April 2017 by The Fenwick Review

The Independent Journal of Opinion at the College of the Holy Cross April 2017

Volume XXIV, Issue V

Quod Verum Pulchrum sites.google.com/a/g.holycross.edu/the-fenwick-review

Table of Contents

OPINION Meatless Mondays and the Necessity of Debate...............5 Michael Raheb ‘20 Name Change ....................................................................7 Hanna Seariac ‘20 Do You Hear What I Hear?.............................................10 Lorraine Mihaliak ‘19 Hallowed Virginity............................................................12 Brooke Tranten ‘17 Tradition and the Asinine.................................................17 Claude Hanley ‘18

POETRY & SATIRE

The Fenwick Review 2017-2018 Staff Co-Editors in Chief Brooke Tranten ‘17 Claude Hanley ‘18 Layout Editor Audrey Holmes ‘19 Staff Writers Greg Giangiordano ‘18 Michael Raheb ‘20 Bill Christ ‘18 James Garry ‘20 Webmaster Elinor Reilly ‘18 Faculty Advisor Professor David Lewis Schaefer Political Science Cover Art: Stefanie Raymond ‘18

Erosion..........................................................................9 Patrick Connolly ‘18 Disclaimers La Salette...........................................................................14 This journal is published by students of the Patrick Connolly ‘18

ADORATION OF THE BLESSED SACRAMENT

EVERY THURSDAY, 7:30 PM8:30 PM, ST. JOSEPH'S CHAPEL

Sacrament of Reconciliation available for entire hour Sponsored by the Society of Saints Peter and Paul

College of the Holy Cross and is produced two or three times per semester. The College of the A Letter From Satan to His Demons...............................15 Holy Cross is not responsible for its content. Greg Giangiordano ‘18 Articles do not necessarily reflect the opnion of the editorial board.

Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defeneded constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom, and then lost it, have never known it again. --Ronald Reagan

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 separately from Holy Cross. We welcome any donation you might be able to give to support our cause! To do so, please write a check to the College of the Holy Cross with Holy Cross’ address: memo: The Fenwick Review

Brooke Tranten and Claude Hanley PO Box 4A

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: We must reserve the space to offer a heartfelt thank you to our benefactors, without whom The Fenwick Review would not exist. We extend our profound gratitude to The Collegiate Network and the generous individual and alumni donors to The Fenwick Review, for their ongoing enthusiasm and support of our mission. Mr. Guy C. Bosetti Mr. Robert W. Graham III Mr. Robert R. Henzler The Hon. Paul J. Hanley Mr. Kevin O’Scannlain Mr. Sean F. Sullivan Jr. Dr. and Mrs. Paul Braunstein Mr. and Mrs. Richard Fisher Mr. and Mrs. Thomas W. Greene Mr. William Horan Mr. Robert J. Leary ‘49 Fr. Paul Scalia Mr. and Mrs. Michael Dailey Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Gorman Mr. Paul M. Guyet Mr. Joseph Kilmartin Mr. Francis Marshall ‘48 Dr. Ronald Safko Mr. John J. Ferguson Dr. Thomas Craig MD, MPH, ‘59 Mr. Patrick D. Hanley

Letter from the Editors

Dear Reader, Thank you for picking up the copy of The Fenwick Review. The academic year is beginning to wind down and with that comes the encroaching anxiety of midterm exams and papers. The intellectual life of the College, however, has perked up as of late. At the end of October, the distinguished Catholic intellectual George Weigel gave a fascinating lecture in Rehm Library about the development of Catholic social teaching, with an especial focus on Pope St. John Paul II. Students for Life hosted noted pro-life activist Dr. Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in Levis Browsing Room just last week. As welcome as these additions to the campus parlance du jour are, the “next big thing” in actuality is the discussion surrounding Holy Cross’ Crusader mascot. The discussion has mostly focused on the name “Crusader” itself. Should the campus newspaper continue to call itself The Crusader when the Ku Klux Klan has a newsletter also carrying that name? In this brave new world of tolerance and multiculturalism, are the martial roots of the name “Crusader” even kosher? Holy Cross has proved itself to be very good at asking questions. Indeed, the pedagogy of the vast majority of liberal arts institutions is based upon critical thinking. That is all well and good, but where are the answers? We at The Fenwick Review like to ask questions as well, but what we really desire is the answer. Perhaps not on all conceivable political and academic issues, but answers do exist. We believe that there is truth to be discovered in the world and that truth is objective and eternal. We do not insist to impose the truth, or The Truth, on anyone, but we do insist that both exist. And we do insist on charity, even in pointed debate, and intellectual honesty. We now present this penultimate issue to you. Ms. Raymond’s rendering of the Blessed Mother on a shimmering background of gold dedicates the issue to reflect upon, however unworthily, the virtues of the Mother of God. Mr. Raheb begins with a balanced critique of a Rehm Library fishbowl “Who’s in the Room” series. Ms. Seariac provides her take on this semester’s hot-button issue, the mascot and Crusader name controversy. Mr. Connolly’s pensive verse helps us take a step back and reflect. Our College Organ Scholar, Ms. Milhaliak, then follows with a fair and honest commentary on sacred music and its importance in Catholic liturgy. In another topic integral to the Faith, Ms. Tranten explains the Catholic understanding of the holy virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Mr. Giangiordano brings some welcome levity (though the denizens of Hell would see it as gravity) in his own personal Screwtape letter, of which Jack Lewis would certainly be proud. Finally, Mr. Hanley rounds out our discussion with a thoughtful piece on the value of tradition. As is our custom, we must extend our gratitude to our benefactors, donors, and readers. The generous contributions and most welcome feedback of our benefactors buoy our spirits and challenge us to do better, or at least behave ourselves better. We also thank those of you at Holy Cross who have stopped our writers and Co-Editors on campus and offered your support or compliments, or perhaps even the precise opposite of both. A blessed end of Lent to all. Petite Veritatem, Claude Hanley Brooke Tranten

Meatless Mondays and the Necessity of Debate

Michael Raheb ‘20 Staff Writer

to moral questions and an accurate portrayal of reality A recent fishbowl conversation titled “Meatless without necessarily being violent. Debate supersedes Mondays” entertained the concept of implementing dialogue in finding answers. a meatless day in Kimball Dining Hall. The proposal Dialogue’s demand that participants suspend their had been floating ambiguously on the mouths of beliefs while attempting to secure a solution within students for at least a month, and surely, since common ground is unsuitably unrealistic. People are, those same students are intimately associated with in fact, firmly convicted in their systems of belief. the food they consume, a decision regarding its Dialogue expects these systems to be discarded like validity was expected. The fishbowl had no faults jackets, shamefully relegated to the coatrack beside in the presentation of different opinions and their the door to conversation. It seems to forget that people consideration, but its underlying framework was are either quite comfortable in their coats or put their flawed. It resulted in jackets back on when they Dialogue entails an naught more than the leave. The open-mindedness words of its members individual suspending his that dialogue promotes appears dripping into a stagnating own beliefs in a respectful, meritorious, but in a civil pool that will likely never debate, participants are allowed be touched again. If Holy open-ended conversation to demonstrate and defend Cross continues using this convictions that are too grave with another person. framework, students will to simply disappear. not have true voices in Debate entails close-minded Dialogue’s inability – or, objective decisions. retention of one’s own beliefs rather, refusal – to investigate Two signs stood validity of belief results beside the glass doors and defending them for the the in a futile lack of conclusion. of Rehm Library: one Consider, for example, the sake of winning green with the title belief that killing animals “dialogue,” one red is morally repulsive. If a vegan and a meat-eater and titled “debate.” Each sign contained a list of engage in conversation, how can they be expected characteristics attributed to its appellation, and the to reach a logical conclusion that suits both of their overarching theme of each was blatant. Dialogue demands? If animals are killed for consumption, the entails an individual suspending his own beliefs in vegan’s eyes widen in disgust; if killing animals is a respectful, open-ended conversation with another indeed repulsive, the meat-eater bellows in distaste. person. Debate entails close-minded retention of Dialogue abandons the existence of objective one’s own beliefs and defending them for the sake of morality, both in favor of common ground and in winning. Negative language purposefully and falsely refusal to acknowledge the “rightness” of one side. exaggerates debate’s qualities, while the color of its Debate, however, understands that “killing animals is poster – red – indicates its appeal. Perhaps, however, ethically repulsive but is also not ethically repulsive” Holy Cross students, seemingly regarded as giggling is a logical fallacy that exists only in a lawless society kindergartners who yell “stop!” when they see red wrought with paradoxical subjectivity. lights from their car booster-seats, should not be On some terms, the appeal of dialogue is valid. It suspended from debate. It provides both conclusions entails respect to participants, involves real concern 5

for others, and listens in order to understand, while debate unfortunately has a reputation of aggressive imbecility. There are places for both dialogue and debate – dialogue is good for proposing questions, not answering them – but the latter ought not be tossed into a dumpster so quickly. The solution is simple: a debate need not be so ferocious. A participant in debate ought to swallow his vitriol and, in search of the truth, speak to his opponent in a considerate manner. With an ounce of courtesy, debate satisfies

and soars above dialogue’s incapacity to entertain belief and fundamental questions of morality. Dialogue lies sullen on the ground in that respect, pecked at by confused birds who mistakenly think it is food. Debate, however, entertains beliefs and searches for objective conclusions to moral questions. All it takes to cause the red light to turn green again is single dosage of respect.

Name Change Hanna Seariac ‘20 Recently, a dialogue arose concerning the name Muslim frontier.” Dr. Asbridge provides an excellent of our mascot and newspaper, The Crusader. A letter, backdrop for how we should examine the Crusadessigned by forty-eight distinguished faculty members, as a political war, not primarily a religious war. appeared in a recent issue of The Crusader, urging Understanding the Crusades as a political war allows students to engage in conversation because our you to recognize that both sides waged war over newspaper shares the same name as the KKK’s and the territory, not exclusively religious zeal. feelings of animosity they believe the term “crusader” Michael Haag, a historian with books published carries. by Yale University Press, American University in In response to citing the KKK as a reason to Cairo Press, etc. writes in The Catholic Herald discuss changing the name, that argument seems eerily “In 1095, Pope Urban II called for a Crusade, but close to an existential instantiation- a logical fallacy neither Christianity nor the West was the cause of the where one assumes existential import. I do not think Crusades…The Crusades were part of a centuries-long that the vast majority of people know that the KKK’s struggle between Islam and Christianity throughout newspaper bears this name and also, I do not think that the Mediterranean world.” the mutual name associates us Synthesizing these two with them. A proper assessment historian’s thoughts, we see that of Crusaders reveals that they Dr. Asbridge provides the Crusades were a war fought (they being the Crusaders) were between two groups of people, an excellent backdrop anything but white supremacists one mainly Christian and one (since racism did not surface until mainly Islamic, but the Crusades for how we should later). The KKK’s message and from political struggles. examine the Crusades- resulted agenda of hate and supremacy Understanding the dynamic should not deter us from as a political war, not of the Crusades is crucial to acknowledging that Crusaders are understanding my argument primarily a religious remembered for being staunchly about keeping the name. If Christian, above all else, even if one views the Crusades in a war that is simply a stereotype. historical context, one sees However, the crux of the argument to change the that the Crusades do not originate from a place of name that we identify with is not the connection to the Islamophobia, as some may argue. This distinction KKK, but rather the “anti-Muslim tensions…counter between hatred of a religion and a territorial struggle to our mission and goals” as the faculty writes. This defines how we view the actual Crusaders. assumes that there is a direct connection between the Speaking of actual Crusaders, history and society Crusades and anti-Muslim tensions. While I can see stereotypes them as a zealous Catholic, pillaging how one could reach that conclusion, I believe that every village and killing everyone in sight. As with conclusion is an oversimplification of a complex series most stereotypes of Christians, this is completely of wars. inaccurate. Dr. Thomas F. Madden, a Crusades Dr. Thomas Asbridge, a leading expert on the historian, addresses this common misconception in his Crusades, in The Authoritative History of the War for article The Real History of the Crusades by writing the Holy Land writes “when Latin crusading armies “They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope arrived in the Near East to wage what essentially or rapacious knights but a response to more than four were frontier wars, they were not actually invading centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already the heartlands of Islam. Instead, they were fighting captured two-thirds of the old Christian world…But for control of a land that, in some respects, was also a the truth is that the Crusades were notoriously bad for

April 2017 The Fenwick Review

plunder. A few people got rich, but the vast majority returned with nothing.” Immediately, Dr. Madden deftly squashes the stereotype of the pillaging knight, similar to how the College squashes open dialogue about perpetuating our Christian tradition. I write this statement ironically because similar to how I am advocating for preserving our Catholic history, the Crusaders believed that Islam would destroy Christianity as they destroyed Zoroastrianism, according to Dr. Madden. As Christians, as American citizens, as people, as whatever we identify as, a universal truth that most, if not all, of us can agree upon is that everyone should have freedom of religion. Then, if a group tries to take away that freedom, wouldn’t we fight? The short answer is we’ve already done that. Earlier, I stated that the Crusades were a political struggle, which is true, but this political struggle led to Muslims inhabiting more territory and as Dr. Madden points out, posing a threat to Christianity. Dr. Madden concludes his article with “Without the Crusades, it might well have followed Zoroastrianism, another of Islam’s rivals, into extinction.” I write this not to justify the Crusades because anything that results in killing, stealing, etc. is morally wrong, but I think it expands our view of the Crusades. The Crusaders simply are not what they are remembered as, therefore we should not change the name of our mascot because of a misconception of their intent. Yes, Crusaders committed atrocities, but so did people on the other side. I do not wish to justify their sins, but rather emphasize that they fought for their families, rights, and religions- in other words, what we call “noble causes.” In my view, when we call ourselves “Crusaders”,

we remember those who prioritized preservation of the family and Christianity. Beyond the stereotypes that society pins upon it, the term Crusader always evokes Christianity. To me, to change the name is to ignore that the message of Christianity is love. In Matthew 22, a Pharisee lawyer asks Jesus what the greatest commandment is, and Jesus responds “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like unto it: love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these commandments.” In this time in history where hate is unprecedented, it is crucial and essential that we spread love everywhere. Since we live in a time where Islamophobia is rampant, we need to speak out against the hatred with a message of love, which I believe we can do as Crusaders and as Christians. In my mind, our path forward is self-evident. We need to delineate what we believe being a Crusader means, educate others on this, and then, check our personal contributions to hatred. Every slightly racist joke or phrase, instance of gossip, insult or jab, even sarcastic comment piles up and smothers the true message of Christianity. Since Crusader carries negative connotations, we cannot simply do nothing about those connotations. I believe that we should stand by our Christianity, stand by our values of love, and stand by our name as Crusaders. As I wrote before, we need to educate others on the Crusades and what we mean by using the name, underscoring our commitment to Christianity. I view this name change as one attempt of many to rid the College of Christianity, which is why I strongly oppose the name change. Instead of denying our Christianity, let us embrace it, as the Crusaders did, and show our love for God and our neighbors by doing so.

April 2017 The Fenwick Review

Erosion Why worship the permanence of mountains that dissolve in the wind like desert dunes? The silt of the riverbed is formless, so the emptying of canyons makes land. The stone statue on this hill can and will remain steadfast, unchanged as the heavens, barring any closer look at the moon. But the idea remains, so circular. Crags of the land constantly in contrast— however upon further inspection of the city on the hill behind it, integrity of spirit cannot last. The sand of the beaches, salt of the Earth: each grain ground by the pads of my feet is the crushed crystal of tradition before; the future ore of the perfection to pass. Only the golem has life eternal and there is no such thing as unstained glass.

- Patrick Connolly ‘18

Do You Hear What I Hear?

Lorraine Mihaliak ‘19

At the 2016 Conference for Roman Catholic Cathedral Musicians (CRCCM), I entered a conversation about traditional versus “modern” music of the Church over dinner and wine with fellow organists and choir conductors from around the world. “The Catholic liturgy, grounded in Tradition, should be accompanied by traditional music. That is, Latin chant and Palestrina-style polyphony,” said an organist from Minnesota. “Are you kidding me?” replied the music director of one of the archdioceses of Texas, “My congregation would up and walk out if they didn’t get their regular dose of On Eagle’s Wings, Let There Be Peace On Earth, and Here I Am, Lord.” The cathedral organist from New Zealand interjected, “To be honest, I use a mix; whatever I’m feeling like that weekend.” This ongoing debate, dating back to the 15th and 16th centuries before the Council of Trent, has kept many church musicians at war with each other. What styles of hymns, anthems, psalms, Mass settings etc. are appropriate to use in the liturgy? What constitutes “sacred music”? Church officials have offered little insight beyond basic guidelines as to what styles are suitable to accompany the liturgy. In the 16th century, the Council of Trent produced barely a paragraph on the subject declaring Gregorian Chant as the official musical genre of the Church and the pipe organ as the official instrument, but allowing sung polyphony modeled after the style of the composer Palestrina. These guidelines became blurred as the genres morphed and developed with changing eras. Music was being written with a variety of instruments and using languages other than Latin and Greek. In the 20th century, Vatican II devoted more attention to sacred music regarding its use within

the liturgy and allowing multiple instruments and languages with approval from the Apostolic See. The details were confirmed in the instruction Musicam Sacram, followed by Sacrosanctum Concilium which reaffirmed the importance of music in the liturgy. That music is integral to the celebration of the Mass has never been questioned and its purpose has been clear despite preferences of style. Musicam Sacram (4.a) states: “By sacred music is understood that which, being created for the celebration of divine worship, is endowed with a certain holy sincerity of form.” In February, I had the opportunity to participate in the annual Holy Cross Music Ministry retreat. Among other activities designed to enrich our knowledge as church musicians, we compared two different settings of a Psalm from the Ordinary of the Mass. The first version, based on an original Psalm tone chant of the early Church, was taken from the collection of Psalms sung on Sundays by the Schola Cantorum choir and accompanied by the organ at the 11:30 Mass in Saint Joseph’s Chapel. The second setting, perhaps more widely recognized by the Holy Cross community, was composed in the 1990s and can be recognized by the congregants of the Saturday Vigils and Sunday evening masses. This second version is regularly used by the Chapel Choir and Ensemble. Members of both choirs, the Schola and the Chapel Choirs, were present at the retreat. The two Psalms were not presented as contestants, but were rehearsed and sung by all so the different styles might be appreciated as two ways of praying the same words with the same effect. Here, the importance in creating sacred music was given to the “how” and the “why” rather than the “what.” In this way, our understanding of sacred music comes to fruition. “He who sings prays twice,” said St. Augustine. As prayer is intended to be a personal conversation with

God, so should music, as a form of prayer, share in levels of intimacy and be an expression of oneself, the composer and performer, or of the group of individuals for whom it was composed. At the same time, the expression cannot divert from its primary goal: to glorify God. Nothing should draw the congregation’s attention away from what is occurring on the altar. In fact, music should be written and used with the aim to strengthen and focus the attention of the mind on prayer, therefore fulfilling its purpose of enriching the liturgy. In being a uniquely human gift, music can easily diverge to glorifying man instead of God, particularly when church musicians find themselves counting the compliments and praise received at the end of a liturgy. Pope Francis warns us against this tendency by saying: “Certainly, the encounter with modernity and the introduction of [vernacular] tongues into the Liturgy stirred up many problems: of musical languages, forms and genres… Sometimes a certain mediocrity,

superficiality and banality have prevailed, to the detriment of the beauty and intensity of liturgical celebrations.” This should not be read as a call to entirely return to Gregorian Chant in Latin and Greek and Palestrinastyle polyphony. Rather, it is a reaffirmation that ‘Take Me Out to the Ball Game” is perhaps less than appropriate for your funeral service. The Catholic Church welcomes and encourages sacred music to be written in styles that reflect the many diverse languages and cultures in the world. In a respectful manner and without losing sight of its purpose, music can become a channel for people to focus their thoughts and words on the Trinity. Pope Benedict was once asked how many possible ways are there to enter heaven. He replied there existed as many ways as there were people on earth. So too, should there be as many unique prayers in wo rd and in song.

In fact, music should be written and used with the aim to strengthen and focus the attention of the mind on prayer

April 2017 The Fenwick Review

Holy Cross’ organ, St. Joseph’s Chapel

Hallowed Virginity Brooke Tranten ‘17 Co-Editor in Chief On February 11, the Roman Catholic Church celebrates the Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes. The feast marks the day in 1858 when the Virgin first appeared to a fourteen year old girl, Bernadette Sourbirous, who later told her mother that a “lady” spoke to her in the garbage dump of Massabielle. The illiterate girl was dismissed by her parents, nearly ostracized by her community, and even belittled by high-ranking members of the Church hierarchy. But then something happened. Pope Pius IX, while at first skeptical of the apparitions, acknowledged their authenticity in 1862. An enormous basilica was constructed above the Grotto where Bernadette saw the Virgin. The waters of the spring that was revealed to her by Mary have healed the sick, consoled the dying, and given hope to those who had no hope at all. With that in mind, I wish to comment upon Mary’s perpetual virginity and why her virginity is so important to the Catholic Faith. Referring to Mary as the “Blessed Mother” is often unfamiliar to non-Catholics. The term “the Virgin Mary” is more commonly understood, even amongst those who have no experience with religion. Nearly any person off of the street could tell you who the Virgin Mary was; she was the mother of Jesus Christ, though she was a virgin. Indeed, Mary may be known by her miraculous virginity more than anything else by non-Catholics. Virginity is intrinsic to the Blessed Mother’s identity, to who she really was and who she was meant to be. Her status as a virgin mother was not assigned to her by the early Church with the hope of securing for the Church a posteriori control over feminine sexuality. Lifelong virginity was not forced upon

Mary by God, though when the angel Gabriel visits her in Luke 28-38 (NVB), she was indeed engaged to Joseph. Gabriel told her that she was to bear a son, and Mary was confused at first, mentioning out her virginity. That is, her virginity in the sense that anyone with familiarity of the word at all would understand. What does this mean? Mary could have said no to the angel. But she did not. She understood the supreme gift she was being given, and not just to be the bearer of God Himself. Theotokos, a popular title for Mary of yesteryear literally means “Godbearer”. Her virginity was a gift as well, miraculously kept intact by the workings of the Holy Spirit. The earliest fragments of the New Testament, rather obvious allegorical interpretations of the Old Testament (Isaiah 7:14, Micah 5:1-2, amongst others), and even baptismal rituals from the 3rd century all mention Mary’s virginity. At the very least, then, Mary’s virginity is integral to any honest evaluation of her, even from a non-religious perspective. For Catholics, Mary’s virginity is a dogma of the Faith. That is, Mary’s perpetual virginity before, during, and after the Birth of Christ is an article of the Faith that must be held by all baptized Catholics under pain of mortal sin or even heresy. It is absolutely and positively nonnegotiable. The Church did not invent this dogma, but rather proclaims and safeguards it. This does not mean that respectful discussions regarding the Blessed Mother’s virginity are verboten, but that the Church holds certain aspects of Mary’s relationship with Christ to be inviolable. There are indeed different types of dogma according to Catholic ecclesiology, but it is not necessary to deal with theological niceties here. Suffice it to say that Mary’s perpetual virginity is an incontestable article of the Faith. To say otherwise

A poor girl from the boondocks of a forgotten Roman province who gave birth under dubious circumstances as a young teenager is the holiest human being who ever existed

April 2017 The Fenwick Review

is greatly misguided, and, frankly, quite insulting to activity that would normally be sanctioned between Catholics. The Church pleases such a great emphasis spouses. Without sexual activity, then, can the on Mary’s virginity because it is directly connected to marriage of Mary and Joseph be considered an actual her relationship to her Son. Everything comes back to marriage? After all, the Catholic Church holds sexual Christ in Catholic Mariology. consummation to be one of the two preconditions for Mary has a special the indissolubility of marriage space in the Catholic Church per Canon 1141 (the other The point is that the because her Son is the being validity, a much larger Church. It makes sense that Virgin Mary is special for topic of discussion). The the natural mother of the Son answer must be yes, for it her perpetual virginity, Whom Catholics worship is would be ridiculous to say an exceptional human being. amongst other qualities. that the marriage of Mary and Mary is the only human Joseph was a pietistic sham. She is even more special for being ever created and will Their marriage is not a matter be created who was kept her intimate relationship for canon law, which was free of Original Sin from the developed centuries later and with her Divine Son moment of her Immaculate for human beings much more Conception. This is dogma fallible than the Virgin Mary. as well. The greatest of the The virginity of the saints, the Prophets, even John the Baptist and St. Blessed Mother was not forced upon her by God or Joseph, cannot claim this extraordinary privilege. A assigned to her by the Church. Her virginity is an poor girl from the boondocks of a forgotten Roman unassailable part of her identity, both as a human province who gave birth under dubious circumstances being and as the Mother of God. This identification as a young teenager is the holiest human being who cannot be said to extend to other human beings, nor ever existed. And she had to be, because of the would it make any sense to do so. The point is that anticipated grace of Christ’s redemption. Indeed, the Virgin Mary is special for her perpetual virginity, Mary is the perfection of Christ’s redemptive grace, amongst other qualities. She is even more special for partially because of her perpetual virginity. She alone her intimate relationship with her Divine Son. Christ is both virgin and mother. She is the fullness of what is the reason was she was granted such incredible Christ preached. Christ’s own mother was the model Divine gifts. She was made for Christ and to be of what He was sent to this earth to proclaim. with Christ. The irony is that she was the personal Mary was created to be the Mother of God, embodiment of Christ’s teaching before He was even but where does this leave St. Joseph, whom the new born. Mary is a paradox, both virgin and mother translation of the Mass tells us, was her “most chaste within the most holy and chaste of marriages. In the spouse?” We do not know much of Joseph, for he Jesuit cemetery at Holy Cross, there is a statue of the does not speak a word in Scripture. We do not know Blessed Virgin, depicting Mary with a crown of stars. whether or not he was a widower when he met Mary Mary, ever-virgin, is also the Queen of Heaven. Could or if he had other children, though some apocryphal there be a more distinguished title for a woman? books (not accepted by the Catholic Church or any other Christian church) have some interesting stories to the contrary. We do know that he was a good man, a “righteous one” as the Gospel of Matthew says. Mary became pregnant was a child who was not Joseph’s, and so Joseph decided to divorce her quietly. However, an angel came to him and told him to raise the child his own. And so he did, without any question or hesitation. His marriage to Mary was a most beautiful one, although one without any and all sexual

A Letter From Satan to His Demons

La Salette

Greg Giangiordano ‘18 Co-Editor in Chief

Nothing to be gained, I mounted the steep steps of the school bus with my parents, its matte yellow darkened by dirt and dissolved rock salt. And upon a diesel caravan of the poor in spirit, we embarked on a pilgrimage. It always felt like an amusement park— I asked more than once where the rides were. But inside in mass I became as quiet, struck by the granite walls, covered in crystal, because the lights and candles illuminated them, and every specular face on the wall aligned with me. Outside, among the lights, it was cold, but icons and tacky decorations that just gently teetered between both the messages of the holiday, served as warmth in the night. Red and white and black and green swirled together in the frozen field. And my small boots beneath them ground an ice as sparkly as the walls in the shrine; each of its faces lined up for me. And after a long bout of walking, came the familiar sound of a food court, and the familiar smell of hot chocolate, from a burrow in the bosom of a hill. The kitchen was poured of cement and my parents bought my sister and I a liquid treat, to warm our faces, which had turned red in the cold. So we drank our confections as a family, until it was time to meet back up with the congregation, outside upon the walks made of trampled crystal. And on the way out, I saw a man with a cup and a walkman begging for change. I asked my parents why he had bought a walkman, instead of saving up for a house. They explained to me, as we walked by, the little comforts were the ones on which we could count. - Patrick Connolly ‘18 14

April 2017 The Fenwick Review

To my eight chieftains on Earth, the ability to procreate through love in His cursed I say to you, well done. You have done extremely sacrament, marriage. What better way to debase well in corrupting the insects. Through your efforts, this gift than by inflaming the insects’ bodies with you have caused war, famine, genocide, rampant excessive desire? Continue to work in allegiance with destruction of nature, injustice of all kinds and your cousin GLUTTONY, as it is then that you are at numerous other atrocities. But, most especially, you your most potent. If you do, it will only be a matter of have instilled in the insects deep-seated hatred of the time before the Enemy’s CONTINENCE is stamped Enemy and almost complete disbelief in us and our out of the insects’ souls forever. I say to you, well purpose. I say again, well done. The insects grow done. more and more like us with every Earthly moment Third, I congratulate AVARICE. How subtly and that passes, and my halls bulge with teeming masses insidiously you work in the insects’ minds. You are of the depraved and the forsaken. Be assured, we a master of twisting reality, of using happiness as are hurting the Enemy and His cause. His forces on a tool of fear, by making the insects think that they Earth are greatly diminished, will only be happy if they have and they grow less every day, enough material success. You rob thanks to your efforts. I know of all joy in life by making You are a master of them that each of you knows your them slaves to careers they find own achievements, but for the twisting reality, of using meaningless but in which they pleasure of your brethren I will remain so that they can be wealthy, happiness as a tool of enumerate some of the more while simultaneously making them delicious victories that each of forget that the Enemy does not fear, by making the you has won and continues to have nor has ever had any use for insects think that they win. wealth or possessions, and that First, I congratulate will only be happy if they only by way of CHARITY can GLUTTONY. To what walk of they achieve true salvation and have enough material the insects’ lives are you not absolute bliss. I say to you, well applicable? Over-indulgence done. success is so commonplace in insect Fourth, I congratulate society that I am whole-heartedly surprised that SADNESS. Your work is methodical and calculated: they have not started worshipping you as a god, you torture the insects in their tranquil moments and especially when you are partnered with your cousin destroy any semblance of peace that they may have LUST. When the two of you are aligned in common had, and you shrivel and bow the insects’ souls with purpose, only the most stubborn insect can withstand misery. You are in close dialogue with AVARICE, your might, and only then with direct help from because you know that you can work most effectively the Enemy and His meddlers. You have so broken when the insects are deprived of their meaningless TEMPERANCE that there are hardly any insects left possessions or fail in their vain quest for earthly who possess even a modicum of self-restraint. I say to success. You also remove the thought of CHARITY you, well done. from the insects’ minds, making them forget that Second, I congratulate LUST. How better to happiness is only found in giving selflessly. I say to corrupt those insects in the flower of their youth you, well done. and virility than through you? We all know that Fifth, I congratulate ANGER. You are the most the greatest gift the Enemy gave to the insects was ferocious of my chieftains, and you most easily

inflame the insects against the Enemy’s ways. You incessantly irritate the insects’ souls with indignant thoughts against those whom they perceive to have given offense, and you stir their blood with thoughts of revenge. Not only are you intense in the moment of your entrance, but you can also smolder within an insect for the entirety of its earthly existence, and irritate it for the rest of its pathetic days. You know the greatest threat to your domination is MEEKNESS, that tool of the Enemy that promotes gentleness and kindness, and you are all the more fierce because of it. I say to you, well done. Sixth, I congratulate HOPELESSNESS. You are the most dangerous to those few insects actively seeking the dominion of the Enemy. You instill in them how difficult it is to live by the Enemy’s virtues, and torment them with thoughts of how much sweeter and easier life would be if they would simply let go of their desire to seek the Enemy. Your greatest tool is sloth, which you use exceedingly well in preventing the insects from even trying to live by His virtues. Your greatest enemy is FORTITUDE, that virtue that helps the insects carry on living virtuously despite your attacks. Yet, so few insects seek help from this virtue that they are like small islands in the sea of your crushing influence. I say to you, well done. Seventh, I congratulate VAINGLORY. You are the slyest of my chieftains, and your work is bolstered when you work alongside HOPELESSNESS. Your targets are also those few who actively seek the Enemy’s protection, and you taint any success that they have in their struggle towards the Enemy. By flashing their success constantly before their eyes, you make them feel smug satisfaction for their piety, and make them crave the praise of others for their efforts. When they do not receive the praise that you have instilled in them to expect, you stealthily slip away, and allow their souls to be further blackened by HOPELESSNESS and ANGER. Your greatest threat is APATHEIA, for it is only in still, calm, clear thought that you can be beaten. However, insects

give little thought to contemplation, preferring instead to struggle frantically every moment of their existence. I say to you, well done. And finally, I most warmly congratulate PRIDE. You of all my chieftains are most closely aligned to my purpose, for it is through you that the insects deny that they need the Enemy’s help and believe that their virtuous actions come solely from themselves. Furthermore, you cause discord between the insects, for when you infest their minds, they each believe that all their fellows should view them as creatures of great importance and worthy of great reverence. When they do not receive the expected veneration, you allow ANGER to inflame their minds against each other and any semblance of friendship or unity between them is shattered. If left unchecked, you warp and derange the insects’ minds until they are quite beyond the reach of the Enemy’s salvation and fully in my possession. Your greatest threat is HUMILITY, but because you instruct the insects to teach their cubs that they are perfect from the moment they can understand, their capacity to be humble is miniscule. I say to you, well done. Make no mistake my children; we are winning the war for the Earth. The Enemy’s forces are overwhelmed by our might, and they can do nothing except wait to be swept away, as a deaf leaf does before a hurricane. Continue to plague the insects as you have done, and I promise you that we will have the Enemy’s chosen creatures under our domination. We will twist them, and mutilate them, and bind them irrevocably to our will. Remain true to our purpose, and I will grant you as much power and freedom as you could desire. But turn against me, and I will crush you. The Dark Lord Commander of the Legions of Hell

April 2017 The Fenwick Review

Tradition and the Asinine Claude Hanley ‘18 Co-Editor in Chief The Fenwick Review’s Mission Statement declares that “We take pride in defending traditional Catholic principles and conservative ideas.” On a college campus in New England, those two things are less respected than Milo Yiannopoulos is in civilized company. I hasten to add that the metaphor ends with the scorn the secular middle class has for each of them. People hate Milo because they know who he is: a flamboyant provocateur, an alt-right troll, a huckster of repulsive ideology. By contrast, it’s a small number of people who seem to wrap their heads around what “traditional conservative ideas” actually are. Does conservatism consist in incendiary racist populism? Perhaps in a contorted love affair with Wall Street? Perhaps even in an urgent desire to slaughter as many Middle Easterners as possible? Remarkably, our mission statement means nothing so villainous. It refers to a series of general principles, which I suspect would not offend many normal, decent people. The first of those principles is simultaneously the best known, least understood, and most reviled. Everyone knows that conservatives venerate the altar of tradition. Indeed, conservatives are never satisfied with preserving a tradition; they must always restore an earlier one, reaching ever further back. We are embarked upon a grand design to replay history in reverse, and return to some antediluvian world where kings rule by divine right and the poor are used for dog food. Alas, regrettably, no. Tradition is hardly so easy to detest. Tradition abides in a framework of custom and continuity. The organic life of a social body is a set of customs, or habitual ways of doing things. They are refined and limited by long practice, and so become expected modes of social and political interaction. Through use, societies and cultures learn both the strengths and weaknesses of individual customs.

Experience makes it possible possible to predict and to manage the disadvantages customs create, and to limit those disadvantages. Obviously, though, traditions are not merely the customs of a single generation. “Tradition” suggests an element of time and preservation -- an element of continuity. Customs are preserved through time, with succeeding generations ensuring that they continue. This effort does not stem from a desire to live in the past or to thwart development. Rather, it derives from a recognition that known disadvantages are better than unknown ones. If, through the lives of previous generations, we have learned to control the unfortunate side effects of a particular custom, then why invent an entirely new one? Why begin again with an untested system, in the hopes that it will turn out for the better? The rational thing to do is to preserve the system which works, and modify it as far as necessary, but as little as possible. Continuity appears, therefore, in a purely pragmatic guise. This is too limited a justification. Tradition is more than caution; it has a higher aim than simply reduction of risk. Across the generations, continuity appears as the means which links one generation to the previous ones. It has particular significance for any society or community of people, because it unites them to the past, and allows them to understand themselves. Without continuity, the present generation of a society is cut off from its past, from the social and cultural customs which had once sustained it. The preservation of continuity with past custom is what we designate as “Tradition.” But this is only a description of what Tradition is, not a defence of it. Once a social body is cut off from its past, it begins to lose the threads of identity and meaning which united it. Custom and continuity bind a community together across time. Consider the College as an example. The traditions of the College, be they as trivial as where Commencement occurs or as significant as the College’s institutional

Symbols are not unimportant traditions: they express a deeper reality of the place, and play a role in protecting it

identity, create something of a common experience. They are the things, both significant and trite, which make Holy Cross recognizably the same today as it was twenty years ago. When traditions are lost, something of identity is lost with them. The meaning it created vanishes soon after, and must be created all over again. Those are the stakes of tradition: the strength of the community, and the meaning that exists within all of its bizarre little rituals. I do not think anyone would claim that even the smallest silly tradition is completely without significance. Consider, for instance, the outrage which met the College’s decision to move Commencement to the DCU center last year. I doubt if it had much to do with a peculiar desire to sit, dressed in black academic robes, in a sun-baked field on a summer morning. More likely, students felt that a tradition (and a trivial one at that) had disappeared. In summary, conservatism’s reverence for tradition is far more than a stubborn refusal to accept that the world changes. It derives from the insight that customs by nature have served well in the past, and will continue to serve well in the future. They should be adhered to, in continuity with tradition, in order to preserve the identity of a community, and strengthen the meaning which that identity creates. With that said, traditions exist in a hierarchy. Holy Cross’s status as a Catholic and Jesuit college is a more significant tradition that the school’s motto. The former is a concrete reality, incorporated into everything which the institution does; the latter is a symbol of that reality. But symbols are not unimportant traditions: they express a deeper reality 18

of the place, and play a role in protecting it. The conservative labors always to preserve the higher tradition, and to modify the symbolic as necessary in order to retain the real. So what does this have to do with the College’s mascot, which is rather obviously what I’m talking about? In the current discussion of the name “Crusader,” we are dealing with something that is a tradition in its own right, and a symbol of a deeper reality. I have no intention of discussing the defences and critiques of the mascot lodged by professors and students; their validity is a topic for another article. Evidently, though, the strongest defence of the mascot is that is shamelessly projects Holy Cross’s Catholicism. No secular university would call itself “The Crusaders.” So, in discerning whether the name should remain or be altered, another question becomes incumbent: is it possible that the mascot could be changed to something that reflects our shared identity just as strongly? What would that new mascot be? If the name “Crusader” can be shown to have legitimately harmful consequences to the College and its students, these are the questions that should be asked They remain, at this point, unaddressed. If we are to have a sound discussion, they should not remain so. If the options are either “The Crusaders,” or something asinine like “The Purple,” the choice is not terribly difficult. The one is an intelligible and evocative image, however flawed; the other conjures a substance you might scrape from the floor of a first-year residence hall. The one is a custom in its own right, and expresses a deeper and more important tradition; the other drowns identity in a blob of violet ooze. Mascots are trivial things,

April 2017 The Fenwick Review

but they express realities that are not trivial. Those deeper realities are custom, tradition, and identity. They are the arteries of any community. While we pick at a surface problem, we should be careful not to heedlessly slice through them.

The Fenwick Review is proudly sponsored by: