Some Considerations on the Rosary

The Most Holy Rosary is, in some sense, the unofficial official prayer of the Church. Though technically speaking, the Divine Office (in addition to the sacred liturgy itself) is the official public prayer of the Church, the Rosary is by far the most well known and most practiced devotion in the West. This is perhaps best demonstrated by the fact that this act of piety has the unique privilege of being celebrated with its own feast day in the Roman Rite. While it is not the only devotion to ever be granted such an honor, the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary (which has changed names several times since its institution by St. Pius V after the victory of the Battle of Lepanto in 1571) is the only one of such feasts to be universally inscribed on the traditional liturgical calendar. And indeed, it continues to be so within its inclusion on the calendar of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite as an obligatory memorial. This great feast is celebrated on October 7th, and the entire month of October is dedicated to the Rosary. For this reason, it seems fitting to consider this most beloved of Catholic devotions.

The structure of the Rosary should be familiar to most Catholics. Its recitation consists of “decades”; that is, sets of ten recitations of the Angelical Salutation, a prayer more commonly referred to as the Hail Mary. Between each set the Lord’s Prayer is prayed, more commonly referred to as the Our Father. Given the amount of time that is taken to invoke the Blessed Virgin Mary, one could easily conclude that the Rosary is a Marian devotion. And of course, it is a Marian devotion, and chief among them. However, the Rosary is a devotion primarily oriented not toward the Lord’s mother, but toward the Lord Jesus Christ himself. Of course, this could be said of every act of devotion since all prayer is ultimately oriented toward God. However, what is intended here is not a simple fact regarding the nature of prayer, but a commentary on the true virtue of the Rosary. Whereas other forms of prayer, such as the Angelical Salutation itself, are primarily oriented toward the Blessed Mother in so far as they are simply petitions or acts of love made to her, the Rosary’s main focus is not vocal prayer at all, but meditation. What is the most integral part of the Rosary is also at times the most forgotten: the pious meditation on the mysteries that accompany it. 

The “mysteries” of the Rosary refer to particular events in the life of Christ that are especially fruitful for meditation given their significance in the Gospel. Each of the mysteries is assigned to a decade of the Rosary. Traditionally they are fifteen in number; however, St. John Paul II added five new mysteries, collectively called the Luminous Mysteries, to be recited in addition to the original Joyful, Sorrowful, and Glorious mysteries [1]. Nowadays, the Rosary is typically prayed as one set of mysteries at a time, with the particular set changing according to the day of the week. The original number of fifteen mysteries, which correspond to a total of fifteen decades, is not accidental. The devotion most likely arose from a modification of the Psalter, the collection of all one hundred and fifty psalms found in Scripture. The Psalter was traditionally recited in its entirety every week by the monks, but it soon became an object of attraction to the lay faithful as well. Of course, reciting all of the Psalms in a single week is nearly impossible for the average person given the amount of time required as well as the necessity of literacy (which was not nearly as common in the era when the Rosary began to develop). So the Church, ever mindful of the barriers that life in this world burdens upon the poor and always concerned with the accessibility of the full arsenal of her prayer, naturally developed the simplified version of the Psalter that is known today as “Our Lady’s Psalter:” the Most Holy Rosary. Rather than having to learn to read or memorize an entire collection of texts, the faithful would only have to make use of the most common prayers which were known and memorized by all the baptized and be familiar with the most central mysteries of the Gospel in order to participate in this prayer of the Church. 

Among the mysteries are the Annunciation of Our Lady, her Assumption into Heaven, the Nativity of Our Lord, his Crucifixion and Death, his Resurrection, his Institution of the Most Holy Eucharist, etc. Each of these mysteries finds its origin in Sacred Scripture, and all have lengthy narratives associated with them with the exceptions of only the Assumption and the Coronation of Our Lady as Queen of Heaven. It is for this reason that the Rosary has colloquially been referred to as “the Bible on a string.” In this way, the Rosary is a sort of lectio divina, the ancient method of the prayerful reading of Scripture made accessible to a universal audience. Although the reading of Sacred Scripture ought to always constitute a central part in the Christian’s devotional life, it is the case that the Rosary presents a summary of the Gospel in a manner that is simple, accessible, and easy for all people. Indeed, the Rosary is truly the prayer of the masses. Whereas some devotions are better suited to the more or less educated, others to the devout or the lukewarm, and others to children or adults, the Rosary is a prayer that is both easy and efficacious to all people who approach it in faith. Just as the stained glass windows, pictures, frescos, and statues that adorn medieval churches served to teach the central truths of the Christian religion and the lives of the saints to a mostly illiterate population, so can the Rosary serve to instruct those who either cannot or do not regularly read Sacred Scripture about the mysteries of the Gospel. And what is more, this instruction is done by means of meditation in union with the prayers of the mother of Jesus herself. So, if praying the Rosary is a method of instruction, then the question is raised: who is the instructor? 

Really there are two instructors of those who pray the Rosary: the Holy Spirit and the Blessed Mother. It is fitting to recall the intimate union that the Holy Spirit and Mary share as spiritual spouses, and the Rosary can help to do so. At the Annunciation, the Holy Spirit came upon Mary and in doing so caused the Incarnation of Christ in her womb. So the two are called “spiritual spouses”; “spouses” because the one effected the conception of Christ in the other, and “spiritual” because the virginity of Mary remained intact and she remained truly conjugally married to her most chaste spouse, St. Joseph. As also demonstrated by the Descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, the Holy Spirit once again came to sow seed to blossom into good fruit. Descending upon the Apostles in the presence of Mary, the Holy Spirit officially began the Church on that day. From these examples can be drawn this maxim concerning the Holy Spirit and the Blessed Virgin Mary: wherever the one is, so is the other. And when both are at work, holy fruit is born. So as the Spirit of Truth, who teaches all truth, reveals the secrets hidden in the mysteries of the Rosary, his blessed spouse hears the prayers of her devotees and prays for their sanctification as she reveals more and more of her Divine Son.

There is much more that can be said about this beautiful devotion. For those who are interested in beginning to pray it or mastering it, consider this simple course of action: firstly, memorize the prayers that constitute the Rosary. Secondly, become familiar with the mysteries by reading their respective passages from Scripture. Thirdly, begin to pray the Rosary according to a guide or with someone else who knows how to pray it. Fourthly, intimately meditate on the mysteries as you pray. And finally, pray the Rosary regularly, even every day. I must admit my own hypocrisy in this regard: while I recommend to everyone to pray the Rosary every single day, I myself hardly ever do so. Although I cannot say that I am someone who never skips a day, I can wholeheartedly say that even the regular recitation of the Rosary has completely revolutionized my life. In a time when so many are imprisoned by habitual sin, a prayer like the Rosary is the perfect remedy. Habitual prayer conquers habitual sin. So as we hail our Holy Queen while still in this valley of tears, and as we meditate upon the mysteries of the Most Holy Rosary, may we imitate what they contain and obtain what they promise.

Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Endnotes: 

[1] Pope John Paul II, Rosarium Virginis Mariae, Apostolic Letter, October 16, 2002. https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/2002/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_20021016_rosarium-virginis-mariae.html. 

Reconsidering Israel

“Yes, it is war. It is terrorism,” he said. “That is why the Scripture affirms that ‘God stops wars… breaks the bow, splinters the spear’ (Psalm 46:10). Let us pray to the Lord for peace.”

-Pope Francis

As the war in the Middle East continues to escalate, we Americans find ourselves at a point of reflection. The support of ‘our greatest ally in the Middle East’ has been viewed as a defense of democracy, Western values, and justice in a region hostile to us [1]. Yet war has come, and over the last year we have been given the opportunity to analyze the actions this ally would take. 

The greatest issue we must consider is the nature of the conflict. Up until the recent Iranian retaliation on Israel, this war, has been more characteristic of a genocide [2]. Israel, justifying its actions as defense, repeatedly strikes refugee camps [3], has a history of severing humanitarian aid and basic necessities to Gaza [4], and pushed Palestinians to the border of Egypt [5], pressuring refugees between two irreconcilable forces. For all intents and purposes, Israel’s actions are not characteristic of war, and in many instances mirror terrorist measures [6]. In our rules of engagement, the U.S. refuses to use tactics in any way similar to these, even if such precautions risk American lives [7]. As the standing global hegemon, the U.S. has repeatedly criticized such states that use similar, brutal tactics [8]. So if we are to align ourselves with another power, should we not be even more critical, when their actions are seen as American-sponsored ventures?

Even though Israel’s behavior may seem distant and tangential to American politics, our institutional biases are evident through our excessive media support.  When else has the influence of a foreign nation been so blatant in our domestic politics?

It seems like every day another media effort is made to demonstrate how strongly our leadership supports Israel. If it’s not Representative Brian Mast wearing an Israel Defense Force uniform in the halls of Congress [9], then it’s the presumptive nominees for both parties arguing about who is a greater ally to Israel, in their first debate [10], when they cannot agree on virtually any other policy measure. Or if neither of those, it is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) —an organization fighting to not be classified as a foreign influence since the days of JFK [11]—openly bragging about the weight they hold on elections [12]. Or perhaps it is the more than one-thousand police officers from around the country sent to Israel for training [13] [14].There are thousands of other examples like this which  paint an eerie relationship between the U.S. and Israel. What other nation has a bond anything akin to the one Israel maintains with the U.S? Is there an Indian lobby as influential as theirs, a German, British, or even Ukrainian? 

Especially since the October 7th attacks of last year, more has surfaced that rings a strange note; from the persecution of our Ivy League for antisemitism [15], the ambiguous federal redefinition of antisemitism [16], internal pressure on journalists covering the war in Gaza [17], to individual US states dictating foreign policy for Israel.

Though we have had a relationship with Israel since 1948, our country’s increased involvement over this past year  forces us to consider the following: Where is all this pressure coming from? Why have our institutions and leaders doubled down on their commitment to Israel, in the face of rampant humanitarian atrocities? And why Israel specifically?

But we may not have the luxury of time to reconsider our ally. As the war rages on, it is obvious that it has  amped up its harassment campaign against its nemesis in the region: Iran. With the active presence of the U.S., Israel has continued to provoke its neighbors. It claims to be in the interest of rooting out Hezbollah, but it is clearly seeking to escalate the conflict and ultimately neutralize all possible threats in the area—even at the cost of regime change and generations of turmoil. That is why Israel invaded Lebanon, “depopulating villages” as they went [18]. That is why they freely strike Russian airports [19] when Ukraine still has to ask before doing so. And that is why they continue to alternate missile strikes with Iran, escalating the conflict. It seems as though Israel is perpetually in need of defensive systems [20] [21], and the U.S. always has to come to its rescue. Over the past couple of months alone, the U.S. has both mobilized the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system with one-hundred American troops to operate it [22] and  deployed multiple Air Force squadrons and American aircraft carriers with an “additional few thousand” personnel to the Middle East [23].

Iran has always been the target. Even before the Iraq war, Israeli officials had been promoting our involvement in Iraq, and especially in Iran [24]. In recent days, U.S. agencies have leaked that Israel has further plans to attack Iran [25], surely with US aid: their prime weapon. So as we look to the coming days, we must seriously reconsider this ally and the depth of this war. Is a state with so much overt, odd influence in our domestic politics for our benefit? And are we willing to wage war, on behalf of this state, in a region that has already drained American blood and ammunition for the last thirty-three years?

Endnotes: 

[1] The Editorial Board, “Israel Can Defend Itself and Uphold Its Values,” The New York Times,  Oct. 14, 2023. 

[2] Alene Bouranova, “Is Israel Committing Genocide in Gaza? New Report from BU School of Law's International Human Rights Clinic Lays Out Case,” BU Today, Jun. 5, 2024. 

[3] Nidal Al-Mughrabi, “Israeli strikes in northern Gaza cause scores of casualties, doctors say,” Reuters, Oct. 19, 2024. 

[4] Jomana Karadsheh, Lauren Izso, Eyad Kourdi, Kareem Khadder, “Red Cross says at least 22 killed as strike hits displaced civilians in Gaza as Israel expands operations,” CNN, Jun. 22, 2024. 

[5] Patrick Wintour, “Israeli assault on southern Gaza could push 1m refugees to Egypt border, UNRWA chief warns,” The Guardian, Nov. 30, 2023. 

[6] Matt Murphy, “What we know about the Hezbollah device explosions,” BBC, Sept. 20, 2024. 

[7] “The Efficacy and Ethics of U.S. Counterterrorism Strategy- John Brennan,” Woodrow Wilson Center, April 30, 2012. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cM4mCEXi5v4. See transcript here: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/the-efficacy-and-ethics-us-counterterrorism-strategy

[8] The White House. “Remarks by President Biden on the United States’ Response to Hamas’s Terrorist Attacks Against Israel and Russia’s Ongoing Brutal War Against Ukraine,” October 20, 2023. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/10/20/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-unites-states-response-to-hamass-terrorist-attacks-against-israel-and-russias-ongoing-brutal-war-against-ukraine/. 

[9] Sarah Fortinsky, “GOP lawmaker wears Israeli military uniform to Capitol Hill,” The Hill, Oct. 13, 2023. https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4254384-brian-mast-israeli-military-uniform-capitol-hill/.

[10] “Trump says Harris ‘hates Israel’ during debate,” NBC News, Sept. 10, 2024. https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/trump-says-harris-hates-israel-during-debate-219042885646.

[11] The Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy. “DOJ orders the AZC to Register as a Foreign Agent,” The Israel Lobby Archive, accessed November 13, 2024. https://www.israellobby.org/azcdoj/.

[12] AIPAC. “The Largest Pro-Israel PAC in America,” AIPAC PAC, accessed November 13, 2024. https://www.aipacpac.org. 

[13] Edith Garwood, “With Whom are Many U.S. Police Departments Training? With a Chronic Human Rights Violator - Israel,” (Blog), Amnesty International USA, August 25, 2016. https://www.amnestyusa.org/blog/with-whom-are-many-u-s-police-departments-training-with-a-chronic-human-rights-violator-israel/. 

[14] “U.S.-Israel Strategic Cooperation: Joint Police & Law Enforcement Training,” Jewish Virtual Library, accessed November 13, 2024. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/joint-us-israel-police-and-law-enforcement-training. 

[15] “A look at college presidents who have resigned under pressure over their handling of Gaza protests,” The Associated Press, Aug. 15, 2024. https://apnews.com/article/college-president-resign-shafik-magill-gay-59fe4e1ea31c92f6f180a33a02b336e3. 

[16] U.S. Congress, House, Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023, H.R. 6090, 118th Cong. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090. 

[17] Jeremy Scahill, Ryan Grim, “Leaked NYT Gaza Memo Tells Journalists to Avoid Words ‘Genocide,’ ‘Ethnic Cleansing,’ and ‘Occupied Territory’” The Intercept, Apr. 15, 2024. https://theintercept.com/2024/04/15/nyt-israel-gaza-genocide-palestine-coverage/. 

[18] Nader Durgham and Josephine Deeb, “Israel’s Invasion of Lebanon: What is Happening on the Ground?” Middle East Eye, Oct. 17, 2024. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israels-invasion-lebanon-what-happening-ground. 

[19] Ronny Reyes “Suspected Israeli airstrike hits near Russian airbase accused of housing weapons in Syria: report” The New York Post, Oct. 3, 2024. https://nypost.com/2024/10/03/world-news/suspected-israeli-airstrike-hits-near-russian-airbase-accused-of-housing-weapons-in-syria-report/. 

[20] “Iron Dome failed to activate during Hezbollah rocket barrage on Kiryat Shmona,” The Cradle.Co, Oct. 9, 2024. https://thecradle.co/articles-id/27214. 

[21] Aamer Madhani and Melanie Lidman, “Iran fires at least 180 missiles into Israel as regionwide conflict grows,” The Associated Press, Oct. 2, 2024. 

https://apnews.com/article/israel-lebanon-hezbollah-gaza-news-10-01-2024-eb175dff6e46906caea8b9e43dfbd3da. 

[22] David Brennan, “Why America's THAAD missile defense deployment to Israel is a 'gamble' in Iran conflict, analysts say,” ABC News, Oct. 17, 2024. https://abcnews.go.com/International/americas-thaad-missile-defense-deployment-israel-gamble-iran/story?id=114845323. 

[23] Chris Gordon, “US Sending More Air Force Fighters to Middle East,”Air and Space Forces Magazine, Sept. 30, 2024. https://www.airandspaceforces.com/us-sending-more-air-force-fighters-middle-east/.

[24] Jon Hoffman, “Benjamin Netanyahu Is Pushing for War with Iran,” Cato Institute, Apr. 16, 2024. https://www.cato.org/commentary/benjamin-netanyahu-pushing-war-iran. 

[25] Natasha Bertrand and Alex Marquart, “Leaked documents show US intelligence on Israel’s plans to attack Iran, sources say,” CNN, Oct. 20, 2024. https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/19/politics/us-israel-iran-intelligence-documents/index.html?iid=cnn_buildContentRecirc_end_recirc. 

On Swiss Cheese

I don’t like Swiss cheese, and this isn't an issue of taste or texture. I don’t like that every slice is really less than a slice on account of the fact that it's spotted with holes. Allow me now to digress from my introductory digression so as to maintain the time honored tradition of silence towards the subject of cheese [1]. In early September of this year, I was enjoying the company of an Eastern Orthodox friend of mine when he mentioned to me his frustration with the Catholic Church’s allowance of abbreviating scripture readings in Mass. He mentioned that he had learned about this when he accidentally happened upon a Catholic liturgical aid with brackets around part of the text and the words “optional” over the second reading of the day. He was scandalized by what he viewed as “censorship” of the scriptures. Our discussion then evolved into a larger discussion about the reform of the Church’s lectionary following the second Vatican Council, work which was ultimately carried out by the Consilium ad Exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia between 1964 and 1969. The lectionary of the traditional Roman Rite [2] dates its origins to time immemorial whilst the lectionary of the reformed Roman Rite [3] has its origins in the 1960s. The reformed lectionary is quite larger than the traditional and contains more scripture passages on account of its multi-year cycles of readings. This is a laudable accomplishment, but not every aspect of the reform was necessarily for the better. The reformed lectionary of 1969 can at times unfortunately be marred by an insistent suppressio veri. Frequently it abruptly omits or, through the allowance of short form options, allows the celebrant to omit difficult or controversial passages in the scriptures which have enjoyed a place in the Latin lectionary for centuries prior [4] [5] [6].

Perhaps the most (in)famous example of omission in the new lectionary is the missing verses of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians warning them not to unworthily take the body and blood of Christ. The reformed rite curiously omits the verses that read as follows:

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. 30 For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. (1 Corinthians 11:27-32, NRSV-CE) 

These verses appear thrice in traditional lectionary: Maundy Thursday, Corpus Christi, and the Votive Mass of the Holy Eucharist. This repetition typifies the nature of the sacred cycle of readings. To be clear, the Catholic Church still professes Paul’s words to be true (CCC 1385). Removal from the lectionary does not equate to denial of belief, nor does it indicate a removal from the canon of scripture itself. But, the law of prayer is the law of belief, lex orandi lex credendi, and removal from the lectionary is, in my opinion, a serious matter because it at the very least creates an edifice of disbelief. Omissions in the lectionary are themselves an indirect communication. Since we still profess the words of Paul to be true, we are even more so left to answer for our refusal to solemnly proclaim them in the liturgy. 

To cite another example of this phenomenon in the lectionary, let us look to October 2nd, the feast of all Holy Angels, where the Gospel reading is rather omissive. While the traditional rite assigns the entirety of Matthew 18:1-10 to be read, the reformed rite curiously lists the reading as Matthew 18: 1-5, 10 (i.e. read verses 1-5, skip verses 6-9, read verse 10). This is what the new lectionary omits:

6 “If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks! Occasions for stumbling are bound to come, but woe to the one by whom the stumbling block comes! 8 “If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life maimed or lame than to have two hands or two feet and to be thrown into the eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to stumble, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and to be thrown into the hell of fire. (Matthew 18: 6-9, NRSV-CE)

Not only do these verses not appear in the reading for the feast of the Holy Angels, they appear nowhere in the reformed lectionary at all [7]. Scripture passages like this are difficult and intense, even when the distinction between the literal and the spiritual sense is established. Despite sacred scripture's array of difficult and challenging passages, the council fathers at Vatican II still wrote: “The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures just as she venerates the body of the Lord” (Verbum Dei, 21). Passages like these would otherwise occasion pastors to instruct their flocks on how to read the scriptures, both the easy and the hard passages. The censoring of them in the liturgy presents a distortion of our Church’s scripture.

The importance of difficulties like these verses from Matthew’s Gospel reminds me of Kierkegaard’s “socratic task” described by the Boston College philosopher Peter Kreeft in his lecture series, The Great Debates of Philosophy. Kreeft begins by analyzing a passage from Kierkegaard’s Concluding Unscientific Postscript, wherein he concludes that “Out of love for mankind, therefore… I conceive it my task to create difficulties everywhere” [8]. Kreeft summarizes Kierkegaard’s task as “making things harder in a world that was trying to make things easier” [9]. Kreeft then goes on to note that “the one thing that Kierkegaard wanted to make harder above all was Christianity,” [10] the meaning of which Kreeft then clarifies by saying “not that he wanted to change it into something harder than it is, but that he believed his culture had changed it into something easier than it is, easier than Christ made it” [11]. The canon of scriptures, indeed, contains passages with difficult messages, but in an age where almost everything has been made easy for us, religion must remain difficult, just as Christ left it for us. Let us, then, earnestly encounter the difficult passages of scripture in the Church’s lectionary. 

There are many verses missing from the new lectionary, but these two examples suffice to illustrate the point. A reform spurred by a desire for there “to be more reading from holy scripture” in the Mass (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 35), should answer to the fact that it removed a multitude of verses that had been prayed by the Church for time immemorial. It almost bears no repeating, but, lex orandi lex credendi. To pretend by way of omission that the Church no longer believes what she still claims to believe is dishonest to the faithful, and not only to the Catholic faithful, but indeed to all Christians. Rather than assisting the Church in “scrutinizing the signs of the times and of interpreting them in the light of the Gospel” (Gaudium et spes 4.), the new lectionary tiptoes around difficulties; scrutinizing what should be read and what should be omitted according to the signs of the times. Like a slice of Swiss cheese, the new lectionary is full of unnecessary holes.

Endnotes 

[1] See Chesterton: “Poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of Cheese.” 

[2] Also called the Extraordinary Form, usus antiquior, the Missal of Pius V, the Missal of John XXIII, or simply “the Traditional Latin Mass.”

[3] Also called Ordinary Form, usus recentior, Missal of Paul VI, or “Novus Ordo.” 

[4] Peter Kwasniewski, “Not Just More Scripture, But Different Scripture — Comparing the Old and New Lectionaries,” Rorate Caeli, January, 11, 2019, https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2019/01/not-just-more-scripture-but-different.html. 

[5] For more on short form readings see: Matthew Hazell, “Short Forms of the Readings: Distorting the Gospel?,” New Liturgical Movement, October, 18, 2017, https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2017/10/short-forms-of-readings-distorting.html. 

[6] For a complete side by side comparison of the traditional and reformed lectionaries see: Matthew Hazell, Index Lectionum: A Comparative Table of Readings for the Ordinary Extraordinary Forms of the Roman Rite, (Lectionary Study Press, 2016). 

[7] Matthew Hazell, Index Lectionum, 66. 

[8] For the full passage and context see: Søren Kierkegaard, Concluding Unscientific Postscript, trans. Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), 186-7. 

[9] Peter Kreeft, “Kierkegaard vs. Hegel on Religion and Individuality,” Word on Fire Institute, April 20, 2023, YouTube video, 25:49-54, https://youtu.be/9QHNodY8Ki8?si=cdJEoK_nACxAucaa.

[10] Ibid. 28:03-7

[11] Ibid. 28:08-18

Thoughts on Our Jesuit Inheritance, Part II: An Interview with Fr. Keith Maczkiewicz S.J.

In my endeavor to discover what makes us Jesuit, I had a helpful conversation with Father Keith Maczkiewicz, S.J., who serves as Associate Vice President for Mission and Ministry, and is a Jesuit priest on campus. I will include here the comments I found especially helpful.

First, I asked Father Mac what distinguishes Jesuit education from other forms of education, Catholic or secular, and what ways Holy Cross lives out that charism. His first point was the mission-driven nature of Holy Cross.

“Holy Cross has a distinct mission. It’s even different than Boston College down the road, even though that’s a Jesuit university, because of the unique mode of what we’re doing here in terms of undergrad-only, liberal arts… In a place like Holy Cross, the focus on the humanities is a huge aspect of what we’re trying to do here.” He compared our college to other Jesuit universities like Fairfield, where a large portion of undergraduates study things like finance, marketing, and nursing. Holy Cross, on the other hand, maintains the historical tradition of Jesuit colleges to pursue the liberal arts and humanities.

He continued that Holy Cross provides the opportunity for spiritual formation,

“I think that the phrase in the mission statement that carries a lot of weight is the phrase, ‘for those who wish.’ Because we have a lot of non-Catholics here. We have non-Catholic students or formerly Catholic students, that’s a huge number... And I think that in general the College is pretty good about providing opportunities for those who wish. Numbers at Mass the last several weeks have been pretty great. There’s the devotional life here. The fact that you can go to confession five days a week says something. There’s still Mass here twice a day… The fact that you can make the Spiritual Exercises four times a year, that the chaplains make themselves available for spiritual direction, that you can become Catholic while you’re here. There are all these opportunities for formation for students.”

In light of the diminishing number of Jesuits, I asked Father Mac if, hypothetically, Holy Cross could retain its Jesuit charism and identity with no Jesuits present. He reminded me that it is not just a hypothetical,

“The Jesuits on the East Coast are currently involved in a conversation about what they’re calling an “Apostolic Plan…” We [The Society of Jesus] are currently in 11 colleges and universities, 47 high schools and pre-secondary schools, 19 parishes and four retreat houses. We can’t stay in all those places… Every institution is going to have to do a deep dive into what it wants. First of all they’ll have to affirm that they actually want to remain a Jesuit school. There might be some places, I don’t think Holy Cross is one of them, who are like ‘yeah, I think we’re done with the Jesuit thing.’”

He said of Holy Cross, regarding our first lay president, “There is more conversation about mission and Catholicism with a lay president than there was with a Jesuit president, because there’s a recognition that, in some people’s minds it doesn’t sit in the person in the president’s office who is wearing a collar, even though president Rougeau is an active, practicing Catholic… Because of that, there are a lot of conversations about mission here. I think there are going to be gradations of things… could a place be ‘Ignatian,’ inspired by Ignatius and his spirituality, but no longer a Jesuit school?... We [Jesuits] haven’t really wrestled with this totally.”

Finally, I asked Father Mac what I consider to be the most important question. That is, whether Holy Cross could retain its Jesuit charism or identity if the majority of the community no longer believed in or practiced the Catholic faith. He pointed out Pope John Paul II’s imperative that the majority of faculty at Catholic institutions should be Catholic. But, he says, “the horse has left the barn, at almost every Catholic school.” He continued with a clarification of what the mission of a Catholic institution is, primarily,

“The thing about Catholic higher education is that it’s not a parish… When I speak to new faculty, I say to them, ‘we do not relate to you as if you are a parishioner here, you’re not a parishioner at Holy Cross.’ Their job is to teach, to teach well, and contribute to the Catholic intellectual tradition, which says: ‘ask really good questions about your discipline. Let’s bring them to a dialogue with what we believe in the Catholic faith’… That’s how we maintain ourselves as an authentically Catholic place.”

At the same time, he cautioned adamantly against a separation between “Jesuit” and “Catholic,”

“I think we have to be really diligent because we can be very quick to say ‘Jesuit, yay, Catholic, boo.’ And I think we see that in multiple areas… People love the Jesuits, people don’t love the Church all the time, and I would say that Saint Ignatius is rolling over in his grave when he hears that. Because you could not conceive of the Jesuits outside the Church. Even just a few years ago, we said in a document coming out of our General Congregation, that the Jesuits are “for, with, and of the Church.” We can’t conceive of ourselves any other way. I think we run into problems when we try to divorce the two, to try to make people happy.

He brought up the example of the Jesuit response to the Dobbs decision,

“The overturning of Roe v. Wade is a good example. I think people were shocked when the Jesuit Conference of the U.S. and Canada put out a statement in support of the Dobbs decision… I think people felt shocked and betrayed by that. But that would say to me that we, Jesuits, have done a poor job reminding people that we’re also Catholic. These two things can never and should never have been divorced. And if we stress ‘Jesuit’ over ‘Catholic,’ we’re doing a disservice to the Church.”

As a final thought, Father Mac reminded me of our privileged position at Holy Cross,

“I think sometimes in these conversations around identity and mission, what I sometimes want to say to people is that we are in a privileged place to be able to have them. Because if you’re aware of the higher ed. landscape in general, there’s basically one institution closing a month… Three colleges in Pennsylvania closed in one month over the summer. The atmosphere for Catholic higher ed. right now… is punishing. So the fact that we can have these conversations means that Holy Cross is doing really well… It’s a privilege to be able to debate these things. Because many places are worried about keeping the lights on and not having paper in the photocopier.”

We are truly privileged to be in the position that we are in. It is a privilege that Holy Cross can focus on its Jesuit mission at all. Idealist Catholics like myself must recognize and appreciate that. At the same time, with the privilege of our resources comes the responsibility to use them well. This responsibility demands Holy Cross to use its resources in service of its Jesuit mission; service which is not just an exterior decoration or mere good works, but truly flowing from and aiming for the living Catholic Faith. Holy Cross has the ability, and thus the responsibility, not only to produce great scholars and successful alumni, but to produce saints. It can, and therefore must, not only work for academic excellence and social change, but labor ad majorem Dei gloriam, for the greater glory of God.

Thoughts on Our Jesuit Inheritance, Part I

Two summers ago, there was a display of lamppost banners around the Hoval, each one advertising a value related to Holy Cross’ Jesuit identity. At the top of each banner was the phrase: “Jesuit Heritage.” It did not say “Jesuit values,”  “Jesuit mission,” or “Jesuit identity.” The word heritage may mean a few different things, but it certainly suggests something received from the past [1]. It may or may not refer to something still living. A man may speak of his “Catholic Heritage,” but this does not guarantee that you will see him at Mass next Sunday. The question, then, is whether this inheritance continues as a living identity, a decorative heirloom, or something in between. Is Holy Cross “Jesuit,” or merely “raised Jesuit?”

The word “Jesuit” is often thrown around at Holy Cross, but there is not a clear understanding of what it means, especially as it relates to our college. If you asked a member of our community a hundred or even fifty years ago what made Holy Cross a Jesuit college, they probably would have looked at you strangely and replied, “Why, the Jesuits, of course!” Today the answer is not so obvious. One needs only to walk from Loyola to Ciampi, then to the new Jesuit residence to get a visual impression of the decline in the number of actual Jesuits who live at Holy Cross. The average student interacts with Jesuits rarely, if at all. We no longer have a Jesuit president, and few Jesuits remain in administration. There are only a handful of Jesuit professors, mostly in Religious Studies. And perhaps most surprisingly, only one out of our dozen chaplains is a Jesuit. This should not be surprising, considering our Church’s vocation shortage, but it makes the answer to our question much less obvious. Our “Jesuit-ness” is no longer incarnate in the collared figures who walk around our campus. It is now more abstract; we cannot point to it. We must recognize first, then, that it is unclear what makes a college “Jesuit” if not Jesuits, and that we are at risk of losing whatever that is.

What does Holy Cross herself have to say? The “Jesuit, Catholic Tradition” section of our website [2] identifies three ways “we honor the Jesuit legacy” (again, suggesting the past). They are: “humanistic studies,” “solidarity with the poor and disenfranchised,” and “a diverse community of participants.” These are good and desirable things. They surely do flow from the Jesuit charism and tradition. But they cannot be what makes Holy Cross Jesuit; non-Jesuit colleges are just as capable of these things. Do we do them better? Maybe. But they are exterior. They are what we do, not who we are. They are, in soteriological language, Holy Cross’ “works.” Just as we are not saved by works [3], we are likewise not “made Jesuit” by them either. Holy Cross is made Jesuit by its faith, none other than the Catholic Faith, expressed through the particular Jesuit charism.  

It may seem obvious to some, but the Jesuits (the Society of Jesus) are a religious order within the Catholic Church. As a clarifying note, this means that “Jesuit” has a narrow meaning that does not apply to us students or the wider college community, despite the applicability of broader categories like “Jesuit charism.” More importantly, this means that Jesuits exist in the context of the Catholic Faith, and any identity that is not properly Catholic cannot, by definition, be a Jesuit identity. This means that when Holy Cross departs from the Catholic Church (not only in explicit matters of faith but also in ethical matters), it separates itself that much from its Jesuit identity. This is not to say that non-Catholics are or should be unwelcome at Holy Cross, but merely that any institution whose core is not Catholic cannot be Jesuit. With this in mind, I do not think it is controversial to say that Holy Cross largely departs from the Catholic Church on matters of faith in thought and practice, and a still larger portion departs on ethical matters. Insofar as this is the case, Holy Cross can only pretend to be authentically Jesuit. The name “Holy Cross” is not enough, our statues of saints are not enough, and the fact that many of our students grew up going to Catholic school is not enough when we are not Christians. As long as we are not Christians, our Jesuit heritage remains merely that, heritage.

But is that it? Shall we use the Jesuits rolling in their graves in our cemetery to power the PAC? Shall we Catholics be content complaining as Holy Cross becomes increasingly “progressive,” increasingly secular, and thus less Jesuit? Shall we be cynics, satisfied with our laughter when our friends and family ask, “So is your school, like, really religious?” A pessimist may say yes, but pessimism is not Christian. Any Fenwick Review writer could write a long and provocative article about all the ways Holy Cross fails to be authentically Catholic and thus fails to be Jesuit. Maybe that is necessary. But it is not enough. What we need is to identify where Holy Cross lives out its Jesuit Charism well, and work to strengthen these points. We need to claim our Jesuit inheritance. We must participate in and promote the sacramental life of the Church at Holy Cross. We must adopt authentic Ignatian modes of prayer. We must preach the Gospel. We must pursue academic excellence, and scholarship which seeks truth and advances the cause of faith, rather than subversion. We Catholics must live in such a way that reveals the fruits of the Jesuit charism so that Holy Cross will see what it means to be authentically “Jesuit.”

Endnotes

[1] The OED defines Heritage as “the condition or state transmitted from ancestors.” Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “heritage (n.), sense 4,” June 2024, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/5778821977.

[2] “Jesuit, Catholic Tradition,” College of the Holy Cross, accessed November 5, 2024, https://www.holycross.edu/about-us/jesuit-catholic-tradition. 

[3] According to the Council of Trent, session six, canon 1: “If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.”

Letter from the Editors, Fall 2024

Dearest Reader, 

We thank you for picking up a copy of the Fenwick Review. We can think of no better way to introduce our first edition of the 2024-2025 school year than to expound on what the Fenwick Review is. Perhaps the via negativa is best taken to start this task. First, the Fenwick Review is not a monolith; our writers, staff and guests alike, frequently differ and disagree with each other about politics, religion, and more. Not every writer agrees with what is written in the pages of this magazine; indeed there has been and will continue to be fervent disagreement between writers about the ideas contained in each article. Second, as an entity, the Fenwick Review does not “say” or “believe” anything beyond its mission statement, rather, individual people writing for the Fenwick Review say and believe xyz. Now we are in a position to better say what the Fenwick Review is. First, as an opinion journal, the Fenwick Review is a platform for individual writers. Individuals who want to write from a conservative or Catholic perspective choose to publish in the Fenwick Review. Second, the Fenwick Review is partisan; we are both conservative and Catholic. We platform specifically conservative and Catholic thought to contribute to a culture of free and open dialogue on our campus and expose students to both the rich intellectual tradition of American conservatism and the Catholic intellectual tradition. Over the past year now we have been working to reform the Fenwick Review to better contribute to a free, open, and respectful dialogue on campus, while returning to our mission statement to better guide us in our operations here at the Review. We hope that reading our articles will at least inform, challenge, or inspire you. As always, we welcome disagreement and want our peers to interact with the ideas put forth in this edition of the Fenwick Review. 

Pax vobiscum, 

Griffin Blood ‘26 and Briana Oser ‘25, Co-Editors in Chief

Letter from the Editors, Spring 2024

Dear Reader,

Thank you for picking up a copy of The Fenwick Review. As the academic year comes to a close, we bid farewell to our seniors and thank them for all their contributions to the paper. This edition features multiple senior pieces that share their reflections on their time at Holy Cross.

As we look forward to next year, we welcome a new co-editor: Briana Oser. We look forward to welcoming back our writers who studies abroad and meeting new writers as well. We hope all our readers enjoy this edition and have a great summer.

Reddens laudes Domino,

Griffin Blood ‘26 & Anna Moran ‘24, Co-Editors-in-Chief

The Review Reviews: Mania Interview

The Fenwick Review is grateful to publish this interview. The views expressed therein are not necessarily the views of the Fenwick Review or its writers and staff. It should also not be assumed that the interviewee shares or agrees with the views or mission of the Fenwick Review.

In addition to reviewing Mania, I had the opportunity to interview the show’s creator, writer and student Blake Sheridan. This transcript was edited for clarity and length.

Emma: Thank you so much for being here, Blake!

Blake: It’s my pleasure. Thank you for reaching out!

Emma: What was it like to create a musical and see it to production?

Blake: The story started in a very internal space. I was in my room right when Covid was happening, and it was a very personal thing I experienced within myself. Then it was a question of, “How do I communicate this idea so other people understand and experience it in the same way?” I’ve been writing Mania for four years, but that’s a misleading claim because it sounds as if I was writing nonstop for four years [laughs], which is not very true. There were months when I didn’t think about it at all. Every time I revisited it, I had to ask, “Does this impact me in the same way? Does it say what it did when I looked last? If not, how do I edit it to make more sense?”

Emma: Once ACT accepted the script, did it evolve much with their input?

Blake: The heart of the show has not changed since it was written, but the directing team and I did make some changes. Rachel Golden was a big help; she made the script a lot more concise and applicable to ACT. But so many people were involved: Maggie Baum, Wesley Smith, Vincent Sekafetz, Adele Feldberg… So yes, there was a process the script had to undergo. We learned a lot going forward about how to account for that process, because this was the first time we had done an original musical. It was a great learning experience.

Emma: Do you think ACT’s likely to do other original musicals now?

Blake: I think this experience will make ACT more prepared in the future, but I don’t think it will increase the possibility of doing an original musical again. This was a very unique endeavor where a lot of things had to align, and I don’t know if that’s likely to happen again. Although I do hope people feel inspired to write now. I hope they feel they can really explore, and put their work out, and submit it to ACT.

Emma: I read Mania as an exploration of the absence and presence of God. Does that surprise you? Can you give your own treatment of the themes you wanted to explore?

Blake: That brings such a big smile to my face. It’s weird, I wouldn’t say that was a theme I had gone in planning to talk about. But as I created these characters and lived in their world, it was something I found myself thinking a lot about, so I’m very glad those themes came through. In the show there’s no clear representation of God, and there’s not a clear representation of Satan, either, but there is an agent of Satan and there isn’t really an agent of God anywhere. That dynamic’s there; what it means, I don’t know. [Laughs.] But I think it relates to a way the world can be seen. There’s a lot of distractions around us, a lot of agents of chaos, and when we look to agents of God, maybe we don’t necessarily see them visually in front of us. But we have to look inwardly and see if we can become that ourselves. I don’t know how much you can gather that from the show, but that’s one way to look at it!

Emma: If it were only about the absence of God, I’d expect the agents of evil to not appear in explicitly religious terms. But the referee often cants his lines like he’s at a religious service.

Blake: One of the referee’s things is that he’s very outwardly charming. He has showmanship, and he tends to mock religious tropes. Some of his lines are pure puns on popular Christian phrases. This is not something that started with me; in Paradise Lost, there’s the idea of Satan mocking the good, or pointing fun at the good, or trying to shine brighter than the good. That’s definitely part of the referee’s character. He tries to make himself seem like he’s above it, or can make fun of it, or sees it as a joke. It’s one of the really annoying parts of his character because it’s funny, it’s charming, but there’s something malicious behind it.

Emma: Near the end, Lucy tells him, “You’re not going to get away with this.” I felt we were meant to take that somewhat seriously, not see the end solely as a triumph of evil, but it’s ultimately ambiguous. You spoke over email about not wanting to impose interpretations, but I’m dying to know what the ending means to you!

Blake: I’ll try not to give an interpretation, but an observation. Throughout the show, we see this split between parents and children. That’s a very simple reduction, but there’s a gang that gets swept up in the intensity of the plot, and there’s a gang that’s off in their own world. At first it’s very humorous. Then it takes a turn and starts to affect people’s lives. In Act II, there’s a group of Dinosaur and Meteor parents together, and they say, “And the kids, they’re better off posthumous.” It’s this moment of, “I don’t care, I’m only focused on what’s going on right now.” The observation I would make about the end is that we see Lucy over her son, and she’s kind of… giving all she has to him. And she’s, in a way, making a statement to the referee about what she values and what’s important to her now.

Emma: What’s your philosophy of art criticism? The “death of the author” seems somewhat in line with what you’ve communicated about authorial intent.

Blake: It’s very tricky. “Is there subjective or objective truth, which one’s the real truth, who has the power…” These questions have been asked for ages. I don’t know the exact number of people who saw Mania, but that’s how many truths there are of the experience of Mania. Then there’s my truth of Mania, which is how it came to be. I don’t really want to place value on which means more or is worth more objectively. There’s that saying, “Everything in the universe happens for a reason.” Whatever experience you had, that was what was meant to happen for you. I don’t know if some deity gave it to you, or just the spontaneity of random events, but now you have that, and you don’t necessarily need mine, if that makes sense. Unless you want it! You can also look for it and compare. That’s part of the game of humanity, we compare and we discuss and we share.

I have to add something, though. If I’m writing a line, I can be thinking of a play in which I saw that line done, and it means something specific to me, and I’m referencing it or turning it into something new. That reference is a big piece of art. Then let’s say there’s Bob. If Bob has watched none of the media I’ve watched, and Bob sees Mania, he might have one experience. But if Bob watches everything I’ve watched, it might make complete sense. It might be like, “Oh, this is exactly what he was trying to do!” Understanding someone’s history is just as important. If you want to understand what someone’s doing with art, you have to look at their history, and what they’ve learned, and what they’ve experienced.

Emma: What should readers look at to understand Mania?

Blake: Little League games, for one. [Laughs.] Then there’s two references I’ve always cited. Kicking and Screaming is a sitcom from the 2000s starring Will Ferrell. And Black Friday is a dark comedy musical by StarKid. It criticizes — not criticizes, but investigates — consumerism and capitalism. Those are the main references, but there’s plenty more out there.

Emma: Do you plan to get Mania performed again, or published?

Blake: When I started writing Mania, I didn’t know ACT was going to do it. I didn’t even have a conception I would bring it to Holy Cross. That’s important, because if I had written it for ACT, I don’t know if it would have been what it was. There’s something unique about doing it for the sake of doing it. When I first created Mania, I was creating it for the sake of creating it, in a way for God — you know, for what my understanding of God is. There’s something valuable in people creating things in that space and then offering it to the world, because, when expectation comes into play, it can really get in the way. So, in terms of next steps, taking it one step at a time, and just trying to keep finding that space where I can be in communication with my creativity.