Letter from the Editors: March 2018

Dear Reader,

Thank you for picking up a copy of The Fenwick Review.

In February, the College announced that the nickname “Crusaders” would be retained. The best reason provided at the time was this: “The literal definition of the word, ‘one who is marked by the cross of Christ,’ was appropriate for our institution’s Jesuit and Catholic intellectual and spiritual tradition.” Not long before we went to press, Father Boroughs and the Board of Trustees announced that the College would remove all Crusader imagery from the campus, and replace the athletic logo with an interlocking “HC” on a white shield. It was the only way, apparently, to avoid linking Holy Cross to the Medieval crusades.

Throughout, while we’ve pretended to have an academic discourse about the subject, there have been two main concerns: 1) don’t alienate all our friends at secular New England schools and 2) don’t make the alumni mad while they’re still alive and can still write us out of their wills. Perhaps it’s crass to phrase it in such terms, but please, prove us wrong.

This final decision demonstrates that all of those pious noises about the Cross were just pious noises. If you claim you’re keeping the name “Crusader” because of its association with the Cross (a rare piece of sound thinking!), it would make logical sense to, well, actually put the Cross on the visual representation of the school. It’s difficult to pretend that the mascot decision had anything to do with religious identity when our chosen branding has no hint of religious imagery.

The rhetoric of the initial decision and the actions which have followed aren’t consistent. If the religious heritage is important, use religious imagery (A cross, at least? Or a saint, perhaps?). If it isn’t, Holy Cross should find the moral honesty to stop pretending it cares about its heritage and go the way of the rest of secular academia. The former would be courageous. The latter would at least be honest. The current solution merely pretends to be both.

The Fenwick Review’s motto is “Quod Verum, Pulchrum” – What is True is Beautiful. It’s a phrase that the faculty and administrators of Holy Cross might take to heart.

Bill Christ, ‘18

Claude Hanley, ‘18

Editors in Chief

Letter from the Editors: February 2018

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. 

Bill Christ, ‘18 
Claude Hanley, ‘18 

Editors in Chief 

Letter from the Editors: December 2017

Dear Reader,

Thank you for picking up a copy of The Fenwick Review.

Back in late September, The Fenwick Review co-sponsored a lecture by R.R. Reno, the editor of First Things, entitled “A Christian Interpretation of the Age of Trump.”  Dr. Reno observed that the election of President Trump attests to the breakdown of the liberal postwar consensus.  He noted the once-prevailing tendency for  Conservatives and Liberals to agree that deconsolidation and greater fluidity were positive good; their disagreements arose merely over what spheres that deconsolidation ought to affect.  Today, the talk of walls, border, and “America First” on the Right makes the same point as the left’s fascination with cultural appropriation and the popularity of Bernie Sanders on the Left: Enough of deconsolidation; Americans want something stable to hold on to.  Dr. Reno has argued that liberalism is dying.  His lecture aimed to provide a Christian version of what should come next.  

In connection with his lecture, Dr. Reno agreed to an interview with The Fenwick Review about the state of higher education in the United States.  It is our privilege to publish the full text of that interview in this issue. The interview, conducted for The Fenwick Review by Mr. Hanley, ranges from general questions about the purpose of universities in America, to the particular challenges of free speech and intellectual diversity, to questions about the unique mission of Catholic higher education.  We are grateful to Dr. Reno for offering his insights, which we hope will prompt deep reflection on the nature and purpose of our four years on Mount Saint James.

This issue also features a balanced set of essays on both Catholicism and American politics.  Most prominently, Mr. Christ and Mr. Ciolek offer two different perspectives on the issue of gun control legislation in the United States.  In the wake of shootings in Sutherland Springs and Las Vegas, their comments on the morality and constitutionality of gun legislation are particularly important.  Mr. Dooley critiques the viewpoint behind a number of recent College-wide lectures, that Catholics ought to simply compromise with the Democratic party on the issue of abortion.  Elsewhere, Mr. Garry offers a scathing take on the notion of a “right” to healthcare, and the poverty of moral discourse which such a notion reflects.  Mr. Rosenwinkel makes a few remarks on evangelization and sanctity.  Finally, the editors note with happiness that Mr. Connolly’s poetry has finally returned to our pages.

We hope you find the reading insightful and engaging.  We certainly did.

Petite Pulchritudinem.

Claude Hanley and Bill Christ

Letter from the Editors: November 2017

Dear Reader, 

Thank you for picking up a copy of The Fenwick Review. As we go to press with the October/November issue, one “listening session” on the College’s mascot has come and gone, and the other looms on the horizon. It is now nearly a year since the College announced its intention to reconsider the issue of our traditional symbol. The Administration has implemented a “working group” to collate feedback on the topic. Students and alumni are invited to submit their thoughts: should the mascot be retained? Or should it be consigned to what is called the “ash heap of history”? Commentary is due by November 26, via an online comment form. We encourage our readers to submit their feedback. 

Throughout the last year, our writers and editors have discussed the issue in some depth; all three issues from last spring contain articles on the topic. Elsewhere in this issue, Mr. Hanley and Mr. Christ address various aspects of the mascot debate. Mr. Christ discusses the administration’s handling of the issue, while Mr. Hanley offers a final examination of the arguments in favor of and opposed to the mascot. On the next page, an alumnus from the Class of 1954 offers his thoughts on the topic to the editors. We will not repeat any of that content now. 

Instead, a simple note. Over the past year, we have met exceedingly few students who passionately thought that the mascot ought to go. A higher number, even at the first listening session, have argued that it ought to stay. But many, if not most, find the whole matter pointless babbling over a symbol. They simply do not care. In this minor culture war, it seems to have been forgotten that there are real problems on this campus -- housing, tuition, funding priorities. For both sides of the political spectrum, there are actual problems than need to be addressed. Let us leave the mascot unmolested, and go back to our crusade for things that really matter. 

Claude Hanley, ’18 
Bill Christ, ’18 
Co-Editors in Chief

Letter from the Editors: September 2017

Dear Reader,
 
Thank you for picking up a copy of the Fenwick Review.
 
The Fenwick Review was founded in 1989 as the brainchild of Paul Scalia, son of the late Supreme Court justice, and now a Roman Catholic priest.  Intellectual conservatism and orthodox Catholicism are the two intellectual strands which have guided this magazine from its beginnings.  Of course, we have not always united those elements in equal balance; individual writers and editors have their own commitments.  Our task is to provide them a forum.
 
But it is more than that.  There is a powerful link between these two strands of thought; they did not unite out of mere convenience. Indeed, the Christian and conservative coalition has been a defining feature of the American political landscape for the past five decades. The synthesis of Catholic and conservative, personified in William F. Buckley, decisively shaped to Republican party in the modern era. Whatever one thinks of the current state of the Republican party the intellectual affinity of conservatism and religious orthodoxy is striking.
 
At this point, the crisis of the Christian-Republican alliance is widely recognized.  Reactions to the recent executive action regarding DACA are indicative: the U.S. Catholic Bishops conference, led by some of its most conservative members, decried the decision, as did the Pope; the outlets of the intellectual right, including Buckley’s National Review, have by and large cheered the president on.
 
So why on earth does the intellectual heritage of a small campus publication mean anything?  The answer is simple: the intellectual sources we draw from are often at odds with one another.  Throughout this year, as a result, even our contributors will sharply disagree with each other.  In the end, however, this magazine is held together by a single insight: that, regardless of the politics of the moment, these two strands of thought remain a coherent pair, with much to say to one another.
 
We have our intellectual commitments, ones which shape both this publication and the thinking of its writers; we are drawn together by ideas that are more similar than they are different.  But these are not exclusionary principles: we won’t be banishing libertarian politics because they aren’t orthodox Catholicism, nor we will expunge Catholic theology because it is insufficiently political.  There are limits, of course, but the principle is clear: the belief systems we draw on will not be turned against each other.
 
With all that said, we set this issue before you.  We hope you find it thought-provoking, interesting, perhaps even insightful.  Enjoy the reading.
 
Claude Hanley ‘18 
Bill Christ ‘18 
Editors in Chief