December 2017 by The Fenwick Review

Volume xxv

issue iii

December 2017

Table of Contents

William Christ

The Second's Opinion

Richard Ciolek

On the Malice of the NRA

James Garry

No "Right" to Healthcare

Patrick Connolly

Astrology

Jack Rosenwinkel

Let's Talk About...Jesus

Claude Hanley

An Interview with R. R. Reno

James Dooley

Get Behind Me, Satan

To Our 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 Dr. William Sheehy '59 Mr. Robert Abbott '66 Mr. Jim Carter '59 Mr. Brian Kingston, '68 John Verdon Bernard Long '62

Our Staff: Editors-in-Chief Claude Hanley '18 Bill Christ '18 Web Editor Elinor Reilly '18 Staff Writers Michael Raheb '20 James Garry '20 Seamus Brennan '18 Greg Giangiordano '18 Stefanie Raymond '18 Patrick Connolly '18 Cameron Smith '20 Jack Rosenwinkel '21 James Dooley '20 Faculty Advisor David Schaefer, Political Science

Dear Reader, Thank you for picking up a copy of The Fenwick Review. Back in late September, The Fenwick Review co-sponsored a lecture by R.R. Reno, the editor of First Things, entitled “A Christian Interpretation of the Age of Trump.” Dr. Reno observed that the election of President Trump attests to the breakdown of the liberal postwar consensus. He noted the once-prevailing tendency for Conservatives and Liberals to agree that deconsolidation and greater fluidity were positive good; their disagreements arose merely over what spheres that deconsolidation ought to affect. Today, the talk of walls, border, and “America First” on the Right makes the same point as the left’s fascination with cultural appropriation and the popularity of Bernie Sanders on the Left: Enough of deconsolidation; Americans want something stable to hold on to. Dr. Reno has argued that liberalism is dying. His lecture aimed to provide a Christian version of what should come next. In connection with his lecture, Dr. Reno agreed to an interview with The Fenwick Review about the state of higher education in the United States. It is our privilege to publish the full text of that interview in this issue. The interview, conducted for The Fenwick Review by Mr. Hanley, ranges from general questions about the purpose of universities in America, to the particular challenges of free speech and intellectual diversity, to questions about the unique mission of Catholic higher education. We are grateful to Dr. Reno for offering his insights, which we hope will prompt deep reflection on the nature and purpose of our four years on Mount Saint James. This issue also features a balanced set of essays on both Catholicism and American politics. Most prominently, Mr. Christ and Mr. Ciolek offer two different perspectives on the issue of gun control legislation in the United States. In the wake of shootings in Sutherland Springs and Las Vegas, their comments on the morality and constitutionality of gun legislation are particularly important. Mr. Dooley critiques the viewpoint behind a number of recent College-wide lectures, that Catholics ought to simply compromise with the Democratic party on the issue of abortion. Elsewhere, Mr. Garry offers a scathing take on the notion of a “right” to healthcare, and the poverty of moral discourse which such a notion reflects. Mr. Rosenwinkel makes a few remarks on evangelization and sanctity. Finally, the editors note with happiness that Mr. Connolly’s poetry has finally returned to our pages. We hope you find the reading insightful and engaging. We certainly did. Petite Pulchritudinem. Claude Hanley and Bill Christ

"The greatest love story of all time is contained in a tiny white host." -Fulton Sheen

Come and Adore Him! When: Thursdays from 7:30-830 Where: Saint's Joseph Chapel

The Second's Opinion William Christ

Throughout the fall, the sight of mass shootings and similar gun based atrocities occurred so frequently that some American citizens and their politicians called for limitations as to prevent such horrors from happening again. In the months that followed the deadliest mass shooting in American history in Las Vegas in early October, victims of gun violence have been found at a Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas and a California elementary school. Almost immediately after such acts, Democratic politicians called for a vigorous expansion of gun laws while politicians on the right refuse to act because they, like the base, believe that they possess an inherent right to carry firearms.

NRA’s influence from the political process after the Las Vegas shooting. Despite the outcry condemning Weinstein’s statement, a significant portion of the country still cannot fathom the close bond that their fellow citizens have towards guns and continue to remain isolated from people who “cling to their guns.” Second Amendment skeptics, like like Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT), have called for the banning of AR-15, a specific type of semiautomatic assault rifle. A Democratic colleague of the Senator Murphy, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), proposed a bill banning AR-15s in the U.S. Senate days after the deadly shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas.

Using the Second Amendment as the explicit pursuing actions that would eliminate the

Although these enthusiasts engage in lawful activities and vote accordingly, they are often vilified by gun control advocates reminder of Americans’ intrinsic right to use firearms, these advocates challenge any legislation that their gun control opponents propose. Noting that the first gun control laws proposed by the American Founders in the early republic mandated that most household be armed, believers in the Second Amendment argue that its purpose is to allow for the defense of the pubic liberties, in case the government acts tyrannically and violates these fundamental rights. Granted that America in 2017 is not acting tyrannical, the Second Amendment is not mooted by the cultural bond it has with politically active hunters and firearm aficionados. Although these enthusiasts engage in lawful activities and vote accordingly, they are often vilified by gun control advocates for “assisting” in mass shootings. Look no further than the statement of the disgraced Harvey Weinstein, who

While the proposals of these Democratic Senators and other gun control advocates are well intentioned, they are severely misguided because the man who brought the shooting to an end in Texas used an AR-15. If there had been legislation banning the legal acquirement of an AR-15 that man, Stephen Willeford, could not have acted and the shooting could have lasted longer with even deadlier implications. Unlike the densely populated communities with police stations nearby where most gun control advocates reside, the communities reliant on their firearms for self-defense live significant distances away from law enforcement officials. Furthermore, Secret Service officers were able to prevent further injuries to Congressional leaders or House Majority Whip Steve Scalise because they were able to respond rapidly to the shooter at the Congressional Baseball practice. The presence of a deterrent firearm

is the best precaution against mass shooting because it allows the rapid response that saves lives. In the aftermath of the Las Vegas and Sutherland Spring shootings, gun control proponents frequently asserted that firearm laws needed be strengthened because it would then prevent future atrocities from ever occurring again. Such proposals are absurd; they fail to take into account the fact that the people who intend to break the law by murdering people will have no qualms about violating laws in order to obtain guns illegally. But what of background checks? They are a current requirement for people purchasing guns. However, due an error in the processing stage, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System failed to recognize that the shooter in Sutherland Spring was courtmartialed for domestic abuse because the Air Force failed to submit the records. The extension of background checks usually gains support across the partisan lines so policy proposals aimed at eliminating the inefficiencies between the agencies so that

authentic checks could occur would most likely gain bipartisan support. Until recently, Congress has discussed bipartisan support for the elimination of bump stocks. While Democrats and gun control advocates have been hesitant to respect the wishes of gun owners, they should listen to their voters because their options are going to be a matter of major political significance in eleven months. In a public opinion poll taken after the Sutherland Springs Shooting, Gallup found that only 36% of those surveyed would support legislation banning AR-15. With Democratic Senators representing deep-red states with a heritage of hunting, it would be politically imperative for Senators Tester, McCaskill, Heitkamp, Donnelly, and Manchin to oppose any regulation infringing upon the rights of gun owners. If they refuse, it is safe to assume that a politically coherent class of gun owners would be motivated by the NRA to select a Republican who shares their values. Hopefully these Senators will listen to their constituents, the American people, and the not the more radical members of their own party.

On the Malice of the NRA Richard Ciolek

In the wake of shooting in San Bernardino, California in December 2015, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops released a statement strongly condemning gun violence in the United States. It called on Catholics to urge their congressmen to enact legislation such as universal background checks, limitations on high capacity magazines, and improved access to mental health care. That did not happen, despite almost overwhelming public support for universal background checks (86% according to Gallup in 2015). To this day, federal firearm legislation remains stagnant. If this makes anything at all painfully evident, it is that Congress would prefer to take money from the NRA than ensure domestic tranquility.

deaths and incidents than the other ten countries combined. The common counter to this statistic would be the that, with the exception of China, the US is much more populated than the rest of the countries surveyed. However, when adjusted for population, only Switzerland, Norway, and Finland outrank the United States. Writers at PolitiFact note that data here is slightly skewed, as all three of these countries have very small populations coupled with only one or two mass casualty events. The US, nonetheless, appears to have a higher than ordinary number amount of shooting incidents than other countries of a similar level of development. This is a problem. A problem that lawmakers have continually failed to address.

How many massacres...how many school shootings, before congress realizes that there is a gun problem in this country? And so, it happened again. On October 1, 2017, a gunman fired into a large crowd of people attending a music festival and killed 58 of them, wounding over 500 others. He is reported to have fired about one-thousand rounds, and used a modification known as a “bump stock” to allow his semi-automatic rifle to fire at a rate nearly equal to that of an automatic. Why, as a society, are we allowing individuals to buy highcapacity magazines and modifications to essentially create military grade hardware? You don’t need a machine-gun with state of the art optics and a 100-round drum magazine to kill a small deer. The United States stands alone amongst highly developed countries when it comes to the savage frequency of mass shootings. Two researchers, Jacyln Schildkraut and H. Jaymi Elsass, cataloged data from mass shootings in eleven countries (Australia, Canada, China, England, Finland, France, Germany, Mexico, Norway, Switzerland, and the United States) from 2000 to 2014. The US had more shooting

Neither Newtown, nor Aurora, nor Orlando, nor Las Vegas, nor Sutherland Springs have resulted in any substantial, long-term gun control legislation. Nor are mass shootings the only manifestation of America’s gun problem. As of September, The Washington Post reports that forty-three people were shot by toddlers in 2017. Meaning, on average, an American is shot by a toddler every week. It is absolutely ridiculous that children are being put in positions where they could cause serious harm to themselves or others, and US lawmakers refuse to do anything out of fear of the NRA. How many massacres, how many cases of children accidentally shooting each other, how many school shootings, before congress realizes that there is a gun problem in this country? How many more dead before something is actually done to address this problem? Immediate legislative action is needed to prevent further deaths. I am not naïve. I do not

think that stricter gun control will completely stop mass shootings, or gun related deaths. However, if even one life is saved, then we’re on the right track. But where to start? Universal Federal background checks might be a good place to begin. They would impede and, hopefully, prevent those with a history of crime or mental illness from purchasing a firearm, but would not prevent law-abiding citizens from purchasing firearms. Prohibiting high capacity magazines, and modifications that alter the rate of fire of semiautomatic weapons should be next. Then, of course, in response to these rather modest measures, a cacophonous chorus screams out “the 2nd Amendment!” Mind you, I do not wish to scorn the US Constitution, but it’s a bit odd that some in this country are using a document meant to shield US citizens in a bid to harm them. Do we imagine even for a moment that background

checks could be unconstitutional? Or that any regulation whatsoever on magazine sizes is beyond the constitutional remit of federal power? I’m no legal scholar, and it may very well be against the law to enact the measures which I have proposed. But constitutionality is not the point of this piece; moral obligation is. The Constitution does not establish moral obligation; it establishes legality or illegality. If the 2nd Amendment does, indeed, guarantee unrestricted access to firearms, and any common-sense gun legislation would be unconstitutional, then the Constitution ought to be amended. For I consider laws which protect the lives of the citizenry to be the mark of a good state. If our founding document makes it impossible to prevent some of the 34,000 firearm fatalities this country sees each year, it is our duty and responsibility to modify them. Anything else is beyond immoral.

No "Right to Healthcare" James Garry

Our current healthcare system is, to put it bluntly, unsustainable. The cost of treatment inflates yearly to exorbitant new levels, and the system as a whole is laden with inefficiencies. Those who lack adequate health insurance rarely receive preventative or proactive care and often times preventable illnesses become costly emergency-room cases. In an effort to address this crisis, the American left has united behind a common rallying cry: “Healthcare is a fundamental human right!” The aim of such rhetoric is admirable. Confronted with the stomach churning reality of the large number of Americans who die each year because they could not afford decent medical treatment in one of the wealthiest nations in the world, those who make such

from another human being. The assertion that one has a right to healthcare thus implies that one has a right to the property or resources of another human being, and ultimately, that one has a right to coerce another to serve his own ends. At this point, a “right” no longer serves to protect the dignity and integrity of the individual within a society; it involves an overreach into the integrity of another. At this point the argument in favor of the government providing a basic healthcare safety net to its citizens appears to collapse. And indeed, under the terms of the prevailing mode of moral discourse in our society it does. But that is because the discourse is shaped by an unnatural, pernicious notion: that as a society our obligations to our fellow human beings

Under this schema of human rights, the claim that the right to healthcare should be included quickly breaks down proclamations are responding to a very real injustice. Nonetheless, this maxim is a caustic one. In claiming that access to healthcare is a fundamental human right they both distort the concept of human rights and imply a perverse set of assumptions about what it means to live in a society. Fundamental human rights exist in order to preserve the dignity of the individual. Rights such as the right to free speech and the right to practice one’s religion ensure that individuals within a society are free to act according to their conscience and beliefs, so long as they do not impede others from doing so. The establishment of basic rights preserves the dignity of the individual by protecting him from unjust coercion from his fellow citizens and the government itself. Under this schema of human rights, the claim that the right to healthcare should be included quickly breaks down. Medical treatment, or the resources used to procure it, inevitably come

extend only as far as the bare portion we owe to them as an absolute right. Such a conception of what it means to live in a society is onedimensional and cold. It ignores the cooperative aspects of human nature that compelled us to sacrifice our natural total freedom in order to enter into a society in the first place. It labors under the delusion that the height of human political good in a society is a sort of cage matcha contest of all against all monitored by an indifferent referee whose only purpose is to cut things short when certain lines are crossed. When the obligations we have to each other by virtue of our common human nature are cast only in legalistic, bare bones terms -- of force and rights, of what I can and cannot be made to do, of what I owe and am owed -- we lose the freedom required to regard others as human beings deserving of our compassion. We transform them, instead, into entries in an accountant’s ledger, against which we must balance the books. Those who advocate for a

government that operates on such terms advocate for an unnatural government, a government that exists not to support a society but a pack of individuals in constant competition. Even our founding fathers recognized this when they allowed the federal government to collect taxes for the â&#x20AC;&#x153;general welfare.â&#x20AC;? I object to the argument that healthcare is a basic human right, not because I disagree with the need for government sponsored healthcare,

but on two other grounds. Firstly, that it dilutes the precious concept of what exactly a human right is and our reasons for protecting them. Secondly, because it operates under and thus affirms the assumption that our debts to one another extend no further than political rights; that our society can do no better than hostile and reluctant concessions. I believe more of human nature.

Astrology Patrick Connolly

I attended his lecture afraid of the heavens; suspicious that Father Sky cannot shield Mother Earth. I raised my hand and gave some pause; my anxiety swelled as I braced for impact. He said past me, “All signs point to us being a flash in the pan— Humanity is frail and the stars are not immortal. Only time waxes forever. Only energy is eternal.” I took my leave looking up at the morning; asteroids shine no light, nature gives no warning.

Christmas Over Christ Michael Raheb

Let's Talk About...Jesus Jack Rosenwinckel

“I’m really fed up with Christians,” my neighbor told me. “The other night I was by the pond when these two guys with beanies and acoustic guitars asked me if I’d found Christ, and then they started playing Jesus music.” As a Catholic, the thought of two hippies playing Jesus Jams by a pond makes me smile. But I can understand how hipster-fueled evangelization with spontaneous music can be a little offputting-- especially in a society where religion is akin to going to the bathroom: if you have to do it, fine, but don’t talk about it. This attitude is a serious challenge to evangelization-- it’s hard to make disciples of all nations when the nations are too fed up with you to listen. I understand that any amount of evangelization will alienate some people, but this alienation

50% when the academics were informed the candidate was also an Evangelical Christian. While Catholics and Evangelicals face different social stigmas, they are stigmas nonetheless, and in or out of academia, these stigmas are a real barrier to effectively spreading the Gospel. On top of the social stigma, there’s also the very real and uncomfortable truth that no matter how logical and persuasive you are, you can’t argue someone into faith. So how do we evangelize in a secular culture that ridicules and delegitimizes Christians? How do we lead someone to the Truth if we can’t just… convince them of it? The answer is sanctity. Look at Mother Teresa. Before she became known around the world

This attitude is a serious challenge to evangelizationhard to make disciples of all nations when the nations are too fed up with you to listen. becomes a problem when it annihilates any receptivity to Catholicism. Given that Jesus told us that we’d be persecuted for spreading the gospel, some evangelists seem to judge their effectiveness by how many people they’ve made mad. That’s not the point; any evangelization that drives people away from God undermines its own purpose, no matter how Christ-like the ensuing stigmatization makes us feel. That’s not to say there aren’t real barriers to evangelization. A recent New York Times Op-Ed by Nicholas Kristoff cited several studies which indicate that in academia, there’s significantly more hiring bias against Conservatives and Christians than against minority groups. Kristoff cited a study by a black evangelical sociologist who found that 30% of academics said they’d be less likely to support a candidate for a job if they found out the candidate was a Republican. The numbers jumped to over

as a living saint, a young British journalist named Malcolm Muggeridge was assigned to report on her. At the time, Muggeridge was an atheist. He died a Catholic. This was not because Mother Teresa was a great apologist or philosopher, nor was it her ability to jam out to Matt Maher on the acoustic guitar. Mother Teresa led people to Christ because she reflected Him. After all, it’s hard to look God in the eyes and say He doesn’t exist. Her life was a witness. It showed that people really can live entirely beyond themselves, for selfless motives, and glorify God. Saints are beautiful works of art, and art teaches you something about the artist. When the world saw Mother Teresa- now St. Teresa of Calcuttathey saw the God who shaped her, guided her, and led her to change the world. She, like any Christ-like figure, had her opponents. All evangelists will. Jesus did too. But by being a mirror for Christ, she was able to effectively show people the truth. As Dr. Peter

Kreeft once said, “Nobody ever won an argument against Mother Teresa.” But what does that mean for you and me? It means that we have to live up to our Baptismal call- we have to be saints. If we claim to be Catholic, but we don’t live it, then we’re not just being annoying evangelists. We’re being hypocrites. Teach with your actions! If they say you’re judgmental, show the mercy of Christ. If they say you’re boring, show them the wild joy of living the Gospel. If they say that God is dead, become a generation of saints. Especially in a culture that thinks religion is the dying tradition of the elderly, young Catholics have a duty to rise up and fight for holiness. If we want to show everyone that this is real, then we have to really live it.

Look around you. People are hungry for love and acceptance. They’re hungry for peace and freedom. They’re hungry for a life that has meaning. They don’t know it, but they’re hungry for Christ. In our sanctity, we can be beaconsdrawing people in, and then pointing them to Christ. If we pursue holiness, then our “halos” become like McDonald’s golden arches- a glowing sign offering the promise of fulfillment and an answer to the nihilistic hunger of our generation. We have the Bread of Life, the food that will satisfy. What more could we ever need?

Interview with R. R. Reno Claude Hanley

Dr. Reno is the editor of First Things, America’s largest journal of Religion and public life. He holds a Doctorate in Religious Ethics from Yale University, and was for 20 years a professor of Theology and Ethics at Creighton University. This interview was conducted on September 21st, in connection with Dr. Reno’s lecture, “A Christian Interpretation of the Age of Trump.” It has been edited for length. Claude Hanley: What would be, in your estimation, the place of the university in American life now, and what should its task be? RR Reno: Well, the purpose of the university is to provide a community of learning, it’s a place for the formation of a secular society that is committed to the life of the mind, and then obviously most students go on to professional work. Most don’t become professors, but the educational experience serves as a leaven in society at large. I think especially on Josef Pieper’s wonderful short book Leisure, The Basis of Culture. The American idea of the fouryear liberal arts degree is of a time in your life when you’re not actually pursuing professional activities, but leaves you with something that’s closer to contemplative. Pieper argued that is actually necessary to have culture. Now our view about the role of the university in the public square is shaped by the fact that after World War II, with the GI Bill, there was a big upsurge in college enrollments. And for the men that were coming back from World War II, the university became a kind of place where they looked at questions about what kind of society they were going to have. Consequently, we have this false view that the university is this kind of crucial place where the future of our society is debated and formed and shaped. I think that that’s distorted. It’s obviously true for some of our universities, but we overemphasize that because of the 50’s and 60’s, when we saw this sort of new, emerging middle class, different people from ethnic backgrounds being integrated into America’s leadership. Universities were the focal point for that process. So universities would ideally be more nourishing, and less political than they are today. CH: How do the humanities disciplines contribute to that mission?

RRR: Well, I’d put it more broadly, as the liberal arts. I mean, studying astrophysics doesn’t serve any practical purpose. It’s not clear studying evolutionary biology serves a practical purpose either. Fossil records, all these sorts of things, contribute to our knowledge of the natural world, which we can perhaps use technically at some point. Mathematicians also, they’re famous for coming up with things that have no relevance whatsoever, and then a hundred years later, people discover practical uses for their mathematical models. But it’s the wonder and joy of knowing that precedes their practical usefulness. And that’s a liberal education; it’s for its own sake, and not for some other end. That strikes me as what is so important about a liberal arts education. We are made to know, and it is an intrinsic good to know truth. Not every project can offer that; the liberal arts humanize us, and they make use more fully human. CH: How does that humanization translate to society and to politics? RRR: Whether it’s Shakespeare or astrophysics, you go out into the public square, if you’re liberally educated, and you’re less likely to be swept up in a thousand ideologies of the time. It gives you a kind of independence of mind. I think it’s important, in any society, that you have people who have this independence of mind. John Henry Newman referred to education leads to an enlargement of mind. You become more capacious…capable of grappling with a full range of experience. I don’t want to privilege the humanities in this regard. I started out in physics as an undergraduate. My sister’s a physics professor at the University of Iowa. You have to specialize, you can’t know everything. It’s not like you’re swallowing all this food until your gut gets full and distended. It’s not just the amount of facts. Instead, it’s developing a kind of mental plasticity, and flexibility, and a capacity that prompts you to think about things in such ways. CH: It’s said that there is a lack of intellectual diversity, of that independence of thought in universities today. The same people are promoting the same kinds of ideas that are getting preeminence. Do you think that’s a valid criticism of the American university?

RRR: I don’t like to use this new term diversity here. We should have diversity of some things and we should have unity of other things. So, I think it’s not a cure-all. But there is a problem, it seems, where there isn’t independence of thought, there’s too much group think. And I don’t think it’s a matter of, as people often say, “Well, it’s because all the professors are liberals.” Now, I went to a small liberal arts college, not unlike Holy Cross. The professors were ninety percent registered Democrats, they were certainly liberals. But it didn’t feel like an environment that was closed or limited. To be capacious, to encourage adventure, to have the security as a faculty member to accept the fact that sometimes your students will go in a different direction -- These are qualities that I think that one hopes for in a faculty, but I see less of them today. It could be that the problem is not lack of diversity, but a kind of careerism on the part of faculty. Or perhaps people want a cheap emotional payoff of feeling that their work has a great moral and political significance. As a result, there’s a kind of “works’ righteousness” around our salvation, at least our secular salvation by making sure that our classes teach the right political lessons. I think we need to dig more deeply. It’s not just a lack of diversity. That’s a symptom, not a cause. CH: So, to continue this theme, one of the main challenges now is academic freedom and freedom of speech. I think of the events at Middlebury last year, and similar controversies. What do you think at least some of the underlying issues are that cause this sort of tension? RRR: Our society is very divided. Grownups don’t tell young people what life is for, and they’ve rebelled. Everything is open, you choose your own values, et cetera et cetera. I think it’s quite natural that students want to find some consensus and stability. The radical schools that want to shut down who they perceive to be bad people, I think are misguided. But that may not be an altogether unhealthy desire, that they need right and wrong. So, I think we’re seeing these perverse dysfunctions in education because we the grownups have created that need. It’s being filled by some sort of ideological, imposed consensus, rather than a real, genuine consensus. CH: And this critique reaches back to the same idea, that we’ve lost the ability to pursue the human good?

RRR: Right. If we’re concerned about academic freedom and free speech (and we should be concerned about these things), we need to be clear about what the education at the institution is for, and why shouting people down harms the proper end of education. We’re a community of inquiry. In a community of inquiry, if people can’t speak, in that sense there’s an imposed consensus, and there’s not a lot of inquiry any more. I’ve talked with young people, and they’ve told me that they find more and more, that it’s just wise not to say what’s on their minds. It’s too dangerous. Well, how can you make progress in the pursuit of truth if you can’t articulate what you think the truth is, and hear what others have to say in response? The problem with shutting down speakers is that it impedes us in achieving the end of education, which is to refine our ideas and make them more in accord with the truth. So I don’t think that academic freedom is an end in itself, it needs to be the means to the end -having a healthy medium of inquiry. I don’t think that Holy Cross should invite a creationist to give lectures. It just doesn’t help advance the pursuit of truth. You and I can come up with examples where “no, that’s not going to help.” The problem again is that then the sort of ideological frame of mind comes into play. It’s a crazy view that the political opinions of half the country are taboo. How could any reasonable person think that? It’s irrational. CH: So we have to balance academic freedom with a duty to truth. What duty to truth does a Catholic university in particular have, and how should it be balanced against academic freedom? RRR: I think that a Catholic university has an absolute duty to teach what the Catholic Church teaches. A Catholic university that does not teach that which the Church teaches is not betraying its Catholic identity; it’s betraying its identity as a University. The purpose of a university is to encourage people to pursue the truth, and also to transmit the truth. And we believe, as Catholics, that what the Church teaches truths that are indispensable, not just for our salvation but also for our fuller understanding of the human condition. There’s a question of priorities. It’s not the job of the Catholic university to represent all possible views of what it means to be human; It is absolutely the responsibility to propose to students, and to

the world, that the Church teaches what it means to be human. That entails defining priorities: hiring priorities, what kind of courses to acquire, etc. It’s not a violation of academic freedom to say that Catholic theology is required, but a Jewish Studies professor’s course is not required. It’s not a violation of academic freedom; that’s the institution establishing its priorities. Nor is it a violation of academic freedom for the university not to invite speakers who hold positions contrary to what the Church teaches. Now there could be student groups or others who want to invite those people. Then the university has to make a judgement about whether it harms the mission of the university, which is to transmit and encourage students to pursue the truth. In

RRR: It applies across the board. For instance, one problem we have is that in the sciences, there’s often a materialistic metaphysics that’s operating very close to the surface: that our brains are our minds, and we’re just neurons firing. A university should guard against teaching this. It’s scientism, it’s not science. The same goes for economics. Economics is a powerful and important discipline that teaches us to think in a critical way about markets. It models the human behavior in terms of maximizing authority, where that’s understood as maximizing one’s material interest. That’s fine for modelling, but it easily can lead to a generalization that humans are nothing more than utility maximizing achievements. That’s not true for the human person either. So in many

It’s not a question of agreement, it’s a question of whether or not there are faculty members who believe that there’s truth, and that truth transcends a particular discipline. many cases, Catholic universities have confidence in their own students. If it is doing what it should be, which is to ensure Catholic teaching is clearly taught, it can tolerate dissent quite easily. CH: How does that concern influence the other disciplines, outside of philosophy and theology?

Then the university has to make a judgment about whether it harms the mission of the university, which is to transmit and encourage students to pursue truth.

different disciplines, there needs to be reflection on how we as an institution can present our view of the human person. Pope Benedict’s Regensburg speech dealt with that. CH: Are there any particular reforms you think should be made, or is it more a change in attitude toward the project of the University? RRR: I think Catholic universities really need to get a grip on the hiring of faculty. We’ve spent too many decades now trying to imitate secular higher education. We need to return to the wisdom of our own tradition, and recognize that the metaphysical poverty of our time is quite acute, and we need to focus on hiring people, not the people who all agree, that’s absurd, you’re never going to find that , that’s the whole idea. You can’t even find Thomists who agree. It’s not a question of agreement, it’s a question of whether or not there are faculty members who believe that there’s truth, and that truth transcends a particular discipline.

In Pope Benedict’s Regensburg speech, he looked back with nostalgia on his years at Regensburg, when faculty members often would gather together and try to talk about the big questions, transcending the specialized knowledge that they had in philosophy or theology or science or literature or history. One has to grope towards these larger theories together, and we have to hire professors who are committed to try to do that together. That’s what it means to be liberal, not having a collection of specialists. And I think because the Catholic Church opposes a compromise of truth about the human person, both as to our manifold destiny in God, as well as to our natural duties and responsibilities, and because it presents a comprehensive vision of the human person, we in particular have an inheritance that allows us to recognize the poverty of our present age. We should address that poverty by building institutions that pursue a larger vision. CH: But that would entail first recognizing our inheritance. RRR: Right. Catholic universities have a natural excellence of the life of the mind. Most of what goes on at Catholic universities functions in the area of the natural virtues -- intellectual integrity, intellectual honesty and intellectual zeal. This is encouraged and elevated by the supernatural virtue of faith, but these are natural virtues. It’s possible that we can draw upon educational models and experiences at secular universities. It’s not that we only have to hire people with degrees from Catholic universities, etc., etc. But it does require a kind of recognition that higher education in the United States is not in good

shape. We see this from this dysfunctional campus environments. And because it’s not in good shape, consequently we should not just be imitating what other, elite, universities are doing. We should be returning to our sources and asking ourselves, “What is it that the Catholic tradition proposes as a vision of the Truth?” CH: In conclusion, what piece of advice would you give undergraduates about how to take their four years of undergraduate education? RRR: Don’t worry about what comes next. Bill Deresiewicz, who wrote a book called Excellent Sheep about today’s college students, said that there are two religions that dominate higher education today. One is a religion of political correctness, and the other is a religion of success. Both of those religions actually feed on each other, because political correctness is a way of baptizing a person to success. So I would say that success is a far more powerful god than political correctness. So beware of that idol. Study the things you love. One of the great poverties of our age is that it really is a loveless age. People don’t feel that they even have permission to take the risks of love. If you love physics, study physics. If you love theology, study theology. Don’t worry about what you’re going to do for a living right now. In the United States, we have society set up for people to do well. We don’t have a society set up for people to cultivate the life of the mind. Cultivate it now, and it will carry you through many of life’s difficulties and setbacks, which are inevitable even if you are successful.

One of the great poverties of our age is that it really is a loveless age. People don’t feel that they even have permission to take the risks of

Get Behind Me, Satan James Dooley

Warning to Catholics: Compromise is not a Christian concept. If the Truth is good, then any compromise to Truth is evil. On the road to Jerusalem, Jesus addressed the idea of compromise by saying to Peter, the first pope, “get behind me Satan”. Peter had told his master that he would never let him be handed over and killed, a seemingly good thing. However, in the face of Truth, such a proposed compromise to salvation could only come from the evil one. Allowing abortion in the case of rape is a compromise. It is the duty of every Catholic to reject such a deceptive proposal, for if abortion is wrong in any case, it must be wrong in all cases. “It’s better to be an atheist than a hypocritical Catholic” –Pope Francis, much in the same way, it is much better to be adamantly pro-choice than to be to be a compromising “prolifer”. To be a pro-lifer with exceptions is to be a hypocrite. Weeds among grain. To be Catholic, one must be against abortion because by its very nature abortion aims at the destruction of life. Which brings me to my next point, no medical procedure intending to save the mother’s life is an abortion, even if the unborn child were to die as a result of such a procedure. Simply put, an abortion is an intended early termination of a pregnancy. Abortion by its very nature is aimed solely at ending a pregnancy. Therefore, any surgery with a different purpose cannot be deemed an abortion. For example, a surgery aimed at removing life threatening cancer from a woman’s uterus can’t be considered an abortion even if it ends the life of a child in utero. In this way, there is no such thing as an

“abortion” to protect the mother’s life, for any such procedure would not be an abortion as its aim would not be that of ending pregnancy but rather that of protecting the mother’s life. Don’t compromise the Truth to make yourself feel better or too avoid controversy. For in doing so it is no longer the Truth that you accept and spread, it is a lie. Being Catholic means that you are against all things that threaten the dignity of innocent life, not just the ones that are easy to condemn as wrong (slavery, death penalty, late term abortion, etc). In our modern democracy, compromise is the name of the game. Without compromise nothing would get done they say. Heed my warning Catholics, for you know as well as I do that apart from Him not only does nothing get done, nothing is. Look to your mothers and fathers in faith, you will see the blood, but you won’t see compromise for many died rather than adulterate the Truth. Stand up for the whole Truth or sit down. In matters of life and death there can be no room for indifference, it is either love or hate, to be indifferent is to side with hate. You cannot serve two masters. If you refuse to spread the message of the evil of abortion in all cases, don’t spread any message about the inherent dignity of the human person and the necessity of love shown towards them. To do one and refuse the other is hypocrisy. Choose controversy rather than compromise. Remember, you don’t need to be Catholic, but if one is to be a Catholic one must be pro-life. Never compromise on truth.