Dancing With Your Eyes Closed

In my first year as a resident assistant here at the College of the Holy Cross, I was given the opportunity to participate in an event called “Pie Your RA.” “Pie Your RA” was relatively self-explanatory: at a specified time in front of the Hogan Campus Center, residents could purchase, for a dollar, a whipped-cream “pie” and promptly deposit it onto their garbage-bag-clad RA’s face. I, ever being a jokester, was all-for the event. The donated monies would go to benefit the Holy Cross Dance Marathon, wherein students dance the night away (literally, mind you – they dance all night) to raise money for the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric Aids Society. What could go wrong?

To make a long story short: once I knew what I’d be getting into, I didn’t let one drop of whipped cream touch my face.

The Dance Marathon has been waltzing around the College since 2012. A Holy Cross alumna co-founded the event during her senior year, according to her blog “A Job Well Dunn,” for the sake of “bringing students and the community together to raise money and awareness for the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation.” During the initial year, the Marathon raised almost $24,000 for the Foundation; in the next year, the number increased by roughly $4,500. It seems that the donations peaked in 2014, where an enterprising group of students raised over $40,000, although the amount has dwindled to back around $27,000 as of last year. (The Campus Activities Board hosted the event again on January 25th, but I haven’t found the total amount donated this year.)

I suppose that these numbers indicate how easy it is to say to a group of students: “hey everyone! Let’s all dance together, have a fun time, and save the lives of some children suffering from HIV/AIDS! Everyone wins!” and have an overwhelmingly positive response. It makes sense, to be sure; who wouldn’t want to protect the lives of children? Who wouldn’t want to purge HIV and AIDS from the world? Noble, to be sure.

But the “everyone wins” is false. The children don’t all win, nor do their mothers, nor do we. The Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric Aids Foundation, despite what it seems, is unadulteratedly pro-choice; furthermore, it disagrees fundamentally with Catholic sexual ethics.  Frankly, I don’t know if Holy Cross itself knows that, and I’m sure that most of the students who attend the Dance Marathon don’t know either.

The Lepanto Institute for the Restoration of All Things in Christ, a “research and education organization dedicated to the defense of the Catholic Church against assaults from without as well as from within,” marks the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric Aids Foundation (EGPAF) as “Not Safe” on the grounds that it facilitates abortion and contraception. On a page dedicated to explaining this grade (see https://www.lepantoinstitute.org/elizabeth-glaser-pediatric aids-foundation/), they explain why. EGPAF, in 2013, published a progress report on its “Cote d’Ivoire” project in Kenya. “Page five of this report,” claims Lepanto, “clearly indicates that its distribution of 400,000 condoms was one of its accomplishments for just one year.” Indeed, on page five of the PDF document linked to the Lepanto webpage, the statement “Over the year, EGPAF distributed over 400,000 condoms” appears. Please note that section 2370 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that “every action which... proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil.” This prohibition includes condoms, which render procreation impossible.

Perhaps far worse is that EGPAF also supports abortion. According to the Lepanto Institute, EGPAF celebrated the repeal of the Mexico City Policy in 2009. The policy requires that nongovernmental organizations must, in order to receive federal funding, not involve themselves in family planning via abortion in other nations. The Mexico City Policy has vacillated, being repealed and reinstated, over various presidencies and was repealed under President Obama, although Trump has recently reinstated it again. The EGPAF’s support of Obama’s repeal can be affirmed by a statement from Pamela W. Barnes, the President and Chief Executive Officer of EGPAF in 2009. She commented that “the prevention of unintended pregnancies is one of the four cornerstones of the United Nations’ and World Health Organization’s strategy for preventing mother to child transmission (PMTCT) of HIV.” Barnes also noted that “the ‘Mexico City Policy’ denied funding for these basic family planning services.” In a 2014 report (after the Dance Marathon had already begun donating to the Foundation), the EGPAF noted that it provided “key results in prevention of undesired pregnancies: EGPAF-supported programs provided family planning counseling and methods to 11,678 HIV-positive individuals in 2014.” As noted by Barnes, that counseling includes abortion.

Although most people are well aware of the Church’s stance on abortion, I’ll include some of Pope St. Paul VI’s words on the subject; he is, after all, a saint. And a pope. And a magisterial authority. In section 14 of his encyclical Humanae Vitae, he comments that “above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, (is) to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children.” I suppose that’s firm enough for me to say and be done with the subject. EGPAF is, consistently and objectively, in opposition with the teachings of the Catholic Church and anyone who holds pro-life ideals. Ironic that an organization so concerned with healthy children has no qualms with killing those unborn.

What’s more ironic? Last year, despite how a quick Google search determines that EGPAF isn’t a Catholic-friendly charity, a Mass collection was held for the group around this time. I’d been sitting in a pew with a close friend, fishing for my wallet as the collection basket floated down our way, whispering to him “shouldn’t you be donating to help stop pediatric AIDS?” His retort: “for the good of your soul, you’d better not donate to them.” I stuffed my wallet back into my pocket and passed the basket along, all the while mildly confused with his sentiment (until I learned the truth about the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric Aids Foundation, of course).

Now, what of those other Catholics and pro-life students among us who danced the night away with the Dance Marathon this year? Holy Cross has done them a disservice by making the Marathon into a celebratory festival where the goal is promoting life, albeit quietly at the expense of other lives waiting to be born. Over the course of seven years, the truth about EGPAF has, as far as I’m aware, never come to light. I’d almost be amused if it weren’t so terrible.

Be Careful What You Fight For

Imagine opening up the Podcast app on your iPhone while preparing for your morning commute, expecting to find your regularly scheduled Ben Shapiro Show or Barstool News program. Instead, you find a show with cover art boasting two scantily clad twenty-something women. Curiosity getting the better of your judgment, you tap the phone to investigate what possible topic such a provocative image could be advertising, only to be greeted with the auto-tuned voice of two women asking “Do you call him daddy? Do I call her daddy? Call her Daddy,” in as seductive a way as possible.

Disconcerted, but with your intellectual curiosity piqued, you keep listening.  To your horror, it soon becomes clear that the show is a weekly synopsis of its two female hosts’ lives of blackout drinking, smoking copious amounts of weed, and dozens of drunken hookups. Now, keep in mind: last semester, “Call Her Daddy” was the second most popular podcast on Apple Podcasts in the U.S. Adults everywhere seem to crave each week’s episodes on increasingly riskier topics, each with evermore explicit personal detail provided by the hosts. With titles like “SEXT ME SO I KNOW IT’S REAL,” “Sliding into the DMs – It’s Time to Get Laid Boys,” and “If you’re a 5 or 6, Die for that Dick,” the hosts leave no topic off limits. This is not simply a Cosmopolitan write-in Q & A session. No, these topics come from the women’s personal lives and their first-hand encounters on the streets of New York City.

When I first listened to the podcast, I was very much taken aback (as were the men in the recording studio, as noted by the hosts in their first episode). Aspects of our culture like this one speak to the dangers of the changes our society has undergone over the last fifty years. In light of recent events on the Hill last semester, I find such a podcast even more troubling.  Imagine if two football players from one of the big-ten schools started a podcast where they talked about all the sexual conquests, substance abuse, and wild behavior they partook in over the previous week. There would be such an outcry of public protest that the noise would be deafening. Herein lies the fundamental issue with our society: a false sense of equality. Surely we can all agree that the behavior of the stereotypical jock who sleeps with countless partners on a weekly, or even nightly, basis is one we need to banish from our culture.  As a society and campus community, we should despise such behavior and work to end the veneration of “studs” or “Brads and Chads.” One just needs to read the ever-growing number of stories shared on the “Sexual Assault on the Hill” Instagram to realize the profound effect this athlete hookup culture has on the women who bravely share their experiences and understand its insidious threat to our campus community.

There seems to be a double standard for men and women in the post-sexual liberation era. While we condemn men who constantly hook up and brag to their friends, we encourage women to be sexually active and oversexualize every aspect of their being. Media platforms such as “Call Her Daddy” are proof enough. Those two women reveal their sexual conquests in extremely detailed accounts as they participate in a standing competition of who can sleep with more men each week. It all happens on the everlasting medium of the Internet, over and over, for the entertainment of the masses. Yet in this #MeToo Era, if the genders were reversed, the actions of the hosts would be seen as appalling - if not criminal.

The problem at its root is the definition our society uses for equality. We use people’s past actions to judge our standard of equality today instead of striving for a better, equitable world. Men have, historically, been able to act promiscuously and treat women in whatever way they please. So women, starting in the 1960s, wanted the same freedom and liberation to act just as men did - to, in their mind, act “equally.” Yet this is not true equality, for equality is inherently good and of a lofty nature aimed at bettering the world. If women felt they were unequally treated and wanted a better, fairer, more equal society, then how could repeating the actions they themselves termed unseemly give anyone a sense of equality? Look to post-Civil War America for an example. Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois did not argue that blacks would achieve equality by being given the legal right to own whites. Such an idea would be ludicrous! Instead, they encouraged people to strive to sculpt a better, more just, more moral, more equal society. By leaving the evil in the past and encouraging all people, oppressor and oppressed, to use methods that help cultivate a sense of humanity, equality, and shared relationships, they sought to craft a truly equal society. Years later, we have ignored that formula by encouraging people to instead use each other as mere sexual instruments.

The modern culture we have created regarding sexuality is not equal, nor is it fair, nor does it advance a better community now or for future generations. If we want to create a truly just, fair, and equal world, one free from sexual abuses and the degradation and belittlement of the human person, we must work to check inappropriate sexual behavior for everyone. For oppression is regression, and the consequences of the sexual liberation movement have oppressed the growth of the human person and his dignity in society. We have been enslaved by our vices instead of liberated.  We need to create a society more focused on caring for and uplifting the dignity of the human person in all aspects of daily life. Then, and only then, will we enjoy true equality.

Be Careful What You Sign For

On November 16th, 2018, the College of the Holy Cross held a rather spontaneous discussion called the “ENGAGE Summit.” The Summit was, essentially, a horribly unfocused amalgam of “talks” and various other events – some extremely well-attended, some not – which circled campus issues like sexual assault, racism, the experiences of foreign exchange students, and treatment of the LGBTQ+ community on this campus. While the 40-or-so events were, for the most part, facilitated by well-intentioned faculty members and students, none of the student body here at the College has been completely satisfied. The Summit’s preparation, content, and follow-up have been lackluster or incomplete.

Many expect that the Summit was a quickly-contrived coverup to preserve the College’s reputation after the explosion of followers on the “Sexual Assault On The Hill” Instagram account. The account, which first posted on November 5th, cites its purpose in a brief biography: “*TRIGGER WARNING* Our community doesn’t think sexual assault is real. Make your voice and/or story heard ANONYMOUSLY below. This is your platform.” Beneath the biography is a clickable link to a Google Form, on which survivors of sexual assault can voice their experiences or ideas about Holy Cross’ treatment of assault. The moderators of the Instagram, at their discretion, post these stories on the profile. As is mentioned in the account’s biography, the stories are anonymous; no names or emails of submitters are recorded, and the account cannot respond to any submitted requests without contact information also being provided. At the current moment (November 28th) “Sexual Assault On The Hill” has over 3,600 followers and 97 posts. Yet despite its popularity, “Sexual Assault On The Hill” has made questionable decisions with its recent petition.

Here I must digress. To whomever has just read my thesis: if you are a student (and, therefore, likely to support the Instagram account), please refrain from thinking that I intend to use this piece to denigrate the intentions of “Sexual Assault On The Hill.” I agree that sexual assault is reprehensible, violates a person’s dignity and rights, and should be entirely purged from this campus. For that reason, I appreciate the Instagram’s endeavor. It has been markedly successful in promoting discussion. I am also inclined to believe the stories of assault, which are typically posted in vivid detail. However, due to the account’s lack of transparency in its recent list of demands, I hesitate to provide my full support.

For the most part, the account’s decisions, even in the face of administrative action, have been prudent. On November 9th, “Sexual Assault On The Hill” published a letter which began with: “After receiving a cease and desist letter from a college-affiliated sports team and obtaining our own legal advice, we have come to the conclusion that, to maintain the integrity of this space, we will no longer name specific teams on this account.” A rash of frustrated students blistered the surface of the ENGAGE Summit a week later. Many complained that the men’s athletic teams promote rape culture, so they should have come to the Summit on mandated attendance. (Whether these teams, or members thereof, were or were not present at the Summit’s sessions is unknown. The football team, however, was at a game at Georgetown.)

The cease-and-desist sent down from College higherups, at first glance, seems like a classic case of student censorship. Young women and men, who could finally muster up the courage to give testimony to their assault, even be it anonymously, would be silenced. The end of “Sexual Assault On The Hill” would mean the end of a greater community discussion about sexual assault – that is, unless the letter’s content were made public, in which case the student body’s dissent against the administrator who sent it might be even greater. Since the content of the cease-and-desist has not been released, however, a judgement as to its justifiability or lack thereof cannot be made. (The Review contacted the Instagram to request information about the cease-and-desist letter over a week prior to the date of this article, but received no response). The letter could feasibly have been a polite request to protect individual student reputations. If a student with a vendetta against an athlete on the football team, for example, decided to post a false assault story to the account, the football team’s members could be viewed with unfair scrutiny. The Instagram’s decision to “maintain the integrity of this space” and (later in their statement about the cease-and-desist) “note again that we are not anti-athletes; not every member on teams or other student oriented organizations mentioned is an assaulter” was thus an apt decision. In regard to the cease-and-desist, “Sexual Assault On The Hill” did nothing wrong. The argument from various students for mandatory athlete attendance to the Summit, however – when most students were unrequired to attend – seems not to acknowledge that “not every member on teams... is an assaulter”.

On to the present, then. On November 26th, 2018, the Instagram published a compiled “list of demands for the administration based on your (the anonymous community’s) suggestions.” As of the date of this article, upwards of 470 signatures have been added to the end of the list. The demands include such efforts as providing a comprehensive report of all sexual assault incidents since December 2015, independent parties for investigating sexual assault, information about dismissing students and faculty on accusations of assault, and several other changes to administration. To view the demands, the list is accessible via the account’s Instagram biography.

Whether or not the demands are viable and should be put into effect (some may take issue with number 5, which demands a stance staunchly against Betsy DeVos’ proposed Title IX amendment that the accused be able to cross-examine the accuser) is a matter of opinion. One issue is more pressing: the moderators of the “Sexual Assault On The Hill” page have made changes to their petition of demands, without documented public notification, after students and faculty have already signed their names.

On the morning of November 27th, the first entry on the list demanded a comprehensive report (including results of cases) of all reported sexual assaults since December 2015. The final part of said entry requested that “this report conveys how many cases the Title IX office is currently judicating. We (presumably the petitioning members) expect this report by the end of the fall 2018 semester.” On the morning of November 28th, the entry had been amended to request also that the “report include the Title IX office’s budget and what its funding allocation is.” The date of expectation was also changed to January 20th, 2019. The seventh entry, which ended with “We demand transparency on these (Title IX) management plans, including the funding aspect” was also significantly emended. The November 28th edition extended that concluding line to a seven-line statement about how the Instagram’s popularity indicates that Title IX might be overstretched and under-resourced; thereby, it might require an additional staff member or office.

The content of the demands, frankly, is not much different than before. Most, if not all, petitioners would likely keep their names on the document in light of the changes. The lack of transparency, however – despite posting stories and updates, “Sexual Assault On The Hill” has still not made a public announcement of the changes to the demands – is troubling. When students and faculty add their names to a petition, they sign their assent to all the document’s demands, questions, and ideals. If the petition is edited after their signage, is their assent still valid? What of those who would wish to pull their names from the signature list if the content is changed? Without information, how can they make an informed decision? Most glaring is that nothing prevents the account’s anonymous moderators, under such circumstances, from making more drastic changes without informing their signers.

Only a few hours prior to this article, the Instagram posted another update asking to “spread the word” and that the “demands will be submitted 12/3 at 6PM.” I hope that the signers don’t mind the changes. 

The Summit's Not It

Well-intentioned and confused. What else is there to say about November 16th’s  ENGAGE Summit?

Late in October, the Holy Cross community received various emails regarding a hate crime on campus. Public Safety explained: “...a Holy Cross student reported an aggravated assault & battery motivated by bias (sexual orientation) that occurred on campus between Clark Hall and Brooks-Mulledy Hall on October 27 between 2:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. The incident has been reported to DPS.” Responses from Dean Murray, President Boroughs, and other officials on campus condemned and expressed grief over the tragic event.

In response, a petition, which began in an English class, was dispersed to all members of the Holy Cross community (student, faculty, and alumni alike) by groups such as Pride, individual members of the faculty, staff, and student body, and the English Department itself. The petition called to “...cancel classes, athletics, and all extra-curricular events for a day. Or several days. Or a week. In place of these we would hold teach-ins, vigils, (and) community conversations.” Professor Leah Cohen of the English Department said that she would deliver the petition to Father Boroughs on November 8th, having garnered roughly 1000 signatures from faculty, staff, alumni, and students. The next day, November 9th, Father Boroughs sent out an email inviting the Holy Cross community to the ENGAGE Summit, which would  “...direct our collective attention to a conversation and exploration of our culture at Holy Cross and the steps we need to take to build a community that supports and celebrates all its members.” He further expounded that “This will be an important first step, but not the only step, in addressing issues of respect and inclusion on our campus.” The conclusion was to cancel classes and extracurriculars on the afternoon of Friday the 16th, then hold the Summit in their place.

The Summit’s sessions viewed inclusion (otherwise known, in most cases, as tolerance) and respect as complete, unquestionable agreement with and affirmation of another group, regardless of ideology. We, however, believe that tolerance does not necessitate agreement; rather, it entails a sort of unconditional respect for another person, regardless of his ideas. Every person has equal dignity, and we should act in a way that befits it. When you notice our encouragement of tolerance and respect later in this article, please note that we disassociate ourselves with the Summit’s definitions.

Students and faculty were encouraged to conceive of and facilitate various sessions addressing concerns with tolerance and respect within the community. Planning was limited, with merely a week to organize events. While the initial petition focused on the hate crime that occurred on campus, the untimeliness and lack of clear information as to its purpose threw the whole Summit into a bewildering muddle. When the list of events was distributed via email, confusion as to their variety grew: the first two main “sessions,” which each lasted for an hour, had about twenty optional events each. Each event lasted for the full hour. Talks would be held concerning women’s issues, Title IX, race, spirituality, international students, masculinity, etc. The third (and final) Summit session in Kimball was to tie together and address all these issues as the entire Holy Cross community. Due to that sheer quantity, questions started buzzing about what exactly the Summit was for. Many thought it was a reaction to the LGBT assault. Some, however, held it was also in response to the culture of sexual assault on campus or even in reaction to the Synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh.

However, when too many issues are addressed simultaneously, they must be watered down in order to assure that each receives equal consideration. In the attempt to solve every pressing issue, no issue receives the community’s undivided attention. The result is further division, which forces individuals to choose and prioritize certain issues based on their personal grievances. Such was the case with the Summit. With such a great diversity and quantity of events, the students who attended chose whichever ones appealed to them most personally. The profusion of topics led to fewer good ideas focused on a single campus-wide issue (such as sexual violence or racial discrimination, for example), and left the community with confused concepts of “progress.” As expressed by Father Boroughs, the Summit was to be the first step towards progress. Due to the conflation of issues, however, we students have no clue where this next step should or will go. (In fact, in over a week, there has been no follow-up email from the College’s administration.)

If we are to progress as a community, we, as students, alumni, faculty, and staff, must work together and strive for that “next step” without any further division. Efforts such as the Summit, however, create three separate communities: the involved, the indifferent, and the dissenters. The involved members have supported the cause since the beginning. They believed that an event such as the ENGAGE Summit is the correct response to any relevant issue. Because of their concerns, the involved were the most educated before the Summit and the most active during. The indifferent, on the other hand, had no bias either way. They were encouraged to shirk their disinterest and become advocates for the involved, so although they had no strong desire to participate, some attended, while some did not. Finally, the dissenters can be divided into two subgroups: those who believe issues shouldn’t be handled in the manner they were, and those whom the Summit was meant to address. The latter group includes, for the most part, assaulters — whether that be on sexual or physical grounds, such as whoever instigated the “aggravated assault & battery motivated by bias.”

The dissenters, regardless of the aforementioned subgroups, were expected to change sides, realize the “error of their ways,” and convert. They were not excluded, per se, but why would someone who disagrees with the Summit’s ideals even bother to attend at all? While the event claimed to center around open discussion, it appeared more like an opportunity for the involved to vent and strengthen the beliefs they already had. You can’t expect that spewing ideals at someone who disagrees with you will magically cause him to change his ways. To teach someone to love, you must love him. To prompt someone to become respectful and tolerant, he must see that we believe and support respect and tolerance. We must all act as guides, not lecturers. The issue of guidance furthers the problems with the Summit’s multiplicity of events. We cannot guide, much less expect the dissenters to follow, through a maze of topics. Simple, focused efforts of love and guidance are the only way to promote tolerance and respect.

This is why we two writers are dissenters of the Summit — part of the subgroup that believes issues should have been handled in a different manner, but dissenters nonetheless. Although we acknowledge the Summit’s good intentions, we do not believe this is the first step, by any means, to bettering our community. We are not denying the presence of any issues. However, we are denying the Summit’s effectiveness. Further, the Summit, as a formulaic “Tolerance 101,” sent down by the administration and its ideological cronies, interferes with the already natural and (mostly) tolerant community we have on campus. Improvement must come, willingly and enthusiastically, from individuals able to properly guide the outliers towards tolerance and respect.

The Summit’s efforts engaged 1200-1500 members of the community, according to the SGA Instagram, which is an underwhelming percentage when considering all the student body, faculty, staff, and alumni. Thus, it does indeed reflect the exclusion of those who needed it most. Of these participants, how many were coerced by extra-credit or mandatory attendance from professors? How many were able to actually learn and develop as members of the community? How many were the dissenters whose disrespect must be addressed?

We don’t believe in hate. We don’t condone violence. We support tolerance. We support respect. But we cannot support the Summit. We believe action must be taken to confront these issues by focused, individual guidance, not a plethora of “talks.” Instead, it is our responsibility as guides to spread love and tolerance, respect individuals, and better the world around us.

What I Learned from the Feminist Forum

Dialogue. A noble ideal. We participate in dialogue so that we can become better people. Here at Holy Cross, we pride ourselves on being able to address controversial topics boldly. In my three years as a student here, however, I’ve noticed that what is labeled as “dialogue” is all too often one voice in many different tones. In fact, it’s truly rare to hear an outright disagreement on campus. As a philosophy major, forbidden dinner topics – divisive politics, religion, and morality – are kind of my “thing”; I crave disagreement, controversial opinions, and “hot takes.” Here at Holy Cross, we seem to proudly find common ground in our aversion towards acknowledging a conflict of opinions. Like-minded folks merely get together and express things which they all already agree with. Agreement is fine, but it is most certainly not dialogue, and we shouldn’t pawn it off as part of our “open to growth” Jesuit identity. There can be no dialogue without dissenting voices, and here at Holy Cross, where we always remind ourselves that we are so divided, one must ask: where are the dissenting voices? Why is nobody arguing?

There can be no community-wide dialogue if we are not open to opposition; one’s mind must not be permanently fixed. In this way, the conversation begins within the individual. One must allow for the possibility of dissent and doubt within oneself.

A recent event made me aware of this. Holy Cross’s own Feminist Forum and Students for Life co-hosted a discussion of abortion and feminism, and the dialogue proved to be organic and engaging, a breath of fresh air unstifled by the presence of a moderator. I’m not quite sure if any common ground was found, and people’s opinions on abortion, in all likelihood, stayed the same. Nevertheless, this experience made me aware of something that I believe can be used to help cultivate authentic and engaging debate between legitimately opposing viewpoints.

It all started with some honest introspection. After the Students for Life-Feminist Forum discussion, I reflected on how I speak differently when addressing pro-life and pro-choice people despite talking about the same thing: my views on abortion. The change in my style of speech, dependent on whether my company is in agreement or opposition, forced me to wonder about my motives for speaking at all. What was I trying to hide that would make me change the way I presented my views?

Upon reflection, it turns out that a lot of my reasons aren’t as pure as I would like to admit. Take my pro-life views for example. I’m pro-life because I believe that the taking of innocent human life through abortion is bad, and I firmly believe that there are better ways to help women in pregnancy crises – ways that hold up our society’s commitment to equality and justice. This motivation to serve women and children is all well and good, and it’s something I’m proud to profess. However, if I look within, I know that my commitment to love is not the only thing that drives me. My pro-life views are all-too-often hijacked by less generous impulses. I realize that my pro-life views on social justice often draw power from hate, serving as an expression of my frustration and anger against those who espouse pro-choice views. Animosity is a powerful motivator.

We hardly ever let ourselves doubt our noble motives. All the hatred and the ill-will: those belong to the other side, we tell ourselves. We are in the right, they are in the wrong, and we make this known within the comfort of our group. Having had genuine conversations with well-intentioned people we disagree with, like the ones I had with the Feminist Forum, we start to doubt that our motives are as pure as we would let ourselves believe.

I urge you, if you are deeply committed to something, to critically examine what drives your conviction. Identify the worst possible reason for holding your particular view, then go ahead and assume that some strain of that is what drives you to be so passionate about your specific cause. Contend with that possibility. Let it scare the hell out of you. We at a Jesuit Catholic school have a duty to do this. After all, we are “all about” discernment. These are forces that drive us, so let’s get to know them.

Here’s an exercise: Go ahead and assume that the side you oppose is correct in their caricature of you.

For example:
Staunch capitalist? – assume you are motivated by neglect for the poor, believing that they ought to suffer.
Budding socialist? – assume that you don’t really care about the poor – you just hate and envy the rich.
Pro-life? – assume you are motivated by the thrill you get from imposing your morals on others.
Pro-choice? – assume your commitment to abortion-rights stems not from a desire to help women in crisis pregnancies but rather from a disdain for the responsibility implicit in unsafe sex.

Why do this? After all, the mere questioning of personal motives in no way proves or disproves the righteousness or depravity of any particular cause. In this way, I’m not saying that you should go ahead and stop fighting for what you are passionate about. As a human, to some degree your motives are inevitably distorted. That’s just the situation we find ourselves in. Instead, this exercise is meant to foster a very necessary sense of self-doubt. The first step towards becoming a good human being is the knowledge that you are not a good human being. Through getting to know the real identity which drives you, you will be better prepared to cultivate the good and contend with the bad within you. Don’t be naïve, assuming that you are innocent and entirely justified; you are not an angel, and neither are your compatriots in your particular cause. At present, we all inhabit a place somewhere between heaven and hell. From this basic understanding, then, go forth and stand for what you stand for, but do so continually examining your motives. Be vigilant and skeptical of the forces that drive you.

The practice of assuming the worst of yourself – fostering self-doubt – is also the very virtue required to approach dialogue with others: humility. If you want to become a better person and make the world a better place, you need to face the reality of your potential to be motivated by evil.  Assuming that the views you are most passionate and proud to hold are – in part – driven by the worst motives, you will become a more morally aware person. This, in turn, will make you much more capable of dealing with the division that besets our school, community, and nation.

Meatfree Monday in Kimball: Proof of Actual Demonic Activity on Campus

People don’t like to talk about demons. They think it’ll make them sound crazy, or worse, religious. And yet Holy Cross has some rather odd ties to the demonic. For one, there’s the rampant rumor that an exorcism happened on campus. This claim would seem absurd if it weren’t for the locked room in O’Kane that everyone calls “The Exorcism Room”, and the Jesuits’ historic ties to exorcisms. To thicken the plot, Dinand Archives set up a special Halloween display with a crucifix and a book in Latin—sure signs that something suspicious is afoot—while implying that there may or may not be a section of the archives devoted entirely to exorcisms. Spooky. Nonetheless, since no one seems willing to confirm or deny whether or not an exorcism actually took place, it all seems like a dead end. But now, for better or worse, students can divert their attention away from the Exorcism Room because there is new evidence of demonic activity on campus: Meatfree Monday in Kimball.

In response to a rather unsurprising U.N. statement warning the world about imminent environmental catastrophes, the Student Government Association (SGA) teamed up with Dining Services to try to help the environment by reducing meat consumption. The result was the decision to create Meatfree Monday; on Monday, October 29th, they removed all the meat from Kimball and served only vegetarian options. To give more weight to the whole thing, SGA also referenced Laudato Si, Pope Francis’ encyclical that warns about the dangers of climate change. (As a side note, I’m still waiting for SGA to send an email about the dangers of Pelagianism, which Pope Francis warns about extensively in his newest encyclical, Gaudete et Exultate.)

At the same time, it isn’t initially clear how not eating meat will prevent the world from lighting on fire. After all, signs in Kimball pointed out that animal waste was creating a serious environmental impact. But logically, it seems like the best way to get a cow to stop defecating is to eat the cow. Vegetarianism, on the other hand, would just mean that the cows would live longer, poop more, and make more cow babies, and as a result, the world would burn faster. Meatfree Monday, then, makes no sense. But is it going too far to call it demonic? Perhaps not.  

Recognizing that real demonology was above my paygrade, I reached out to James Dooley, a junior at the College, who once took a class on demons. (In all honesty, James wasn’t my first choice, but since no exorcist would return my emails, he’ll have to do.) When asked whether demonic influence was involved in the Meatfree Monday incident, James nodded. “I’m really of the opinion that most carbs are a gateway to pure evil,” said Dooley. “Meatfree Monday just means more carbs.” James also pointed out rather astutely that salt is often used to scare demons away, and meat is often salty. “It really could just be a ploy to limit the amount of salt so more demons can get in,” James said, noting that with less salt and more demons, the school could be exposed to even more horror, like entire weeks of vegetarianism. Extra spooky. To James’s first point, Kimball’s vegetarian substitutes were a little odd, albeit sometimes delicious. One student, who commented anonymously, said, “Meatfree Monday? More like Cheese Monday?” The student noted that almost all the meat was replaced by dairy products, like grilled cheese, cheese quesadillas, and cheese lasagna. Given the high percentage of adults who cannot process dairy, this seems problematic, both for students and for the maintenance people who clean bathrooms on campus.

Seth Sullivan, a sophomore, also thought that demons were somehow involved. “I’m not entirely sure how,” he said, pointing out that he was actually an atheist. “But hey, you don’t have to believe in God to know when something really messed up is going on. I think demons may be a logical explanation.”  

That makes me uneasy. Now, once again, it may not be air-tight proof that actual demons are lurking in Kimball, but if even an atheist can recognize that the devil is involved… that isn’t good. Looking for more evidence, I turned to God. It makes sense: if God is somehow supportive of Meatfree Monday, then it can’t be demonic. Now, it was hard to find a definite statement for God. At least Biblically, God was pro-meat. St. Paul told the Romans that, “One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables” (Romans 14:2). That’s not looking so hot for Meatfree Monday. But if that wasn’t enough, I started to think logically. God gave us opposable thumbs (which are somehow part of hunting). He also gave us teeth, and He made bacon delicious. Now I’m not a math major, but this seems simple: thumbs + teeth + delicious bacon = God wants us to eat meat. In fact, one could go so far as to say that not eating meat is a form of ingratitude, since we are not using the meat-eating skills God gave us. And since St. Ignatius, the founder of the Jesuits, considered ingratitude the root of all sin, vegetarianism could properly be viewed as a gateway sin. “First you’re not eating meat,” said a Jesuit who asked to remain anonymous. “Next thing you know, you’re blowing up orphanages.”

Definitely demonic.

All of this points to something super spooky. Hopefully, administration will take the right steps, contact the proper authorities, and end this nonsense once and for all.

An Open Letter on the Church and Abuse

By Jack Rosenwinkel '21, Representing the Review's Staff

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

In the beginning of St. John’s Gospel, it is written: “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it” (1:5). In these months of darkness following widespread revelations of abuse within the Catholic Church and on our campus, John’s words gain a deep relevance. Darkness, pain and confusion are everywhere. It seems, at times, as if John was wrong, as if the darkness has finally overwhelmed the light.

At the Fenwick Review, we felt that we had to say something. At the same time, we grew sick of hearing scripted apologies, cagey legal defenses, and words that seemed shallow, insincere, and ill-equipped to affect actual change. We wondered how we could possibly respond to the crisis in an adequate, thoughtful and loving way. How could we condemn systemic abuse and its coverup without sounding redundant or obvious? How could we verbalize our love, admiration and support for victims without sounding hollow? And how could mere words do anything to bring healing, justice or hope?

Confronted with these questions, we at the Fenwick Review have come to the conclusion that, even though this letter will likely fall short, silence is no longer an option. It was the silence of bystanders, bishops and other Church authorities that perpetuated abuse and made victims feel isolated. As a publication, we feel responsible to help break the silence surrounding abuse. Speaking out is the first step toward real reform, change and justice. We at the Fenwick Review are committed to using our voice to call bishops to accountability, to cry for justice, and to speak up for the silenced. More than anything, we are committed to voicing our support for all victims of abuse. We also want to acknowledge that courageous victims were the first to break the silence and expose the evil that has slowly been infecting the Church.

We want all victims of abuse to know that they possess an inherent, inalienable human dignity. We affirm this dignity, and wish to remind all victims, and those they love, of the numerous resources on campus that can aid in the healing process. Anyone who wishes to discuss sexual abuse can reach out to the chaplain’s office, the counseling center, or in the case of an emergency, to Public Safety. SGA, Fr. Boroughs and the College Chaplains sent out school-wide emails with resources for victims, as well as opportunities for dialogue and healing. More information can be found in these emails and on the Holy Cross website.

We also want to express our frustration with every Catholic Bishop who participated in abuse or its cover-up, through action or inaction. The Fenwick Review is a Catholic publication that often defends the Church and her teachings. Our founder, Fr. Paul Scalia, is now a Catholic priest. It is because of, not despite, our Catholic identity that we call our Bishops to reform. In any other institution, child abuse and coverup would never be tolerated. So why is such evil permitted in Christ’s Church? Why are some of our bishops– the very shepherds tasked with risking their lives to protect their flock– complacent in the face of horror? We demand justice, reform, and authentic sanctification. We demand more than apologies; we demand sympathy and understanding. And now, more than ever, we need leaders: real leaders willing to imitate Christ and die in order to protect their people.

Finally, we have a message for our peers on the Hill. First, we want to express a message of hope. Healing is possible. Justice will come. Reforms are on the way. Abuse is like a cancer or an infection within the Church. The first step to effectively rooting out the cancer or infection is a diagnosis. Without a diagnosis, treatment is impossible. The Grand Jury diagnosed a cancer within the Church, which is a tremendous step in the right direction, even though it has been tremendously painful and confusing. In Luke 8:17 we are told, “Whatever is hidden away will be brought out into the open, and whatever is covered up will be found and brought to light.” The Grand Jury report effectively brought what was hidden out into the open, giving victims a voice, naming abusers, and forcing the Church to take action. Through the courage of the members of the Grand Jury and victims of abuse, evil has finally been exposed.

Second, we wish to remind our fellow students that they are not powerless. Here are three practical steps that lay Catholics can take to shift the Church in the right direction:

Support victims. It is likely that we all know victims of abuse, whether we are aware of their abuse or not. It is imperative that we love and support one another, especially because we do not know if someone or someone they love has been abused. We also caution you to not let your anger– though justified– distract you from loving the people God puts in your life.

Contact your Bishop. Bishops are not mythical creatures or far-off men hidden away in magical towers. They are priests whose entire job is to guide the people living in their diocese. They want to hear from you. Write letters, call their office, encourage them, and remind them that even after the media storm blows over, you will not ignore or forget the crime of clerical abuse.

Finally, pray. Too many people write off prayer as an excuse for inaction. Prayer and action are not mutually exclusive. So work, advocate, and love, but also pray: for victims, for their loved ones, for the Church, and for all abusers. After all, we all need Jesus.

Allegedly, Napoleon once captured the pope and promised to destroy the Catholic Church. The pope responded, “We’ve been trying to destroy the Church for 1,800 years and we haven’t succeeded, what makes you think you can do it now?” Amusing as it is, this anecdote is a powerful reminder of the way that Christ is at work: after 2,000 years of scandal, abuse, corruption and sin, the Catholic Church is still standing. St. John was right: “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it” (1:5). There is still hope, even in this time of darkness.

Brothers and sisters, hold tightly to Christ. It’s the only way to get through this storm.

Sincerely,

The Staff of The Fenwick Review

A Cause for Celebration

In the beginning of chapter 3 of the Book of Ecclesiastes, the prophet states: “For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven”. As we move through a multitude of crises – on our campus, in our Church, in our government – it is only fitting that we discern what “time” envelops us and our actions. Most, I suppose, would reply with “a time to speak” from Ecclesiastes 3:7. “We have to vote. We have to be heard. We have to muster up the courage to say what hasn’t been said before, and we need to stand our ground.”

That, of course, is unequivocally true. Whether regarding sexual abuse, scandals within the Church, or dissatisfaction with the government, we ought to voice our concerns. Silence lets open wounds fester. And thus, many discontented voices flutter about in the air like bats on the wing: those of mourning, those of loss, those of hatred, those of warrishness and weeping and gnashing of teeth. On either side of the aisle – Democrat or Republican, atheistic or theistic, women or men, destitute or swimming in money, you name the divisions – finding someone who doesn’t admire speech is rather difficult.

Yet I must raise a question. Since when must speaking only entertain the wrongness in the world? Why must there be so much denigration and bitterness? To those of you speaking and fighting for your convictions: by all means, continue to do so! I have no desire to dissuade you, and I encourage you to continue debating. But in Ecclesiastes the verse’s juxtaposition is “a time to be silent, and a time to speak” (3:7). The prophet does not specify the qualifications for speech and silence, only that each has its time. I think that, in this time of speech, what we are desperately, wretchedly missing is a voice of joy and celebration.

Celebration, in our current climes, might seem out of place. Take James Christie’s resignation from the College, for example. You must wonder: how can we celebrate after the revelation that a man, who was much-admired by many of our students, sexually abused others? Can we celebrate knowing that some of our loved ones have been harmed by someone we trusted? Consider also that, in the wake of Christie’s departure, Holy Cross has met with its 175thanniversary. At a celebratory Mass with His Eminence Sean Cardinal O’Malley, belting out hymns in St. Joseph Chapel, I am sure that many of us could not help but let the darkness of scandal simmer in the back of our minds. At the picnic outside of Kimball afterwards, many of us must have wondered who will teach the choir in Christie’s absence.

The same goes for the recent resignation of Cardinal Donald Wuerl from his position in the clerical hierarchy. Can we celebrate the Church, knowing that a vast web of abuse and sly coverups have been hidden inside the chapel woodwork for years on end? When we enter our own parishes, can we look up at the kindly faces of our priests with the same reverence and respect? During October’s Synod on the Youth, Faith, and Vocational Discernment, we youth – and the families and friends who support us – cannot help but let our perceptions be colored by the pain of the Church.

Even in the wake of such scandals (and the wake of Kavanaugh’s confirmation, but for more on that subject, please refer to Mr. Smith’s article), I believe that there is space for joy and celebration. We can, first, be joyful that justice is finally being served in places where there was once a drought. We can also celebrate our College’s 175th anniversary. Even with its stains, Holy Cross has given us grand opportunities and grander futures. Charging our voices with bitterness in lieu of appreciation will keep us from seeing the picture in full. Having magnificent professors is worth our joy. Having a beautiful chapel and the capacity for daily Mass is worth our joy. Having a student body with many intelligent young men and women who strive for the good of society is worth our joy. We ought to do our best to recognize what has been uncharacteristically unjust or foolish, but we should not let those problems make us cynical pessimists.

Christ did not put us into the world to be harbingers of doom and prophets of horrible things to come. He granted us our lives so that we might love like He did, sacrifice like He did, and bring other people to the Lord. That may, sometimes, require us to use our speech for fraternal correction. But it might be more fitting for us, before correcting each other, to recognize that we are first brothers and sisters. Our sheer existence within the will of God is cause for celebration, as are our relationships to one another. All our present scandals, in fact, can be traced to misconstrued relationships among God’s people, a lack of respect for each other, and capitalization on weakness and strife. I do not wish that our voices be used to propagate that strife.

Instead, I call you to look at the world, your community, your family, with unclouded eyes. There is much that we can give thanks for. To you fathers and mothers: the children you have raised with devotion, the dinners together and the laughs shared over their first steps – these are cause for celebration. To you students here: the multitude of classes you can choose from, the status of Holy Cross as a top-tier liberal arts college, even your ability to receive higher education – these are cause for celebration. To you alumni: Holy Cross, in its days of glory and darkling hours, has granted you wonderful futures, and it soon shall do the same for us – so this is a cause for celebration.

Our world, unfortunately, has quite enough toil and trouble in it. While those voices of discontent can fill the sky with a cacophony as tremendous as a roosting flock of sparrows in autumn, remember that fresh air does good for one’s constitution. Taking a moment to appreciate our blessings and celebrate them would benefit each and every one of us.