called “conservative” and ding their use. Here we see a political “liberal” Catholics disagree include understanding of an institution that abortion, contraceptives, gay marriage, is fundamentally different from the

Dear HC: You Deserve Coal this Year....page 5

American Government. The Church is not the servant of the masses; it lays claim to a higher truth that, were no one to believe in it, would not cease to be true. Were a majority of Catholics to cease believing in the transubstantiation of the bread and wine during the eucharist (which I dare say may be true), the Church would not be obligated to change its position on the real presence of Christ in the sacrifice of the altar, and rewrite Christ’s own words from “this is my body” to “this is a symbol of my body, or something like that.”

Because these are such heated topics, and it is difficult for people to think about them rationally, in order to discuss the absurdity of labeling them in political terminology it is helpful to look at controversies in the Church’s past which are no longer controversial, and how they were

seen by Christians then. The example par excellence of the aforementioned principle (i.e. that the Church need not capitulate to the opinion of the majority) is most clearly seen in the Arian heresy of the 4th century. Arius called into question the divinity of Christ, and won over a great deal of supporters among laity and bishops, even winning over most of the imperial family. Arius had a novel idea. He wanted to change the position of the Church on this important issue, which was seen as many both then and now as absurd, as Paul put it, “a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles” (1 Corinthians 1:23). Even so, use of the label “liberal” or “progressive” for Arius would be completely misplaced, as would the label “conservative” for those who refused to deny Christ’s divinity. continued on page 7

Who is Excluding Who?.... page 4

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 Dr. 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 2012

Contents December 2012

Volume XX, Issue II

3 The Editor’s Desk Matthew P. Angiolillo ‘13 4 Who Is Excluding Who? Yvonne Gachette ‘13 4 A Good Man is found: Review of A Good Man

Nikolas Churik ‘15 5 Dear HC: You Deserve Coal this Year S. Clause 6 Time for a Grand New Party Patrick J. Horan ‘14

6 The Curious Case of Norway Joseph Lepera ‘14

7 cont. The Myth of Liberal vs. Conservative Catholicism Thomas Arralde ‘13 8 cont. Time for a Grand New Party

Partick J. Horan ‘14

The Fenwick Review

December 2012

The Editor’s Desk

At the Sunoikisis Undergraduate Research Conference at the Center for Hellenic Studies last weekend the lone American scholar amongst the fellows, Jim Marks of the University of Florida gave a talk on the first day making the claim that the Greeks were the first civilization to fully conceptualize and integrate public space into their cities. This was a controversial claim but one that is important given the effect that public space has on a society, especially a democracy. Marks pointed out that space has a democratic function. The huge squares such as Tiananmen Square in Beijing and Red Square in Moscow, which were employed for parades and marches to honor the supreme leader, whether it be Chairman Mao, or Comrade Stalin, were later used for mass protests, such as the famous Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. Tiananmen Square is reported to be able to hold about one million people. In other words, once you create public space you cannot go back and dictate how the populace uses it and for

what purposes they can assemble.

Holy Cross hates when its students assemble spontaneously. Whenever a group of students get together on the lawns of their dorms Public Safety is quick to drive by. After all, cornhole is a dangerous game and someone might get hurt. Public gatherings of students are only endorsed if your tuition dollars are spent to pay for a public safety officer and if you do the requisite paper work with your RA and CDC. Both of whom, as all residents know, do much more to harm community than to encourage it. This is the opinion of the vast majority of students on campus. CDC’s and RA’s think that community has to be bureaucratized and they only endorse community when it is scheduled and they have a captive audience. You cannot assemble in the hallway of your dorm and you can’t throw a real party, especially as an underclassmen, without feeling the ire of some narrow minded disciplinarian who treats you like a child who is incapable of making decisions for himself. However, RAs and CDCs can “schedule” fun for you a few times a semester and then it is allowed for you to enjoy yourself. Spontaneity for these individuals is a dangerous word.

When RAs write many of you up, they like to claim that it is not personal. They in fact think that you are great people, but they are just doing their jobs and they have no choice. “I’ve just have to document you.

I’m just doing my job and need to record all of your

ID numbers. I’ve been told I need to do this. Just be cooperative.” These excuses will hopefully ring a bell with private students of history, as these are precisely the arguments asserted by Adolf Eichmann defending himself against organizing the mass deportation and extermination of millions of Jews from Eastern Europe. The outcomes are very different and not at all comparable for Holy Cross students but the arguments are exactly the same. Don’t allow anyone to tell you differently. The rationalizing that RAs are trained by their superiors to use to allow them to collaborate against fellow students are no different from blaming your superior when you follow unjust orders. Residence Life knows that they intentionally brainwash students into turning in their peers but they do not care.

Residence Life’s job is made much easier due to the individuals who tend to become RAs, many of whom have axes to grind against students more popular than they were in high school and who enjoy having fun on Fridays in traditional and time-honored ways. Other RAs just like the power and enjoy exercising it against people because they can and they have no other interests. It is often stated by the Residence Life staff that you just have to “Respect the RA’s.” Why? Respect is earned and not given. They definitely have not earned that respect simply because they have taken a two-week training camp about how to make your life inconvenient. They are simply fellow students, most of them are more immature and are definitely more insecure about themselves than the people they supposedly are fit to supervise. They are no different from any other students, yet they claim special jurisdictional powers granted to them by an unnecessary office. Each RA should be ashamed when they use their unjust privileges for what is no different than to bully their fellow students. The only difference is the Res Life office allows and encourages this abuse just as long as it is done by stooges carrying clip-boards and wearing polo-shirts.

The hypocrisy of Residence Life pervades all of the housing experience at Holy Cross. Students suddenly stop getting written up in Junior Year because Residence Life enjoys, (just like a school-yard bully) picking on the Freshmen (I don’t know what a firstyear student is, but I never was one) who don’t know any different and are least likely to resist. The Res. Life Office is hopelessly overstaffed. All individuals but one who work there should be relieved and there should be one Director of Housing. All CDCs should be replaced with Fellows, recent Ph.D.’s who will serve as the Masters of each hall while teaching and researching, just like they do at Yale and Oxford. Of all the bloated offices on campus, filled with individuals whom no one knows what they actually do all day, Residence life is one that routinely aggravates the more well-adjusted and productive members of the student body. It should be gutted and HC students should reclaim their right to assemble as they please as is the right of every individual in a functioning Politeia.

3

The Fenwick Review 2012-2013 Staff Editor in Chief Matthew P. Angiolillo ‘13

Executive Editor Travis LaCouter ‘13

Managing Editor Patrick J. Horan ‘14

Website Editor

Andrew D. Emerson‘14

Layout Editors Claire Mahoney ‘15 Derek Grabhorn ‘15 Kim French ‘16

Copy Editors Kelsey Russell ‘13

Advertisement Editor Brendan Sullivan ‘13

Staff Writers Henry Callegary ‘14 John Castro ‘14 Nikolas Churik ‘15 Yvon Gachette ‘13 Kaylie Gage ‘14 Malik Neal ‘13 Thomas Arralde ‘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: Matthew P. Angiolillo P.O. Box 4A 1 College Street Worcester, MA 01610

Matthew Angiolillo Letter Policy December, 2012 Fenwick Review Editor’s Desk 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 2012

Who is Excluding Who? Yvon Gachette’13 Staff Writer I am considered an ALANA student by some members of the College of the Holy Cross community. Needless to say, then, that I have been subjected to treatments --positive or negative -- different than those received by the larger “mainstream” student population. Before I even decided to attend this school that I now cherish dearly, I was invited to Visions Weekend, and then came Passport, Odyssey, etc.

Eventually, my parents would then be invited to the ALANA brunch. That is, that different treatment reached my parents, my home, too. One might ask what all of these programs have in common, and I think I have an answer. I think that they are well-intentioned programs aimed at providing a sense of comfort and safety for students who are deemed underrepresented, disadvantaged, and vulnerable.

Please bear in mind that this is not a distasteful piece aimed at mindlessly debasing programs which might be of utmost value to some. It is rather my personal attempt to yet again expose the often unspoken tension resulting from the presence of said programs, while offering my personal critique of

the matter.

I was hanging out with a friend on a casual Friday night when she had the amiability of inviting my parents and me to tailgate with her parents in the morning for Family Weekend. An occasion which, much to my curiosity, coincided with the ALANA brunch.

It was then that I had the epiphany that even our parents are somewhat segregated by some of the programs here on Mount St. James. My personal philosophy inspired the following questions: Why can we not have a brunch for all parents? Is it not better than invite all parents to tailgate, and ultimately socialize with each other indiscriminately?

Again, I understand that a lot of ALANA programs at Holy Cross are aimed at protecting a certain minority population and provide a sense of homeliness and inclusion.

Nonetheless, I am still inclined to ask how much protection is too much protection. When does the well-intentioned protection counterproductively become malignant? Is there not a point at which the babysitting and the intended inclusion counterproductively become further exclusion and alienation? I encourage the Holy Cross community to cerebrate upon the latter.

Not this kind of odyssey.

Regardless of our socio-economic backgrounds, we are all vulnerable and strong in our own ways. When I immigrated to the United States from Haiti about 7 years ago, I was suddenly thrown into a system completely foreign to me. Yet I am proud to say that, without excessive special attention, I competed with my peers, learned the English language, graduated high school, and landed at the prestigious College of the Holy Cross. Perhaps this is selfish, but I always think that if I can take the personal individual

responsibility of immersing myself into foreign schools in foreign lands, then it should not be astronomically hard for anyone with a certain will to overcome the “burden” of a new state, new city, or new people--regardless of race or ethnicity. Sometimes you might have to work twice as hard, sometimes you might have to do the minimum and still excel. However, we must all take the individual, personal responsibly of working our best to overcome our barriers -- academic or social. It does not always have to be at the mercy of a government or an administration.

A Good Man is Found: Review of A Good Man “You know, George, we lost forty-nine states, but we never lost our souls.”

Nikolas Churik ‘15 Staff Writer

In Flannery O’Connor’s short story “A Good Man is Hard to Find,” the Grandmother reiterates to the Misfit, “I just know you’re a good man. You’re not a bit common!”

While she is mistaken in applying such an appellation to the Misfit, calling Sargent Shriver such a thing would not be false. Although A Good Man is not a rigorous, professional biography, it supplies many personal insights into the life of a man worth knowing.

Reading the book, one will be presented with a man who seemed to possess a sincerity of faith and purpose uncommon among politicians.

After losing in crushing defeat in 1972 as the running mate of George McGovern, Shriver entered the race for president in 1976. This, too, was unsuccessful. When dropping out of the race, he told the press, “What we need now is not the false security of beguiling promises or befogging rhetoric, not empty and simplistic slogans. We need the spiritual confidence borne of confronting openly

and honestly the challenges” (38). This sort of “confidence” could be found in someone no longer in the race and in the haze of competition. Mark Shriver comments about this admonition, “His talk of ‘spiritual confidence’ and ‘terrors in the night’ stray intentionally into the land of faith--a place where Democratic politicians are not supposed to go. And yet he was a Democrat, a liberal, a politician, precisely because of his faith”(40).

Perhaps, the younger Shriver means Democratic politicians today, for, indeed, in writing this work, he remains silent on his father’s tremendous work in caring for the unborn. Though near anathema to the modern platform, this pro-life stance is completely in line with Shriver’s greater work with the Peace Corps, War on Poverty, and other social programs. Such a mix of progressive work and overall concern for the human person is rarely found in either party.

The goal of this book is to “[zero] in on the three guiding principles of his father’s life – faith, hope, and love” (front flap). And, indeed, this book paints a verbal picture of a man full of those three virtues.

When describing his view of the Peace Corps, Sargent Shriver described it as an “antidote to all the espionage and intrigue and mistrust of the geopolitical era” (59). His view is explicated further in his reflection on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Peace Corps’ foundation: “For in the end it will be the servants who save us all” (107). For so faithful a man, the virtue of love, charity, could truly save the world from none other than itself.

Regardless of the reader’s politics, Shriver’s candor and wit, as presented in the book, cannot go unappreciated. When accepting his nomination as the vice-presidential candidate, Shriver remarked, saying more than he realized, “I am not embarrassed to be George McGovern’s seventh choice for vice president. We Democrats may be short of money. We’re not short of talent....Pity Mr. Nixon – his first and only choice was Spiro Agnew” (91).

In retrospect, it is hard not to pity Mr. Nixon for his running mate. While working in Maryland, Shriver hired Colman McCarthy, a notable activist, to join his staff as a “no-man because I already have enough yes-men.” Such honest admittance of imperfection is a

rare and admirable quality in a person in the public eye.

Despite the almost excessive

A Good Man: Get your copy from a local bookseller today. self-reference, Mark Shriver illustrates his father’s drive and, as a result, has produced a fitting and worthwhile work. Shriver appears in this book as a man of conviction, who did not shy from his conscience, but rather carried its call to its full conclusion.

December 2012

The Fenwick Review

5

Dear HC: You Deserve Coal this Year Holy Cross has been a bad boy in a force in any meaningful sport.

2012.

Yes, some sports are more meaningful than others. It is nice to put The College’s actions in light on a brochure that the College of recent financial troubles call offers 25 varsity level Division 1 into question the leadership and sports, however sheer quantity is judgement of the administration. not the sign of excellence. As Jack The purchase of a fleet of Smart Welch preaches, you should be eiCars might make economic sense, ther number one or number two however public opinion is decid- in a field. Holy Cross is nowhere edly against it. This purchase, in close. addition to the purchase of new Transitioning the mapickup trucks, comes at an awk- jority of varsity sports to a club ward time for the school as the level seems to be more in line College invited students to a ques- with the profile of our school. tion and answer session regarding For instance, it is estimated that the school’s financial position only 10% of FCS division football soon thereafter. programs are profitable. Some

The school’s message of might argue that even though it belt tightening looks patently ab- is likely the athletics department surd after the announcement of a at Holy Cross is not directly profnew retreat center that is four mil- itable it still raises the profile of lion dollars underfunded. Perhaps our school. I would find it hard the Jesuits could practice “men to believe that potential non-athand women for others” by giving lete students would apply to Holy up their iPhones and Residence Cross because of the success of Life their ipads to soften the fi- any of our teams. If anyone can nancial blow. On second thought, justify the cost of the athletic promaybe the administration would grams at this school I would be be more apt to change things if happy to listen. they had to pay for their child’s Some would say that maktuition bill and did not receive a ing most sports club sports would pass. lead to the termination of teams

New scholarships might across campus. I would tell these add to the win total for the foot- people to look at the rugby team ball team but probably will not which is a club sport that can elevate the legendary intellectual compete at a high level. prowess of its members. Lower- The list of things we’re thanking academic admission standards ful for is the saving grace. We’re for athletes does not seem like a thankful that academics are still winning formula. Holy Cross will at the forefront. Even though the never be able to attract the caliber College seems to find many ways of player that is needed to com- to get distracted from its logical pete at a national level. The school purpose, the education received at can’t in good conscience say that Holy Cross is still second to none. we have a legitimate chance to be We’re thankful that others recog-

nize the school for its academic excellence. Forbes rated the College 15th among liberal arts institutions and is the only Catholic institution in the top 50 on their list. The strength of Holy cross is still in its academics.

We’re thankful for the people we meet here and the friendships that last for life. We’re thankful for a vibrant and active alumni network that is one of the best in the nation.

However, it is becoming hard to justify the hefty price of tuition after taking into consideration the quality of services and facilities provided by the school. The lackluster athletics program, divergence from its founding Catholic values, and even the lack of basic utensils at any Kimball dinner, are all unfortunate. We can only hope that the College can still produce alumni that value their time here and are willing to give back to fund future generations of Crusaders.

It would be unfortunate if the College did not realize that even though it is experiencing troubling financial times, everyone else is as well. Perhaps for some of us, assuming we graduate and can find jobs, then will have the means to donate to the school some day. For an institution that relies upon donations from satisfied graduates, it might be helpful to remember that Holy Cross’s financial health is dependent on those who graduate today.

Sincerely, A disappointed S. Clause

The Fenwick Review

6

December 2012

Time for a Grand New Party Patrick J. Horan ‘14 Managing Editor On the night of November 6, several right-leaning friends and I somberly watched the results come in as President Obama, despite having presided over the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression, won re-election. On top of this, Republicans lost, on net, two Senate seats even though they were projected to gain seats if not a Senate majority a few months earlier. With a few notable bright spots such as Ted Cruz and Jeff Flake, most high-profile GOP candidates failed to resonate with voters and “shot themselves in the foot” with unnecessary remarks such as Mitt Romney’s “47%” speech and Todd Akin’s ignorant comment about rape. It was not a fun night for conservatives and libertarians.

This past semester, I had the good fortune of interning at the American Enterprise Institute through Holy Cross’ Washington Semester Program, which I heartily recommend for any underclassmen who have an interest in politics and public policy. A large part of my internship dealt with looking at polls regarding the 2012 election and how they compared with previous election cycles. Several questions about

the 2012 national exit poll struck me as particularly interesting.

One question asks (I’m paraphrasing) “Which of these qualities matter most in deciding how you voted?” The options are: “1.) the candidate shares my values, 2.) the candidate is a strong leader, 3.) he has a vision for the future, and 4.) he cares about people like me.” For answers

doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals.” Respondents said “Government is doing too many things” by 51% to 43%. Romney also edged out Obama on the question “Who would better handle the economy?” by 49% to 48% and “Who would better handle the budget deficit?” by 49% to 47%. Most Americans think the economy is about the same or

The GOP must calm down and realize that its principles definitely still resonate with most voters, contrary to the views of pundits who claim a “New America has arrived” and that “demography is destiny.”

1 and 2, Governor Romney won by double digits in percentage points. For answer 3, he won by 9 points. But for answer 4, he lost by a whopping 81% to 18%.

Another question on the exit poll reads, “Which is closer to your view?” with the answers “Government should do more to solve people’s problems” and “Government is

worse compared to four years ago.

Barack Obama won a lukewarm re-election. He is the first president in modern times to not be re-elected by a larger margin than in his first election (granted, his first election victory margin was relatively large). Roughly five million less people voted for him in 2012 than in 2008. Like George W. Bush in 2004, he lost the independent

vote. He is the first president since FDR to win re-election with nominal unemployment at higher than 7.5%.

The national debt, student loan debt, and number of individuals on food stamps are all at record highs.

What explains Barack Obama’s re-election then? He cares about you, and Mitt Romney and the Republican of grumpy old, white men does not – or at least that’s what the Democrats told voters. They didn’t talk a great deal about Obama’s record as evidenced by the lack of words spoken regarding the 2009 stimulus and Affordable Care Act at the Democratic National Convention.

The bad news for Republicans is that they have a big image problem.

They especially have trouble connecting with minority voters (in November, Obama even won the Cuban vote, the one Hispanic voting bloc that was once reliably Republican) and women. Even Asian-Americans and Indian-Americans, many of whom earn more than whites and put great emphasis on conservative principles such as family values and self-reliance, voted for Obama.

Unfortunately, for Republicans, the white vote is not growing at the same pace as the minority vote.

contunied on page 8

The Curious Case of Norway Joseph Lepera ‘14 Staff Writer

The Kingdom of Norway is one of the most successful and interesting nations in the world. A constitutional monarchy, Norway maintains the second highest GDP per capita in the world at $97,255 and is the second wealthiest nation in the world in terms of monetary value. Norway ranks first in the UNDP Human Development, or standard of living, index, and currently ranks highest on the Democracy Index, and lowest on the Failed State index.

Norway’s economy is a mixed one, in which a free market is combined with state ownership in several businesses. The state has influence in the energy industries, as well as the aluminum and banking industry.

30% of Norwegians are employed by the state, the largest amount in the world. Universal health care and longterm parental leave are several of the commodities included in the capitalist welfare state. Currently, 22% of Norwegians are on welfare and 13% are too disabled to work, which are the highest proportions in the world.

Pundits have claimed that due to Norway’s remarkable ratings in the aforementioned indexes, that

their welfare model could provide a roadmap to help America. First, the working culture is different in Norway, since their hourly productivity has been ranked as the highest in the world. Alas, many more Americans who aren’t as interested in productivity would most likely take advantage of welfare, which could be considerably costly. Furthermore, the cost of living in Norway is 90% higher than the US. This increase is due to high taxation associated with the Nordic Welfare The Sleipner Natural Gas Field, operated by Norwegian gas and oil company StatoilHydro model. nation, in no ways is it responsible for If the US adopted a model, such as

Moreover, the main reasons their wealth or standard of living. In the T Boone Pickens plan, which calls for Norway’s prosperity are its refact, many have claimed the quality of for wind farms to generate electricity sources. Norway exports oil, natural domestically, we could lower the cost healthcare in Norway is terrible, as is gas, lumber, seafood, minerals, fresh the case with many European Univer- of energy and become more prosperous. water and hydropower. In particular, sal Healthcare systems. I argue a free

Attempting to make America revenues from oil and gas constitute market health care system would be 45% of its exports and 20% of its cheaper and have better quality of care more like Norway makes about as much sense as making a Lion behave GDP. Its oil revenues fund its soverin any scenario. eign wealth fund, which is currently

Market forces would drive the like a caterpillar. Both have different customs, cultures, beliefs etc. While the second highest state owned fund price of premiums down and would force doctors and insurance providers critics of Norway argue its public of its kind and pays for its pensions. goods suffer in their welfare state, they to compete. While this welfare model Norway is the second largest exportdoes work for them, it is by no means would undoubtedly have enough moner of fish behind China. In terms of ey to fix anything that could pop up a model for a country like the US, domestic energy, hydroelectric plants which is 30 times larger and has much over the next 100 years. As for Amerigenerate 99% of their electricity. ca, we have no shortage of issues, but less resources.

All in all, Norway’s relatively small as well have no shortage of people

However, one thing the US population (roughly 5 million), treworking to solve them. Looking at could learn from Norway is to cut mendous work ethic, and demand other nations can be helpful, but only costs from domestic energy. As for their resources (mostly oil) have if we critically evaluate every aspect of made them a prosperous nation. While aforementioned, hydroelectric plants the scenario. generate nearly all of their electricity. universal health care is part of their

December 2012

The Fenwick Review

7

The Myth of Liberal vs. Conservative Catholicism cont. from page 1 Regardless of the fact that Arianism, though popular for a time, was condemned at the Council of Nicea and eventually fell out of favor, it is clear that Arianism wasn’t a “liberal” but legitimate view in the Church, it was simply a “different” view. This is how Arianism was viewed in the 4th century, and how it has continued to be viewed since then. The proper term for Arius is not liberal, but heterodox (literally of a different opinion), and the term for those who kept the faith not conservative, but orthodox (of the correct opinion). When the Church takes a stance on an issue one is free to accept it or not, but not accepting it isn’t a legitimate, orthodox, Catholic position.

This is where the confusion arises. Because our government does not lay claim to objective truth, disagreeing with government policies is perfectly acceptable for a U.S. citizen.

Liberal and conservative are then valid points of view, and valid labels, in American political discourse. A liberal is no less American than a conservative, and vice versa. In fact, both liberals and conservatives believe that our government should change in one way or another. Not so the Catholic.

The Catholic, to be a faithful son or daughter of the Church, must stand

by the decisions of the Church. This of course doesn’t mean that there is no room for thought in the mind of the Catholic. As an example of this I will suggest one of, if not the most prominent Doctor of the Church, Thomas Aquinas. Thomas was a 13th century friar who wrote prolifically on matters of theology, and in his writings he opposed the view that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived

Obedience is a dirty word in political contexts, and people therefore don’t usually like to apply it to themselves, but it is a chief virtue among Catholics, and really anybody who professes a belief in a supreme intellect that is not one’s own. immaculately. Centuries later in 1854, Pope Pius IX defined the Immaculate Conception, making of it a belief incumbent on all the faithful. What then of Thomas Aquinas? Should he be considered heterodox, and should the title of doctor (the angelic doctor, even!) be stripped from him? The answer is, of course, no, because the

Church had in the 13th century not yet taken a firm position on the matter of the Immaculate Conception. Had Thomas lived now, however, he would need to bow to the wisdom of the magisterium and accept its teaching.

Obedience is a dirty word in political contexts, and people therefore don’t usually like to apply it to themselves, but it is a chief virtue among Catholics, and really anybody who professes a belief in a supreme intellect that is not one’s own.

Lest I be accused of criticizing so called “liberal” Catholics alone, there are those who call themselves “conservative” Catholics who have an equally untenable position. People who see themselves as fitting into this category often take issue with documents of the Second Vatican Council, and object to mass in the vernacular, lay involvement in the Church, and even wine as a species of the eucharist. The most extreme example of this is the Society of St. Pius X. Such was this group’s objection to the changes of Vatican II that they severed themselves from the Church. To call this movement a “conservative”, but legitimate Catholic movement would be ridiculous, seeing as though they are no longer even in communion with the Catholic Church. This is of course a fringe movement, but

regardless of how much anyone likes the Latin mass, if the Church decides that the vernacular is valid for use in the mass, it is not for a faithful Catholic to dissent.

My hope is not to turn all Catholics into mindless drones incapable of thinking for themselves. Quite to the contrary, the Church has always been a forum for lively and fruitful intellectual debate on issues pertaining to Catholics and non-Catholics alike. My issue is with those who insist on claiming Catholic orthodoxy, yet disagree with clear Catholic teaching.

There are so many who marvel at the beauty of the sentiment, “For it is in giving that we receive; it is in pardoning that we are pardoned; and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life,” but condemn this humility in practice. The faithful Catholic cannot be self-absorbed, contriving their own notions of morality without regard for Church teaching, and, if their ideas conflict with the Church’s, simply call them liberal or conservative. I think it important to remember that when St. Ignatius of Loyola said, “I will believe that the white that I see is black if the hierarchical Church so defines it.” He meant it.

“That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.” ~ Thomas Jefferson Join Our Cause — Write for the Fenwick Review!

Contact Matthew Angiolillo at fenwickrev@g.holycross.edu or visit our website at thefenwickreview.com

The Fenwick Review

8

December 2012

Time for a Grand New Party cont. from page 6

The good news for Republicans is that don’t have huge ideological and policy problems. If that was the case, New Jersey and Wisconsin would not have voted for Republican governors during the course of President Obama’s first term. There are more Republican governors than Democratic governors.

In fact, the GOP even has four minority governors (Jindal – LA, Haley – SC, Sandoval – NV, and Martinez – NM) as opposed to the Democrats’ one minority governor (Patrick – MA).

Republicans control a majority of state legislatures, and, of course, they maintain the House of Representatives. The GOP must calm down and realize that its principles definitely still resonate with most voters, contrary to the views of pundits who claim a “New America has arrived” and that “demography is destiny.”

So where does the GOP go from here? I propose the following: 1.) Show it wants to listen and include.

For example, as mentioned above, Asian-Americans and Indian-Americans share many conservative values.

They vote Democratic because they view the Democrats as the more accepting party, not necessarily because of the party platform. They view the GOP as the party that does not want to talk to them. Change this image, and earn their vote. This would earn back the votes of many others, including Cuban-Americans.

2.) Debunk misconceptions about policies promoted by the Left.

For example, Barack Obama overwhelmingly won the black vote. He is an iconic figure to many in the African-American community. It is certainly understandable for blacks to be excited about the nation’s first black president. However, have

Obama’s policies really helped the black community? The black unemployment rate is still higher than the average rate and has worsened since Obama took office. “Well, that’s just because of the economy,” some say. While I personally think the unemployment rate should be lower for all Americans, let’s just say true, for the sake of the argument.

This leads to a broader question: Is the Democratic Party the better party for African-Americans? My recent experience in the District of Columbia suggests the Democrats are, in many respects, failing the black population. Washington, D.C. is an overwhelmingly Democratic city that voted for George McGovern and Walter Mondale. Yet, there is an awful homelessness crisis, and, a great percentage of these homeless people

Is the Democratic Party the better party for African-Americans? My recent experience in the District of Columbia suggests the Democrats are, in many respects, failing the black population. are black. D.C. also has shamefully poor public schools. How can poor black students ever hope for a better future when their schools are such a mess? Similarly, blacks are also concentrated in inner-city areas such as New York and Chicago. These cities are run heavily by Democratic politicians, but they are still failing AfricanAmericans, despite lofty rhetoric

about how they care about diversity.

3.) Debunk mischaracterizations the Left use against the Right.

The Democrats have used Sandra Fluke as a poster girl for their defense against the Republicans’ “War on Women.” The Obama campaign told women to vote “like their lady parts depended on it,” and used an ad featuring actress Lena Dunham, comparing her vote to Barack Obama (her first vote in a presidential election) to losing her virginity. In other words, the Obama campaign reduced women’s intellect to merely only caring about birth control and abortion.

Biology is the only thing that matters, according to these ads. Republicans and conservatives should call out these tactics as crude, demeaning, and sexist. Explain these falsehoods, and self-respecting women will think twice about how they will vote.

4.) Get back to the roots of conservatism. Conservatism calls for a limited federal government, particularly on domestic issues. On many issues, this means let states and individuals decide what they want to do. If Colorado wants to legalize marijuana, let it legalize marijuana.

Let the states compete with each other and decide the best policies on local issues. Don’t make federal decrees bossing around the states when they’re not hurting anybody.

Leave that to progressive know-it-alls like Barack Obama. While this may not sound “socially conservative,” it is in keeping with the idea of individual freedom and responsibility. It is also fits a limited understanding of the Constitution (see the 10th Amendment). Left-wingers stretch the meaning of the Constitution. No need for conservatives to do so, too.

5.) Understand that peo-

ple, in the words of the American Enterprise Institute’s Vice President Henry Olsen, want a “hand-up,” not a “hand-out.” People don’t want to simply be “takers,” but they want to

If Colorado wants to legalize marijuana, let it legalize marijuana. Let the states compete with each other and decide the best policies on local issues. be able to have access to affordable health care and to be able to pay to their children to college. This does not mean they want Obamacare or his takeover of the student loan industry.

Here is where it gets tricky. How do you avoid the bromide of George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” that made the GOP look like watereddown Democrats, while also not sounding like a heartless Mr. Potter?

Well, for starters, point out that, over the past few years, the Democrats have fostered a dependency state.

Unemployment has risen and millions have been put on food stamps under their watch. Republicans need to provide an alternative that focuses on creating growth and prosperity for all.

They can use JFK’s oft-quoted line, “A rising tide lifts all boats.”

The Right was largely discouraged on election night. But it has better cards than it may realize. The Left may have won, but it did not win big.

Message to the Right: follow these five points, and you can pull the rug from under the Democrats’ feet.