February 2018 by The Fenwick Review

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

Quod Verum Pulchrum Volume XXV, ISSUE IV â&#x20AC;&#x201D; February 2018

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

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

Donation Policy

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

February 2018

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

Staff 2017-18 Co-Editors in Chief Bill Christ ‘18

State of the Union Bolstered by Tax Reform..............................5

Claude Hanley ‘18

William Christ ‘18 Who am I to Judge?............................................................................7

Web Editor Elinor Reilly ‘18

Jack Rosenwinkel ‘21

The Four Last Things........................................................................9 Greg Giangiordano ‘18

Staff Writers Seamus Brennan ‘18

De-Emotionalizing DACA.............................................................11

Patrick Connolly ‘18 James Dooley ‘20

Seamus Brennan ‘20 Treason and the Culture of Deceit...............................................13

James Garry ‘20 Greg Giangiordano ‘18

Claude Hanley ‘18

Michael Raheb ‘20

Burial.....................................................................................................15 Michael Raheb ‘20

Stefi Raymond ‘18 Jack Rosenwinkel ‘21

The Abolition of Manhood.............................................................17

Cameron Smith ‘20

Ryan Foley ‘21 Faculty Advisor Professor David Schaefer Political Science

Cover Art Stefanie Raymond ‘18

February 2018

Letter from

Thank You

the Editors

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.

Dear Reader, Thank you for picking up a copy of The Fenwick Review. The Board of Trustees has decided that we will continue to call ourselves Crusaders. The discussion took a year, and elicited an unprecedented number of responses. There was no lack of student input —fishbowl discussion, campus events, articles in this publication and others, listening sessions and the online comment forms saw to that. Indeed, at the beginning it seemed to be a lot easier for people who objected to the nickname to make their voice heard than it ever was for those of us who opposed the change. We don’t imagine it will be an entirely painless decision for the Board; portions of the faculty will be enraged, and a small minority of students will be upset. Listening to their complaints, and suffering the bad press, cannot be altogether pleasant. In spite of that, they reached a decision in accord with the traditions of Holy Cross, the College’s identity, and the desire of most alumni and a significant portion of the student body. We are grateful for their common sense. Whereas our issues last semester generally focused on issues closer to home, this fourth issue focuses heavily on political and cultural affairs. Mr. Brennan and Mr. Christ both offer their comments on the political affairs of the moment: DACA and Donald Trump’s first 13 months in office, respectively. In his first article for the Fenwick Review, Mr. Foley considers the concept of masculinity in contemporary culture. Mr. Rosenwinkel turns his attention to the cultural touchstone of “tolerance,” and dissects its relationship to love. Mr. Hanley discusses the latest manifestations of the “culture of deceit,” in Donald Trump and Michael Wolff. Mr. Giangiordano offers a spiritual reflection on the importance of the four last things. Mr. Raheb picks up on the theme of Holy Cross’s traditions with an article about the time capsule recently unearthed in the Hart Center. Finally, we offer our thanks as usual to Professor David Schaefer, our faculty moderator; to Ms. Raymond, whose artwork adorns our cover for the tenth consecutive issue; and to Mr. Giangiordano, our uncredited copy editor. Pontifications complete and genuflections made, we’re delighted to present this issue to you. We hope you enjoy it as much as we did.

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

Bill Christ, ‘18 Claude Hanley, ‘18 Editors in Chief

Mr. John Verdon Mr. Bernard Long ‘62

Dr. and Mrs. John P. Connors

February 2018

State of the union bolstered by Tax reform By William Christ ‘18 Continuing the constitutional duty of informing Congress of the state of the union, President Trump demonstrated that his first year in office was a resounding success. From his inauguration on January 20, 2017, President Trump has accomplished policies on every conservative’ wish list. According to Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank located in Washington D.C., the Trump presidency has accomplished a greater percentage of conservative policies than Ronald Reagan did in 1981. The administration’s policies of cutting costly regulations, nominating conservative jurists to lifelong court tenures, increasing military spending, and enacting a foreign policy aimed at asserting the will of America and its allies have been immensely successful.

sand dollars in their pockets. Initially, the apocalyptic rhetoric of ensuing economic doom expressed by the Democrats like Pelosi and Wasserman Schultz was successful in eliminating popular support for Republicans’ tax law. According to several polls conducted before the law was passed in December, nearly a third of Americans had negative opinions of the law. However, as the Democratic rhetoric subsided and reports of investment by companies were published, Americans slowly began to favor the law. Since the Republicans passed tax reform in a partisan fashion, several companies have promised greater investment in their workers, charity, or technological advancements. As of January 14, a hundred and

With corporations across America eagerly helping their workers, the economic condition of many people will continue to improve in 2018. Since its passage in late December, the Republican tax cut has bolstered the national economy, causing economic optimism to skyrocket. Contrary to the apocalyptic rhetoric about the tax bill used by Democratic politicians, emails sent by leaders in higher education to students, and media pundits, the tax bill is becoming a source of victory for the Grand Old Party. Back in December, party elder and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said that the tax breaks would only help the rich while stating that the only benefits received by the middle class would be “crumbs” compared to the rich. Disgraced former Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz expressed a similar sentiment to that of Leader Pelosi when she said that a thousand dollars does not go very far for people. I think college students and people struggling from paycheck to paycheck would appreciate an extra thou-

forty companies have given raises to their workers as a result of the tax bill passed in the first year of the Trump administration. Companies like Bank of America, Hostess Brands, and Disney have given benefits to their workers which will economically improve their life through raises and stock options. With corporations across America eagerly helping their workers, the economic condition of many people will continue to improve in 2018. As a result of these companies giving thousand dollar “crumbs” to their workers, the American people have swung their support to the law and the Republican Party in manner unprecedented in the Trump Presidency. Polling indicating American voters’ party preference gave the Democratic Party a doubledigit advantage over Republicans. However, in recent weeks the same polling has seen the Democratic advantage slip to just a mid-single digit lead, which represents a strong Republican improvement. The combina-

February 2018

tion of both Republican improvement within polling on the generic ballot and President Trumpâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s increasing poll numbers should raise some alarm for Democrats. While there are nine months until midterm elections and the Republicans are in defense, the Democrats should recognize that some of the political opponents' policies are popular among segments of the American public. As a result of the Democratic Partyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s partisan opposition to the tax law, Americans across the nation recognize the Party which economically advanced their lives. During the State of the Union, this message was refined as Americans, sitting in their living rooms across the country, saw the Democratic Party refuse to acknowledge the benefits of the law. Concerning African American employment, the economic policies of the current administration has made a modest increase, which should be celebrated. Admittedly, President Obama decreased African American unemployment more significantly than President Trump, but having African American unemployment at an all-time low should have elicited bipartisan cheers. However, it was recognizable that only the Republican half of the chamber applauded while the Democratic Party, along with the Congressional Black Caucus, simply sat there. Throughout his speech, President Trump called for and articulated policies which should have evoked bipartisan support and Congressional unity, but widespread

opposition came from the Democratic half of the chamber. The lack of bipartisan intent could be fatal to the Democratic members of Congress. Polling taken after the State of the Union indicated that three-fourths of those polled supported the speech, with a significant percentage believing that Trump acted in a bipartisan manner. Admittedly, there are nine months until midterm elections and the political climate will change substantially by then. Furthermore, conservatives and liberals alike argue that the lack of incoming revenue as a result of the lower taxes will lead to an increased national debt. Moreover, critics of deregulation assert that the economic advantages of slashing regulations fail to outweigh the health and environmental benefits. Despite the causes for alarm, Americaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s immediate economic outlook appears prosperous. The tax cuts have emboldened companies to invest in their workers while also allowing those same workers to keep a larger portion of their hard-earned money. As the tax cuts continue to fuel a continually growing economy, Americans of all economic backgrounds will be affected positively. If the economic changes improve the condition of millions of Americans living in poverty, then there should be hope for bipartisan support for the policies that improved the state of the union.

State of the Union 2018, by White House photographer D. Myles Cullen

February 2018

Who am I to judge? By Jack Rosenwinkel ‘21 A century ago, “societal progress” meant ad- judge?” seems to make us more loving, accepting, vancements in medicine and math, breakthroughs in Christlike people. But the logic doesn’t hold watechnology, and improvements in peoples’ quality of ter. We don’t tolerate homicide. If a mother killed her life. Now progress is measured by the number of mi- toddler, the woman would go to jail because she comnority groups our politicians belong to. We live in a mitted murder, and murder is wrong. This is literally society that is hyper-focused on accepting all people— how society functions. It’s the only way human beings so much so that ideal societal advancement is centered restrain the evil that we’re capable of. Perhaps we around creating safe spaces, using proper pronouns, shouldn’t judge too readily, but we can’t default to casand teaching people to not “assume” their baby’s gen- ual relativism either. That’s contrary to everything we der. We see tolerance as the key to creating a better believe about justice, right and wrong, good and evil. world. Christians have always preached a different At the outset, a disclaimer: we live in a country kind of acceptance: love. We can best follow Christ and where people once owned create a better world through other people because of the in modern society, we think loving people instead of just color of their skin. We need to tolerating them. Our cultural loving the sinner necessitates work towards a society that tradition defines love as supporting the sin, so that no respects the dignity of all peo“willing the good of the other ple. I get that. I am not argu- one feels ashamed or guilty. independent of your own.” ing that our society is perfect, That means putting another It’s one thing to love and or that things like racism or person’s long-term wellbeaccept human beings, but it’s sexism aren’t real issues. ing—not just temporary satisanother thing entirely to faction—ahead of your own There will always be challenges to overcome, and we wants, desires and fears. We tolerate evil. should be striving to build a don’t love people best by letbetter world. The problem is that we’re doing it ting them hurt themselves or others, or violate the sociwrong. Pure tolerance has never solved a societal crisis, etal bonds between us and them. Love does not turn a and it won’t solve the ones that America faces now. blind eye to suffering. Tolerance does. That’s why it Tolerance has become the battle-cry of many in will never be authentic love. the “progressive movement.” Campus progressives We are called to love the sinner and hate the teach us to “tolerate” everything in order to create a sin. Yet in modern society, we think loving the sinner more accepting, affirming society. And yet the result is necessitates supporting the sin, so that no one feels that people are afraid to speak out against something ashamed or guilty. It’s one thing to love and accept huthey consider morally wrong because they are scared man beings, but it’s another thing entirely to tolerate they’ll be called intolerant or bigoted. Quickly, toler- evil. We, as a society, do need to work to create a more ance morphs into moral relativism: moral truth does peaceful, loving community. But we need to model that not exist, and don’t you dare tell me other- community after Christ. Jesus made the distinction bewise. Morality becomes a purely personal sphere, reg- tween human beings and their behavior. His friends ulated by a truism wrenched from its context and used were prostitutes and tax collectors, but they gave up as the basis of an entirely new system of ethics: “Who their sinful past to follow Him. His call is not just one am I to judge?” of discipleship, but one of conversion. On the surface, this approach of “who am I to Love means encouraging and affirming a strugFebruary 2018

gling mother in a crisis pregnancy so she can make the difficult decision to choose life. It means helping the sex worker to recognize her own dignity, so she can leave an industry that destroys rather than empowers. It means standing by the addicts and, instead of enabling them, challenging them to keep fighting. Sometimes true love means a demanding love. When we say “you do you” or “who am I to judge?” we really mean, “I like you, but I don’t care about you enough to fight for what’s best for you.” Sometimes the very act of standing up for what is true, good and beautiful frightens us. It might endanger a friendship, or anger people we love. But we can’t just blindly tolerate evil. Moral relativism guarantees a worse world—after all, Benito Mussolini once said, “there is nothing more relativistic” than fascism. Instead of cowardly tolerance, we must lovingly and courageously call people to authentic conversion, whether

those people are abortionists or KKK members, violent socialists or hucksters of the alt-right. Many confuse this message with hatred. Most progressives—which is, most college students— imagine that conservative policies, and the people who support them, are filled with hatred for anyone who’s different. They aren’t. Quite the opposite, in fact; most of us are genuinely concerned for the common good. The myth that people who aren’t progressive are all angry, bitter bigots only serves to hamper authentic political and social dialogue. While there are bigots, they can be found on both sides of the aisle. In reality, most people who stand for things like the prolife cause, traditional religious values, or conservative economic policies are loving people who want to make the world a better place. Just like most progressives. All we’re intolerant of is evil.

Catholic Diocese of Saginaw (CC BY-ND 2.0)

February 2018

The Four last things By Greg giangiordano ‘18 “Gentlemen, you have a choice,” barked Fr. Larry Richards, his right hand resting absently on the forgotten podium next to him. He stood stiffly, gazing out at over two hundred attentive faces with an intense glare. “You can either become a saint, or you can go to Hell. Which will you have?” Immediately, we roared back “Sainthood, Father!” “All right, let’s get started,” he said, cracking a boyish grin and relaxing into a more leisurely pose. This was how Fr. Larry began his talk on sainthood at a conference that I attended this past break. He was hinting at something central to the Catholic faith, something that most people are afraid to think about, let alone talk about. He was hinting at the four last things—death, judgment, heaven and hell. Put more officially, he was referring to eschatology, the doctrines of the final destiny of humanity.

or two weeks in the future, St. Ignatius was in the habit of saying, “What’s that? Do you think you will live that long?” Ignatius reminded his brothers, and reminds us, that death is utterly unpredictable. Since it will come “like a thief in the night,” we should live vigilantly, because we “know neither the day nor the hour” when we will die. Judgement Death is not the end. This life is not all there is, and we should not act like what we think, say, and do does not have consequences. St. Ignatius, in the First Principle and Foundation, spells out exactly how we are supposed to live: “Human beings are created to praise, reverence, and serve God our Lord, and by means of doing this to save their souls. The other things on the face of the earth are created for the human beings, to

We are each faced with these four unalterable truths: we are all going to die, we are all going to be judged for how we lived, and we are all going to end up in either heaven or hell. Thinking about these four things might make you feel uncomfortable or even scared. If they do, good; that is exactly how we should feel. These are not easy topics to discuss, but it does us no good to run or hide from the reality of our situation. We are each faced with these four unalterable truths: we are all going to die, we are all going to be judged for how we lived, and we are all going to end up in either heaven or hell. Death You are going to die. Please stop reading for a moment and ponder that. There will come a time when you will not wake up, when you will be put in a coffin, and when you will be lowered into a rectangular pit and covered with six feet of dirt. For some, that time is a long way off. For others, it is just around the corner, maybe even minutes away. I don’t say this to be morbid; I say it to be candid. Whenever another of his fellow Jesuits would say that he would do something one

help them in the pursuit of the end for which they are created.” Put another way, we should constantly live with eternity in mind. We should be constantly asking ourselves, am I showing God, by my way of life, that I love Him most of all, or am I showing God that I love something else more than Him? This is an extremely important question that deserves reflection, because God will give us what we truly want—either Himself, or not Himself. The famous passage from St. Matthew states it clearly: at our judgment Christ will gather all of humanity and separate us “as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, with the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.” To those on His right He will say “Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world,” and they will be given this gift because “whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.” By their life, they showed Christ that they loved Him. But to those on His left He will say “Depart from

February 2018

me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” and they will be given this because “what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me. And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” Heaven I am not going to try and pretend to know what Heaven is like. I don’t. Nobody does. What I do know is that I love God. I love Him in an imperfect, fallible way, and often I do a poor job of it. But still, I love Him. And I do know that, however imperfect my love for God is here on Earth, it will be made perfect in Heaven. That, I think, is what Heaven must be; it is a perfect relationship of love with Him. We will be set free from our doubt, fear, pain and sin. There, we will finally experience perfect love, and we will be made perfect in our union with God and exist in unending bliss. Hell If Heaven is our perfect and final loving relationship with God, then Hell is the ultimate and final breaking of it. On Earth, we each have an imperfect relationship with God, but we can deepen that relationship when we choose to respond to God’s love for us. Conversely, we can also damage it when we choose to reject that love by committing venial sin, or even break it when we commit mortal sin. However, even commit-

ting mortal sin does not constitute a final break, because God, in His divine mercy, continually offers us forgiveness in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. With Hell though, it is different. There are no more chances, and mercy can no longer be offered, because Hell is a final self-separation from God. It is something we choose when we choose to love things other than God without repentance. What is truly terrifying is that if we commit mortal sin, do not seek God’s forgiveness, and then die, God no longer recognizes us. We become unknown to Him who knows all things. We become like the five virgins waiting outside of the locked door at the wedding feast. We cry out and say, “Lord, Lord, open the door for us!” But He replies, “Amen, I say to you, I do not know you” (Matthew 25:1-13). The door is shut, we cannot get in, and we are alone. It is by our own foolishness that we are cut off from God, and we torment ourselves with that knowledge forever. If we want to have a relationship with God, we need to remember the four last things. In meditating upon them in prayer, we are forced to prioritize what is important in life: love for God, and love for neighbor. Apart from these two things and the most basic living necessities, the rest is superfluous or even a hindrance to our spiritual goal. Therefore, as we begin this Lenten season, we ought to reflect closely on the four last things. When we’ve done that, we ought to ask ourselves: Will we become saints? Or will we go to Hell?

South Portal of Chartres Cathedral — Photo by Lawrence Lew OP (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

February 2018

De-Emotionalizing DACA By Seamus Brennan ‘20 If the last six months have indicated anything about the current state of our political discourse, it is that it’s nearly impossible to engage in bipartisan political dialogue without an overload of virtue signaling from members of the left. The left’s dogmatic standard in civic conversation is based upon the notion that feelings trump fact, instinct trumps reason, and emotional impulse trumps logic. This has left a noticeable taint on the way we carry out conversations on public policy. The consequences of such a standard are damaging and destructive. Of course, emotion plays a central role in the human experience and it’s only natural that it has some bearing on one’s political leanings and tendencies, but when it comes to public policy, one must rely on the objective and impartial rather than the infinite and indeterminate. Although emotional bias as a legitimate basis for diplomatic discussion has taken over seemingly every component of our political discourse, it is most prominent in discussions concerning DACA, or De-

effort to frame members of the Republican Party as cold-hearted and compassionless (a rather masterful political move), President Obama decided that the integrity of the executive branch ought to take a backseat to his own partisan needs (the Republicans had won the House majority in 2012 as well, so he had to rely upon an executive order to push his agenda through, which stands in stark contrast to the current administration’s lawmaking tactics). His unilateral political maneuvering won, and before anyone knew it, DACA was instituted as a “temporary measure,” and any attempt to question the moral and constitutional foundations of the order was met with snide and pompous remarks from political opponents. What was once “not how democracy works” suddenly became “who we are as a people,” as Obama wrote when President Trump announced plans to end the program in September 2017. What was once considered executive overreach became known as “basic decency,” what was once ille-

What was once “not how democracy works” suddenly became “who we are as a people” ferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Despite the policy’s blatant executive overreach and unconstitutionality, the emotion-infused policy proposals and overly euphemistic language of the DACA debate are ultimately detrimental to the integrity of political discussion on both micro and macro levels in the United States. In 2011, one year prior to former president Barack Obama’s reelection, he rightfully acknowledged on his campaign trail the antidemocratic and unconstitutional ramifications that an executive order like DACA would create: “Sometimes when I talk to immigration advocates, they wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how democracy works.” 2011 Obama was correct: surely everyone who has passed a seventh grade social studies class knows that the legislative branch makes laws while the executive branch merely enforces them—to suggest otherwise runs contrary to the sociopolitical and constitutional foundations of the United States government, and the former president was right to clarify the issue in the honest and transparent way he did. Come 2012 reelection season, however, in an

gal and unconstitutional became acceptable and encouraged, one who was once called an “illegal immigrant” was suddenly referred to as a “dreamer,” and what was once a desire to uphold the Constitution is now known as “racist” and “xenophobic.” Of everything we have learned over the past several months of immigration policy debate, the most striking would be the power of words. Politics and persuasiveness go hand in hand, and it’s no coincidence terms like “dreamer,” “family reunification,” and “undocumented” have been brought to the forefront. The left’s approach to the immigration debate is one of overblown euphemisms and emotionally persuasive language—and to their credit—it has worked quite well. Even the rather partisan Holy Cross administration has given in to such emotionally permeated language (which in and of itself speaks volumes about the school’s political priorities given that the administration rarely, if ever, focuses its attention to critical Catholic issues like abortion and the rise of the anti-Catholic cultural influences, while it does not hesitate to comment on immigration and refugee concerns), with

February 2018

members of the administration saying on multiple occa- work requirements, and show good moral character, sions that they are “troubled” by what was initially a will be able to become full citizens of the United States temporary instance of executive exploitation being re- over a 12-year period.” To no surprise, most Demopealed. crats are not budging: House Minority Leader Nancy Surely, it is difficult to blame these so-called Pelosi suggested that “the plan is a campaign to make “dreamers” (illegal immigrants who were brought to America white again” while Senate Minority Leader the United States as children) for the wrongdoings of Chuck Schumer claimed that Trump was using his plan their parents, and even the most far-right politicians “as a tool to tear apart our legal immigration system and pundits don’t have any real desire to deport hun- and adopt the wish-list by anti-immigration hardlindreds of thousands of innocent and hardworking mi- ers." This rationale, of course, is ludicrous. As political grants for something that was no fault of their pundit Ben Shapiro said, “to suggest that allowing in own. Unfortunately, though, that’s not the point. No millions of illegal immigrants and millions more legal matter how much we may sympathize for these individ- immigrants is somehow a reflection of underlying racuals, facts are facts: the executive order allowing them ism is pure demagoguery.” The Democrats are, of to remain in the United States is glaring- course, politically posturing to their far-left base, and ly undemocratic. Compassion does not hold a candle their inability to even consider a compromise as generto constitutionalism, regardless of any political or emo- ous and balanced as President Trump’s sheds light on tional stakes. where their highest priorities truly lie. In more recent weeks, President Trump has As unavoidable as emotional influence often is held several bipartisan meetings on the future of when it comes to major public policy issues and as DACA, and he has made it clear on challenging as it can be to resist such multiple occasions – most notably in influence, if we truly want a shot at prePassion and his first State of the Union address— serving the moral and constitutional that he is willing to compromise with integrity of our country, it is time to set emotion are Democrats on DACA and other pressemotion aside. Likewise, and more iming immigration issues so that both important, but they portantly, real debate cannot exist in an parties are satisfied. More specifically, environment in which those with ophave their time the President has proposed his “four posing viewpoints are shut down as and place, and pillars” plan that would provide a path“racist” and “bigoted.” When emotion politics is not one way to citizenship for approximately takes the forefront in our public policy 1.8 million “dreamers,” $25 billion for debates, it is easy to resort to nameof them. border security measures including the calling, moral patronization, and virtue construction of a wall, an end to chain signaling, but what good do such antics migration, and an end to the Diversity Visa Lottery do for the country? Passion and emotion are imProgram. Of course, this proposed plan is quite gener- portant, but they have their time and place, and politics ous and more than reasonable despite its neglect for the is not one of them. The future of the country depends Obama administration’s unconstitutionality—as Presi- upon our willingness to sacrifice feelings for fact and dent Trump himself indicated, it “covers almost three sentiment for common sense and the rule of law. That times more people than the [Obama] administra- journey starts here and now. tion. Under our plan, those who meet education and

February 2018

Treason and the culture of deceit By Claude Hanley ‘18 We live in a culture of deceit. Two events this winter have proved that point abundantly. On January 5th, Michael Wolff published Fire and Fury, a gossipy account of the Trump White House. Taken to task for the fact that many of his sources (from a former British Prime Minister, to major Trump allies, to a slew of journalists at the New York Times) explicitly denied quotes attributed to them, Wolff found himself on the back foot. He wouldn’t produce the recordings of their conversations which he (allegedly) possessed. No, the public doesn’t need hard evidence to support contested claims. Instead, Wolff proposed a novel method to prove what was true and what wasn’t: “If it rings true, it is true.” What does that mean, in essence, except for “It’s true if you want it to be true?” Different things will sound true or false to different people. In that case, my biases distinguish what’s true from what isn’t. On a closer investigation, they do more than that; my biases come to constitute the truth. On February 5th, President Trump spoke at a manufacturing plant in Ohio. Apparently prickled by insufficient applause at his State of the Union address, he said of the Democrats, “They were like death and un -American. Un-American. Somebody said, ‘Treasonous.’ I mean, yeah, I guess, why not. Can we call that treason? Why not?” Cue media firestorm number three hundred and seventy-nine, even though the President was probably joking. As with a lot of media meltdowns over things Trump says, there’s something here worth being upset about. Nationally elected figures shouldn’t call their political opponents traitors, even in jest. But, as a Holy Cross alumnus over at National Review has pointed out, the left lost the ability to complain about that a long time ago. When? Oh, seven years ago, that time Joe Biden said Republicans in Congress and the House “have acted like terrorists” by playing debt-ceiling politics. Or six years ago, when Senate majority leader Harry Reid started speculating that Republicans were deliberately tanking the U.S. economy in order to score political points against Barack Obama. Or three years ago, when Hillary Clinton compared pro-life Republican politicians to “terrorist groups.” Or even three months ago, when Andrew Cuomo accused Republicans who voted for tax reform of violating their oath. “It’s treasonous,” he said. “It’s modern-day Benedict Arnold.”

All of this puts Trump in his context. For nearly a decade in mainstream politics, and substantially longer in media circles, we’ve been transforming our political opponents into terrorists, traitors, and totalitarian sympathizers. But does that have anything to do with Michael Wolff? Of course it does. Trump and Clinton, Joe Biden and Harry Reid are all enthralled to the Wolff standard for truth. It has nothing to do with whether the accusation can be proven, whether the facts can support it, or indeed whether a conversation actually happened. No, none of those things make a quotation or a story true or false. But they ring true, so Democrats are traitors and pro-lifers are terrorists and the Republicans want to destroy the United States of America.

For nearly a decade in mainstream politics, and substantially longer in media circles, we’ve been transforming our political opponents into terrorists, traitors, and totalitarian sympathizers. But why does it matter? This isn’t a new phenomenon. We can find this sort of casual relativism at the headwaters of Western culture, critiqued in the plays of Sophocles and the dialogues of Plato. While that’s true, there’s an important difference now. We can see it in the standard that Michael Wolff proposed. He didn’t say “It’s true because I said it’s true,” or “It’s true because I can persuade you that it is.” He said, “It’s true because it rings true,” which is to say, “It’s true because you want to believe it.” And sadly, whether it’s a treason accusation or an invented quote by Tony Blair, we all too often do believe it. The great and good turned out in hordes to cheer for Fire and Fury back in January. Hillary Clinton even stood on stage at the Golden Globes to read selections from it. Trump’s crowd cheered on those treason accusations with gusto, and we know the far-right wing agreed. A heap of students at this college would gladly lend their voices to the Clinton-Biden siren song of Republican traitors and pro-life terrorists. Our soci-

February 2018

ety makes biases primary, and tries to conform reality to it. Truth? What is Truth? This rot runs from the roots of the tree to its crown: on campuses, in the news media, in Washington. It has real consequences. For obvious reasons, when truth doesn’t exist, nobody believes anything the other side says, so we make things up and decide they’re true instead. Conservatives will be content to believe that the Democrats want to recreate the Soviet Union, and liberals will think that Republicans have a hankering for Germany circa 1936. There results an alchemy of outrage which transposes minor policy disputes into raging culture wars. And, because we don’t believe the other side will tell the truth, compromise becomes impossible. The issue of “fake news” reveals another facet of the problem. The term should diagnose a real problem—the kind of “journalism” produced by Infowars that intentionally misleads people to manipulate their voting preferences. But instead, it has become a synonym for “bad press,” or even just “honest reporting.” CNN, the New York Times, and the Washington

These reveal a bloodless form of blood feud, in which common good and common decency are set aside to win the ideological battle. Post are “fake news” in a lot of conservative circles. National Review and the Wall Street Journal earn the same title among my liberal friends. The assertion isn’t merely that they’re biased; it’s that any of those

five news outlets will make up facts whole cloth in order to score political points. Of course, every media outlet has a slant. But if the NYT and WSJ are “fake news,” what are Breitbart and Buzzfeed? Pontificating about how the West is facing a cultural crisis has become a cottage industry of considerable scale. I’m not going to toss my hat in that particular ring. You need perspective to do that, and the perpetual screaming match of a New England campus doesn’t offer it. This hill isn’t high enough to see that far. But the limited view from here shows us a particularly vicious kind of tribalism—fractious groups of likeminded people glommed together against their political opponents. Factions in the Church. Identity groups on the progressive left. The seven kinds of conservative. The unmoving progressive/traditionalist battle line. These reveal a bloodless form of blood feud, in which common good and common decency are trampled to win the ideological campaign. A truthless society makes for a culture at war, and culture wars are tribal wars. A lecturer I heard back in September put it best. He argued that our public life has lost the images of the covenant. Although drawing on religious imagery, he was talking about the signal forms of social solidarity, like stable marriages, civil friendships, and personal loyalty. Is that our fundamental problem? I don’t know. But the religious imagery can tell us some thing. “Covenant” is a biblical word, evoking God’s fidelity to his covenant with Israel. In Exodus, the Hebrew for covenant fidelity is emet. When ancient Jewish scholars translated the Bible into Greek, they rendered emet with a word that also stands for “truth.” Fabricated “truths” betray our social covenant. That’s the treason of the culture of deceit.

February 2018

Burial By Michael Raheb ‘20 April 6, 2016. During the monumental construction of Holy Cross’ new Luth Athletic Complex, much-extolled for its heft and grandeur, a time capsule is exhumed. As the Luth absorbs the Hart Center, a steel box is lifted from the latter’s dusty brick rubble. The ideals, memories, and relics of the College’s 19751976 students and faculty lie in a worker’s hands. The capsule is opened. Nestled inside is an assortment of memorabilia: copies of the Catholic Free Press, the Worcester Telegram, the Evening Gazette, the Crusader, and Crossroads. An American Revolution bicentennial medal and flag. Mementos from Rev. Francis J. Hart, S.J., and a newspaper article about his dear friend Will Jenks ’54. A letter regarding scheduling intramural basketball. A St. Ignatius Loyola Fundator Society of Jesus token. And lastly, a “beaded necklace” with images of Christ and the Virgin Mary. Catholics call it a Rosary.

value as an emblem of our faith. It was, after all, buried with the cornerstone of the Hart Center. Yet now, over forty years later, it would be bewildering to see a student know what the Catholic Free Press is, much less actually read it. The newspapers usually stand nearly untouched on the newspaper rack in Smith Hall, every-sooften picked at by students who, like winter fowl searching for nourishment, peck and decide that their worth is barren. The St. Ignatius token would have represented the spiritual legacy of St. Ignatius within the Catholic Church; the two were then inseparable. Now? It stands for a nebulous “Jesuit mission.” The copy of Crossroads accompanying its peers represents the gradual decay of our history. Among the undergraduate body, it has obtained no legacy here; perhaps graduates know it became the current Holy Cross Alumni magazine. And, over the impending

That time capsule represented the loyalties of an earlier Holy Cross: an inheritance of Catholicism within a Jesuit charism, history, patriotism. Thus passes the glory of the world. We do not know whose words those were. We do not know on whose account the misprint stole onto the pages of the Holy Cross Alumni magazine. What we do know is a much more sobering fact: that here at the College of the Holy Cross, there are individuals so estranged from the College’s Catholic identity and Jesuit charism that they do not know what a rosary is. The College, of course, doesn’t force prayer on its students; not one person must slide beads across his fingers out of some enforced necessity. But the problem is not that we have non-Catholic students. Rather, the real question is one of presence; one would expect that, in a Catholic institution, one of the most powerful prayers in existence would be visibly displayed on campus. If not that, we should at least recognize that the beads are used in prayer—not in fashion. There is no reason our faith needs to lie hidden. The misidentification tells us something, like the rest of the objects in the box. Consider the values of faith, history, and patriotism that so many at the College seem to be willing to abandon in the rubble. The time capsule also contained a copy of the Catholic Free Press, which, in 1975, must have merited

years, the same may be said for the Crusader. Its name has been abandoned, buried by the Spire. One must wonder whether this noteworthy change will leave its predecessor swallowed up by the irrepressible gullet of time. The commemorative bicentennial flag and medal of the American Revolution represent another withering ideal: patriotism. In a college so vehemently concerned with social justice, which often takes the form of a double-edged sword - lacerating the faults of some to bolster the worth of others - patriotism shrivels like a dying vine. “He isn’t my President.” “Crooked Hillary.” The claim “I appreciate the United States for the opportunities it has offered me” is rarely made here. Perhaps that respect had roots here forty years ago, but there is little reason to expect a 250-year-anniversary commemoration of the Revolution in 2026. That time capsule represented the loyalties of an earlier Holy Cross: an inheritance of Catholicism within a Jesuit charism, history, patriotism. Thus passes the glory of the world. But, within a small scheduling letter, we find something the College has managed to retain: its concern for greater athletic community. We

February 2018

have, at least, accomplished that much. The Luth Athletic Complex will serve over a quarter of the student body with unwavering commitment and presents itself as a source of community pride. We shall, at least, excel in athletics. But since the Hart Center was built, how far have we come—or how far have we fallen? Does Catholicism still provide a thorough basis for the College’s decisions on the executive level? How much do our current undergraduates actually know about the history of the College? Is there still an underlying love for our country beneath our breath? Unfortunately, these ques-

tions cannot be easily answered with statistics and surveys. They embody a greater crisis in our very nature as an institution. And they must not, like our faith and devotion, lie buried. Emblazoned on the side of the Luth Athletic Complex is a massive cross, shamelessly on high for all to see. At night, it glows a radiant purple, shedding light over the campus and letting its presence be known in the city of Worcester. We aren’t afraid to show the religious tradition of Holy Cross; we need to find the courage to live it.

The first Catholic parish in Worcester, ca. 1899. Public domain.

February 2018

The Abolition of Manhood By Ryan Foley ‘21 Immediately following the news that the Hawaii thing that he so pleases; and if everyone else tolerates it, missile attack warning was just a false alarm, PornHub he is allowed to do so. As Matt Walsh writes in The traffic from the Aloha State jumped 48% higher than Unholy Trinity, “it takes nothing to tolerate and accept,” normal levels. Men of older generations might while it “takes effort and work to not tolerate somehave taken a sigh of relief, hug family members, and thing.” Tolerance is an easy principle for lazy men. The thank God after such a scare. Our generation, on the four cardinal virtues (prudence, fortitude, temperance, other hand? Not so much. justice) and the three theological virtues (faith, hope, If this shows anything, it is that men have much charity), however, are not so easy. It is difficult to be different priorities now than in previous generations. courageous or faithful or prudent or charitable, and Rather than prioritizing family, country, and God, we when you preach to others that they ought to practice prioritize ourselves. We put our desires above all else these virtues, you are expected to live by those standand seek pleasure at all costs. We are hedonistic narcis- ards as well, or you will be ridiculed as a hypocrite. If sists. you preach tolerance, however, you can live in any way This mindset is not new. Self-worship drove you desire as long as you are tolerant of the sins of othKing Herod, Hiters. ler, and Stalin. Hollywood loves When God is re- We tell men there is no right and wrong, to lecture Amerimoved from the cans about how and then condemn them for acting hierarchy of be“intolerant” we are, ings, man rises to wrongly. We tell men they don’t need to as if the segment of the top; man is respect women, and then condemn them our population “the measure of all with a near 100% for harming women. We tell men to things;” man is divorce rate should god. And if man is tolerate the actions of others, and then act as our moral god, he is the arbiauthority. And yet, condemn them for their own actions. ter of truth; he is in despite the moral full control of what charge we’ve laid is deemed “right” upon them, the and what is deemed “wrong.” Moral truth becomes past six months reveal just how badly they’ve failed in subjective, and genocide becomes no more inherently that role. Can we really expect anything else? We tell evil than helping Granny cross the street. men there is no right and wrong, and then condemn It’s why an increasing amount of people believe them for acting wrongly. We tell men they don’t need that right and wrong are just matters of personal opin- to respect women, and then condemn them for harmion. It’s why we hear so-called “Catholic” politicians ing women. We tell men to tolerate the actions of othsay they are “personally opposed” to abortion yet ap- ers, and then condemn them for their own acplaud a woman's “right” to kill her unborn child. We tions. C.S. Lewis writes in The Abolition of Man, “[w]e hear people sanctimoniously call anyone who doesn’t make men without chests and expect of them virtue condone this intolerant bigots. We’re told to be toler- and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to ant of everything except those who are intolerant. We find traitors in our midst.” live in a world that loves the sin and hates the sinner. But Hollywood’s moral authority makes anothAs Venerable Fulton J. Sheen said, “tolerance er point: the people we view as role models are often applies only to persons, but never to truth.” There is the very worst of all. But where else are we to nothing more precious than the truth, and there is look? While there are plenty of great mothers out nothing more evil than its denial. The toleration of im- there who embody what it means to be a good woman, morality is not a virtue, but a vice. G.K. Chesterton more and more fathers are absent at home, and boys said that “tolerance is the virtue of a man without con- are left learning how to be a “man” from singers and victions”. A man without convictions seeks to do any- rappers who promote drugs and degrade womFebruary 2018

en. Young men grow up not with the desire to be courageous and honorable, but with the desire to get laid whenever possible. Masculinity isn’t sex appeal; smoking a cigar, sipping on whiskey and hunting a bear don’t make a man a man. The crux of manliness lies in integrity and virtue—in the ability to maintain a belief despite opposition, and to live according to it. The ideal of masculinity is none other than Jesus Christ. Jesus is not the free-loving hippie that many churches portray Him to

be. He was not “tolerant” of the merchants in the temple when He overturned their tables and drove them out. Neither was He “tolerant” when He said “if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away.” Rather, Jesus possessed real virtue. He stood firm in truth and love in the face of lies and hatred, and He held his ground all the way to the cross. He gave his life so that we may live, and that is the manliest thing one can ever do.

El Greco’s Christ Driving the Money Changers from the Temple

February 2018

Fenwick Hall, ca. 1888. Public domain.

February 2018

Love US? Hate US? Want to write for us? Let us know! fenwickrev@g.holycross.edu Visit us online at fenwickreview.com

Proudly sponsored by