Further questions concerning Catholic education arise when the demands of the moral life impress themselves upon university life.  For the Catholic, one cannot study properly without living properly.  But, as Garvey articulates, the critics here cry, “but what bearing would that have on his intellectual life? Aren’t we committing a sort of category mistake in supposing the two to be related?”

Garvey notes that simply thinking about what is good is not sufficient for right moral action.  As he says it, “we do not come to understand what is right, or good, or beautiful, through mental exercises conducted from an armchair… It is virtue that leads the intellect to the right result, not the other way around.”  He elaborates further, saying, “you cannot study migration, the environment, the economy, interpersonal relationships, death and dying, or the history of capitalism without making ethical judgments… Sociology is not, pace Comte, a value-free science. Nor is Anthropology, Economics, Psychology, or History.”

Thus, a Catholic university which deserves the name ought to see its disciplines united under theology and see the moral life as a necessary component of intellectual growth. But Garvey goes on to say that all facets of the university must function as one, with a common goal and mission.  “To put it in concrete terms, Student Life, Campus Ministry, Residential Life, Athletics, and Student Organizations are not offices concerned with different parts of the day and places on campus than academic affairs. They are integrally related.”

What impact ought President Garvey’s words to have on our intellectual community here at Boston College?  The preceding summary of his lecture is a brief and insufficient account of his wisdom and insight, but striking is his unapologetic tone, present even in these brief quotations.  He is unafraid to assert that prayer, theology, and the moral life are not side notes or white noise in the background of university life.  Without them a university, in essence, cannot truly exist.

Thus arise several questions: Is Boston College united in its mission?  Do all departments and offices have a respect for the study of divine revelation?  Will the office of admissions advertise Boston College (in Garvey’s words) as “a community of scholars united in a common effort to find goodness, truth, and beauty”?

Boston College, not unlike many comparable notable Catholic universities, finds itself in conflict.  Climbing the college rankings and growing as a Catholic university are seen as contrary and irreconcilable: one may have one but not the other.  Boston College does, however, have the resources necessary to grow as a community of Catholic scholars united in its mission as a Catholic university ought to be, and as President Garvey so eloquently described.

“we learn from each other. The intellectual culture we create is the product of our collective effort. A Catholic intellectual culture will be something both distinctive and wonderful if we bring the right people into the conversation and if we work really hard at it.”

Boston College has suffered in losing Dean Garvey, but he goes with our well wishes as he takes up a coveted but demanding post, where the crown undoubtedly weights heavy.  Although no longer lecturing in the halls here in the Heights, we can still learn a great deal from his prudence, honesty, and vision.

Pro-Life Club Marches in DC

This past weekend, the Boston College Pro-Life Club sponsored a trip to Washington D.C. to participate in the annual March for Life and Students for Life of America (SFLA) Conference.  BC has sent contingents of students to participate in both events for the past several years.  “Annual participation is important because it connects our group with the national pro-life movement,” said Billy Cody, A&S’11 and one of the organizers of the trip. “It’s exciting and inspiring to see so many young people witnessing to life, defending the unborn.”  The March drew over 200,000 demonstrators to our nation’s capital city. Originally the event drew 20,000 when it first began in the 1970’s.

In addition to the March and the Conference, participants attended the Mass for Life celebrated in the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception near the Catholic University of America.   The Society of Jesus also offered a similar Mass the morning of the March at Gonzaga High School.  The homily was preached by Deacon Aaron Pidel, SJ, Jesuit scholastic and student at the BC School of Theology and Ministry.

Normally, Boston College’s participation has consisted of flying into Washington for the entire weekend.  That way all students have the chance to participate in the SFLA Conference.  The new Pro-Life Club president, Katelyn Conroy, A&S ’14, said that “in addition to showing support for our cause in D.C., annual participation is important because it builds enthusiasm among group members, which helps us spread the word around campus when we return.”

This year, in addition to the weekend trip, the Pro-Life Club also offered a bus trip for the day of the March only.  “The bus trip provides a cheaper and more convenient opportunity to participate in the march,” explained Pro-Life Club Vice-President Ben Martin, A&S ’13, “We hope that in future years we will be able to provide this for free and that many more students will attend; they only have to be willing to give up one day of school.”

About 50 people total are traveling with Boston College, including but not limited to, BC undergraduate students.  For the first time, those traveling with BC include a few individuals from the School of Theology and Ministry, Northeastern University, and MIT.

The March is the high point of the Pro-Life Club’s year, but the club organizes events throughout both semesters.  “My hope for the semester is to increase awareness of the resources on campus to women who choice life,” Conroy pointed out, “Also, we plan on having another celebrate life day and on having speakers throughout the semester.” Martin added, “We have not finalized plans for the [upcoming] semester, as most planning usually happens after the march, but a schedule of events will be forthcoming. Kate and I will have to meet to discuss the identity of the club, the strategy of the club, and individual events to sponsor.”

BCSSH Co-Sponsors Event

The Boston College student newspaper The Heights reported on Monday that the “Fashion Show for Growth” included the throwing of condoms into the student audience.  The Observer has since discovered that personal lubricant was distributed, not condoms. The show, held this past Friday evening in the basement of Lyons Hall, was sponsored by the African Student Organization, the BC Students for Sexual Health, the Undergraduate Government of BC, the Brazilian Club, and the GLBTQ Leadership Council.  The aim of the event was to raise awareness and donations for AIDS in the context of an ethnic fashion show.

Despite not being an officially recognized student organization, the BC Students for Sexual Health (BCSSH) were allowed both to co-sponsor the event and to advertise on the flyers advertising for the show, both of which are normally not allowed for unofficial student groups, as The Observer reported in our last issue (Nov. 16, 2010).  Furthermore, BCSSH has resorted to distributing condoms on the sidewalk location, near campus but not on university grounds, because such distribution is forbidden on campus.  The flyer advertisement for the event, which includes the BCSSH logo under the list of co-sponsors, was approved by the Office of the Dean for Student Development (ODSD).

Editor’s Note: The Observer falsely reported today that condoms were distributed at the university event “Fashion Show for Growth.”  We wrote our piece after receiving false information about the event from another campus news source, and apologize for the misinformation.  The rest of the piece, including BCSSH’s co-sponsorship of the event, their advertisement on flyers, and ODSD’s approval of those advertisements, are factual.

The Boston College Students for Sexual Health (BCSSH) have become more noticeable on campus lately.  The group’s recent actions, such as distributing condoms, protesting the Pro-Life Club, and hosting “Sex Toy Bingo,” all force Boston College to assess its mission as a Catholic school. To aid in that project, The Observer set out to find what exactly BC thinks of this group and its existence on campus.  Several administrators shared their personal thoughts about the group and in which direction Boston College should move.

Dr. Patrick Rombalski, Vice President of Student Affairs, said that “[BCSSH] are not a recognized student organization nor have they attempted to become one. At Boston College, they do not have the rights that recognized organizations hold such as reserving a room or sponsoring a program on campus.”  He added that while their activity on campus is limited by their non-official status, “many of their members are Boston College students who are active in our community in a variety of capacities, such as a residence hall community member, leader in a recognized student organization, or tutor.”  With regards to any concerns the administration may have regarding their presence, he said, “My office welcomes the dialogue that has occurred on campus over the past two years on the overall topic of health and the more specific topic of sexual health. In fact, the Division of Student Affairs has reorganized because of our recognition that heath education is an important educational responsibility of the University… We fully support a conversation on sexual health within a moral context. However, we cannot talk about sexuality, just as we cannot talk about any other aspect of what it is to be human, apart from our values. Boston College will not take an institutional position contrary to its own values and it cannot and will not make exceptions to this stance.”

Christopher Darcy, Associate Director of Student Formation Programs at Residential Life, had the following to say: “[BCSSH] is not a recognized group, but a lot of them want to get more involved and make sure students make the best choices… While we cannot support the distribution of condoms because of the uniqueness and tradition at BC, it is very Ignatian to embrace many peoples.  There is always room to collaborate.”  He added, “The problem is when a group veers away from this framework.”  In hosting panels on sex and dating, his office has been at the forefront of the conversation he sees as necessary for success regarding sexual health.  “Students want more than the hook-up culture.  People need to understand what it means to go on a date.”  He went on to say that while “it’s not ResLife’s job to make students say ‘no’ to hooking-up, we can propose alternatives.”  He praised the “wonderful array of resources” for BC students, who he described as “intelligent and worldly.”  “We have a lot of work to do,” he concluded, “but I wouldn’t be doing it anywhere else.”

Dr. Paul Chebator of the Office of the Dean for Student Development said that “BCSSH operates independently of BC,” but also that, “the issues they raise are important issues, the most important of which is dialogue.” Like ResLife, ODSD has helped sponsor talks and panel discussions.  “The most important thing that has to happen is a conversation before decisions are made.  This is lacking because of the hook-up culture.”  He lamented that “the idea of human virtue is short-sided by a form of hedonism,” and that “students follow what they perceive to be the norm, especially with the influence of alcohol.”  He argued that students who come to BC already know the mechanics of sex.  “‘Plumbing’ isn’t the issue,” he said, “rather it’s the conversation between partners that needs to be discussed… It’s a difficult issue for 18-22 year-olds, and it’s a difficult issue for the Church.”

Dr. Thomas McGuinness, Director of University Counseling Services and Associate Vice President for Student Affairs overseeing both Health Services and the new Office of Health Promotion spoke to us on behalf of his office and Women’s Resources.  He has been active in establishing a new position, Director of Health Promotion, who will address many health-related questions, chairing a Committee on Health and Wellness which addressed “very generally” issues such as alcohol, sex, body image, and stress, and meeting personally with BCSSH.  “They are very concerned, and they have a very different perspective on what’s good for students.  Their view [about condoms] is normative at most secular universities.”  He said that “there are a lot of misconceptions about health services and STIs.”  He clarified that testing is done by health services, but the question is who pays for the services.  “If STI testing is to be free to students, somebody still has to pay for it. We want them to get tested, and we want them to be diagnosed and treated if they need it.”

He spoke more generally about the campus attitude towards sex: “People are afraid to be attacked from the left and the right if we address sex.  We need to make it OK to talk about sexuality, because it’s more than just sex.  It’s the concept of relationships, morals, and values… we need a lot of one-on-one conversations about relationships and sexuality, but it’s more complicated on the policy or macro level.  We should debate these issues.  It’s a university, and that’s what we do.”

I, along with probably every other student at Boston College, have an idea about what would make our university better in terms of campus layout. After spending long hours pondering what I would do, had I unlimited resources, money at my fingertips, and exercised kingship over every aspect of life at BC, I am pleased to present to the BC community at large Max’s 10-Year Plan for BC (in 5 easy steps).

First: I write these words knowing full well the wrath I will incur from my fellow seniors, but the Mods need to be razed. Down to the ground, no exceptions. BC can even save money on this by telling students to take whatever chunks of the “temporary housing” they manage as keepsakes. Ultimately the Eagles in Chestnut Hill need locations to socialize on campus which facilitate good conversation, regret-free evenings, and a peaceful atmosphere. A glamorized trailer park does none of the above.
Second: At the end of the day, Notre Dame really only surpasses BC in arrogance. That being said, I’ll tip my hat when I should. Notre Dame has a centralized place of Christian worship, and BC should too. St. Ignatius parish functions, well, more as a parish than as an epicenter of students’ faith lives. Having numerous chapels on campus is wonderful, but they should serve as “branches” of a larger center, visible across campus. The Cathedral of St. Isaac Jogues could easily fit into the Bapst Lawn, St. Mary’s lawn, or even be put on top of the razed Mod lot
.
Third: Building a cathedral means less green space. Let’s cut O’Neil Plaza in half, why don’t we? Some of those bricks and concrete blocks could be replaced by some nice greenery. Students like places to sit down, relax, and study outside anyway.

Fourth: It needs to be said. Either completely reshape the exterior of O’Neil Library or raze it and build a new one. The main Quad and Linden Lane comprise one of the most stunning examples of collegiate gothic architecture anywhere, only to be complemented by the vile, grotesque concrete slab straight out of Soviet controlled East Germany that we call a library. The architect should be shot. Fix the problem… now!

Fifth: Statuary is wonderful, except when it is hideous. The “Tree of Life,” or as one Jesuit affectionately calls it, the “Broccoli of Death,” is the icing on the cake of my disdain for the area around O’Neil. A nice statue of St. Francis Xavier, complete with a fountain of water falling from his right hand (“with which he baptized many”), would look much better in its place.

So there you have it, fellow Eagles. If I were King of Boston College, that is what our university would look like. Unfortunately, I hold no such kingship, and I can only hope that my daydreams become mere suggestions and food for thought.

“You could say I was a JPII Catholic through and through,” Ms. Bachiochi explained, “young, educated, and intellectually inspired by the late pontiff’s teachings on social doctrine.”  Distraught over the public misconceptions over the Church’s answer to the problems concerning sex, women, the priesthood, and contraception, among other issues, Mrs. Bachiochi said that “something had to be done” to make an argument for “teachings I knew in my gut to be pro-woman.”  To make these teachings accessible to an increasingly secular public audience, Mrs. Bachiochi said, “We need first to speak to these women (and the men who love them) in practical terms, appealing not to theology, scripture or the Church, but to lived experience.”  For that reason, the book uses non-theological arguments to support church teaching.  It is her hope that this book can start a dialogue on the issues addressed therein.  A book tour is currently underway, with a stop planned at the Lisa and the Terrence J. Murphy Institute for Catholic Thought, Law and Public Policy where contributors will debate with secular feminists.  A colloquium is planned at the University of Notre Dame where Catholic feminists who disagree with one or several of the views expressed in Women, Sex, and the Church will be brought in.

Other contributors present that evening made brief comments about their involvement in the book.  Dr. Angela Franks, PhD (Boston College 2006) currently teaches at St. John’s Seminary.  She is known for her scholarly analysis of eugenics and contraception and addresses those issues in Women, Sex, and the Church.  She challenges the attitude that women need to “solve their fertility” as if it were a problem.  “What culture did we develop to get us to think that fertility is wrong?” she said.  Franks accused contraception of building the prevailing ideology that “the problem is with the womb.”

Sr. Sara Butler, STL, PhD, an intellectual and consultant to the US Bishop’s Committee on Doctrine, spoke on the only issue “which must be defended on theological grounds,” that of the male-only priesthood.  She was critical of those who see women’s ordination as a civil rights issue, comparable to Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat.  The issue, she contends, concerns instead the significance in Jesus’ decision to appoint 12 male apostles to lead his Church.

Also present were: Katie Elrod (MA, Boston College 1994; BA, 1992), an educator and proponent of alternate, natural treatments to cure infertility along with Dr. Paul Carpentier, MD; Elizabeth Schlitz, JD, a law professor and the co-director of the Murphy Institute; and Laura Garcia, PhD, a professor of philosophy at Boston College.

Cassandra Hough, who as a Princeton student led a movement to promote chastity and the family among undergraduates, and Jennifer Roback Morse, PhD, president of the Ruth Institute, were the only two contributors to the volume not present at the book release.

The evening was, in the eyes of the participants, very successful.  “You wouldn’t have been able to have this conversation 20 years ago,” Ms. Elrod said.  “BC seemed the obvious place for the book launch since four of the eight contributors are associated in some way with BC,” Ms. Bachiochi explained.  Dr. Garcia emphasized the positive differences between men and women and hoped to engage secular feminists on that level.  “Differences don’t have to mean antagonism, even though at times they have.”  “With so much empirical data now available to corroborate how straying from Church sexual teaching has harmed women, especially poor women, it seemed the right time to engage the many different types of feminists on these difficult issues,” Ms. Bachiochi said, “I am especially looking forward to a dialogue with our Catholic sisters who share our love for the Catholic faith but remain more skeptical, or even critical, of some of these teachings.”

Their latest promotion of prophylactics consists of “responsible party kits.”  These kits are described as such: “Each kit consists of two components: a set of solo cups with a condom taped to the bottom of each cup and a series of three flyers with consent and safer sex information.”

Solo cups are plastic, inexpensive, and popular methods of distributing alcoholic beverages at college parties.  The idea behind distributing Solo cups with condoms taped to them is to ensure that each party member has access to contraception should they need to use it later that night.

“Any Boston College student can receive a Responsible Party Kit for free as long as they promise to hang the flyers in a visible place during their party. In this way, anyone holding a cup of beer at a “Responsible Party” is also discretely provided a condom.”

The flyers, mentioned above, contain messages such as the following: “the 1-1-1 rule – one condom, per penis, per sexual act,” “Sexually Transmitted Infections: the BC bubble isn’t made out of latex. Here’s what you need to know,” and “YES only means YES when consent is given freely, without verbal or physical threats, and not under the influence of any drugs or alcohol.”

The flyers define consent as valid only when one’s sexual partner is “not under the influence of any drugs or alcohol” despite the fact that students at the aforementioned “responsible parties” are being handed Solo cups along with a condom.

Responsible party kits can be obtained by filling out an online form and arranging a time for a BCSSH representative to provide the party materials.

The Vice President for Student Affairs, Dr. Patrick Rombalski, confirmed that the BCSSH is not an officially recognized university student group and receives no university funding.  Despite lacking official status and funding, the BCSSH website can be accessed directly from the website for the UGBC (Undergraduate Government of Boston College) alongside links to the student rights policy, menus from local restaurants, and resident assistant resources.  From the BCSSH website, students can find out places on campus from which BCSSH representatives will distribute contraception.  As the blog post mentions, the public distribution of condoms on campus is forbidden by university policy.

In addition, the BCSSH has enjoyed the ability of advertising on campus, cosponsoring events, and bringing speakers to campus.  This past month they hosted a sexual health trivia night at a local bar, cosponsored by the BC Law Students for Reproductive Health, at which material from Planned Parenthood was distributed.  The BCSSH website also lists several off campus sites as places where one can obtain contraception, including a local convenience store, a nearby CVS, and the nearest Planned Parenthood.

However, the movement towards being green should not be ignored.  BC offers the students here an opportunity to study ecology in various ways, including minoring in environmental studies or majoring in environmental geosciences.  These offerings have presumably been implemented to orient students to a world that is increasingly looking to solve environmental problems, market eco-friendly goods, and produce green products.

In my humble opinion, none of this is bad at all.  In fact, the green movement, if organized properly, could be the next big venue by which conservatism can take root in the United States.  Conservatives can take advantage of the recent drive to forge a green America in two ways: (1) through the free market and (2) through decentralized initiatives and an emphasis on localities.

First, I see great possibilities pragmatically for a new market in green technology, a market which could in the long run have a positive impact on many failing areas of the economy.  My own hometown of Cleveland has recently suggested turning the acres of unused industrial fields into state-of-the-art power facilities to make the city one of the first entirely sustainable ones in the world.  The prospect, given the right tax incentives, could draw big name pioneers in green technology into the city opening job opportunities, increasing the city’s overall revenue, and resuscitating the dying parts of the town.  Next to a Browns Super Bowl win, that sounds like a good prospect to me.

Secondly, conservatives have, since Reagan, begun to lose the hallmark aspect of conservative philosophy that developed in the 20th century: the emphasis on all things local.  As is apparent in my previous paragraph, I am not necessarily opposed to a free market, especially when it can help actualize the common good in new, creative ways.  However, true conservatism distances itself from all kinds of overpowering centralization, whether it is the Obama-run Washington or the international business conglomerate.

Much to be preferred is local run businesses: the “mom & pop stores,” the farmer’s market, neighbor helping neighbor, and so on.  I would trust ten random families living within a mile of my own house to help provide for my needs more than I would ten random members of the US Senate.  That being said, the drive towards all things green is a wonderful opportunity to do just that.  Many restaurants, such as Chipotle, advertise themselves as purchasing their poultry and meat from local farms rather than agricultural factories.  The micro-brewery in my hometown deals with nearby farms to purchase the grain needed to brew beer while giving back in return the waste products of the brewing process to be used as fertilizer, thus creating a “zero-waste” production process for all parties involved.

Such are some of the highlights of how conservatives can fruitfully tap into the green movement.  It goes without saying that green initiatives can just as easily be misused by the leveling process of big, centralized government which I expressed disdain for earlier.  Some negative manifestations of the movement are: initiatives to force green technology upon small businesses, giving people handouts to purchase green products, or the turning of the green movement into yet another ideology by which the “informed and educated” majority judges those deemed “not green enough.”  Like any political process, the green movement ought to be guided with prudence with each step taken.  Conservatives ought to use sustainability to their advantage while the time is ripe.

UGBC Budget

The budget for the Undergraduate Government of Boston College (UGBC) for this past school year, including a line-item budget, has been released to The Observer. Funded by mandatory student activity fees, the UGBC’s total budget this year totaled $538,000. Of that total, campus entertainment received the most money, $222,000, or 41.3% of the budget. $100,000 of that allotment was used to bring the fall and spring concerts to Boston College.

This amount was rivaled only by the $80,000 received by the ALC and $31,000 received by the GLC, both subsets of the UGBC, for a combined total of $111,000 or 20.6% of the budget. The complete budget is available on The Observer’s website.

This year the UGBC held a $17,000 layover from the previous year, something unusual according to UGBC Director of Fiscal Affairs Michael Coleman, CSOM ‘10.
“We usually spend as much as we get, and that extra goes to the Executive Fund, which the president and vice-president choose to spend at their discretion,” he said.

Last year the rollover helped fund Modstock, a celebration in the Mods including music and games. A decision on this year’s rollover has yet to be made, Coleman explained. “The money is spent at their discretion.”

When approached for a line-item budget, an extensive and comprehensive list detailing individual expenditures, the AHANA Leadership Council (ALC) and the GLBTQ Leadership Council (GLC) both refused requests from The Observer. “It will not be possible for you to receive budget information from the GLC,” said Kelsey Gasseling, ’11, GLC President.

Erika Hernandez, A&S ’11, ALC President, said that “after speaking with UGBC, GLC, and our advisors, we have been told and agreed not to do this [provide a line-item budget].” When asked, the identity of said advisers was not revealed by either the ALC or the GLC. Hernandez later clarified, “It was ultimately our decision not to.”

Dr. Patrick Rombalski, Dean of Student Affairs, when asked about transparency with regards to student groups on campus, said, “Division of Student Affairs is committed to working with all student organizations to achieve a level of financial transparency especially where student funds and fees are concerned.”

His office further confirmed that no formal Boston College, Office of the Dean for Student Development, or Student Affairs regulations prevent the UGBC, ALC, or GLC from releasing a line-item budget.

Assistant Dean Mark J. Miceli also confirmed the same for Student Programs Office policies. He said, “There is no current SPO policy that would prohibit the release of a line item budget from any student organization. In terms of the UGBC, their budget is approved by the senate and is therefore open to all BC students to see.”

In 1995-96, the entirety of the UGBC budget, including line-item expenditures for the ALC, the GLBT group at the time, and other UGBC affiliates, was released and published by The Observer. As its rationale for publication, The Observer said that since the budget reflects the students own money ($60 at the time), “You have a right to know where it goes.”

“Having more transparency would be a good thing, but it is double-edged sword,” said Coleman. “Posting on a website where the funds go would be good because most people don’t even know where the money goes. At the same time, in doing so, you are going get people don’t agree and get a lot of negative feedback.”

The recovery of what a “Jesuit Catholic Tradition” really means begins with the realization that “Jesuit” and “Catholic” are not, shockingly, two diametrically opposed concepts.  On the contrary, the original mission of St. Ignatius of Loyola was not to undermine the Church or its authority (as Luther wound up doing), but rather to reform it by purifying it and loving it.

The ever-quoted speech from Fr. Pedro Arrupe, S.J. includes the demand that Jesuit institutions rear “men-for-others,” a phrase whose aim was not sexist as most Jesuit schools at the time were all-male.  That quote alone gives little insight into the characteristic of Jesuit spirituality or educational practices.  The entire phrase is worth quoting at length: “Today our prime educational objective must be to form men-for-others; men who will live not for themselves but for God and his Christ —for the God-man who lived and died for all the world.”

In other words, the life and mission of Jesuit school cannot be totally reduced to a pleasant sense of philanthropy, however much good fruit that feeling may bear.  Any discussion about Jesuit education needs to take place in the context of serving Christ and, by necessity, His Church.  This mission is found nowhere else as clearly as in St. Ignatius’ own First Principle and Foundation: “Man is created to praise, reverence and serve God Our Lord, and by so doing to save his soul.”

All too often, the greater mission of salvation to which Jesuits and the institutions they aspire get marred by misguided intentions.  I honestly believe people mean well when they invoke the phrase “Jesuit Catholic Tradition” to support a desire they wish to see actualized.  But simultaneously, the use of these words has become hackneyed to the point of severe nausea.  We no longer allow the mission of the Jesuits to permeate university life, but rather we take our pre-held political or ideological agendas and project them onto schools like Boston College.  Thus when Jesuit schools fail to support these preconceived agendas, it is seen not only as a failure of politics but of its very mission as Catholic.  This reaches a level of absurdity when students or faculty lambaste BC for not providing prescriptions for the birth control pill, citing it as a failure to live up to Catholic morality, “properly understood.”

On the whole, I would say honesty is needed at Boston College right now; honesty with regards to our mission and honesty with regards to our own opinions.  Most of all, we need the honesty to separate the two.  Let us hope that students and faculty alike can work on making Boston College a school, rooted in the Jesuit Catholic Tradition that we can all be proud of.

When I initially wrote my two pieces, I did not feel that I violated journalistic integrity by asking professors for quotes for a news piece and then criticizing their responses in a separate editorial.  If any professors feel as though I have violated their trust as a journalist, I wholeheartedly apologize.  Voicing criticisms of the Monologues ought to happen, and I am sorry that my doing so occurred during one of my less remarkable moments as a writer.  I am sure a sampling of my other writings online will give critics a different view of my work for The Observer.

That being said, I cannot help but feel that, had I written a positive piece about the Monologues, no charges against my journalistic integrity would have surfaced. Meanwhile, the arguments presented in my opinions piece went largely unanswered.  Of the 18 comments, only a couple respondents online gave me valuable criticism.  The rest told me (to varying degrees) that I was insensitive to women, a charge totally void of substance.  I have yet to hear a good reason why 14 departmental co-sponsorships are necessary for the annual Monologues production and how the number of co-sponsorships does not indicate ulterior motives on behalf of department or program heads.

Further, I want to clarify my charge that little dialogue occurs as a result of the Monologues.  Two years ago, I attended the “Dialogues on the Monologues” panel discussion.  It consisted of four or five tenured professors, the director of the play, and a moderator – who acted as more of a panelist herself – all debating one sophomore writer for The Observer.  The only people in the crowd of about 30 who spoke against the Monologues were those who The Observer writer had invited.  Challenges to the play and those whose understandings of sexuality differ from that presented in the play were met not with answers but with eye rolls, snide remarks to the side, and an overall attitude of haughtiness which told the critics, “Your view does not matter.”

No apology was issued for the arrogant behavior that night.

Now two years later, I have attended both the play and the follow-up discussion “Men and the Monologues.” Upon entering the discussion, I was handed a copy of the left-leaning student paper and listened to a few left-leaning professors belittle critics of the play and conservatism in general.  Yet again, I was welcomed with the sense that certain opinions are not welcome.  And now students and faculty wonder why I take issue with the “academic interests” of the Monologues at Boston College.

So perhaps I was wrong in saying that “no dialogue” occurs as a result of the Monologues presence, but the dialogue that does happen occurs within certain confines.  If you have a remotely traditional religious background, if you uphold the virtue of chastity as the fulfillment of human sexuality, if you want to (even on a secular level) treat sexuality not with silence, but with reverence, then you will find very little that the Monologues or discussions thereof can offer.

The play, like any work of art, needs to be appreciated as a whole.  The aspects of the play dealing with violence against women cannot be divorced from the sexual ideology of the play – namely sexual license and free love.  I, along with a plethora of critics, take major issue with the latter aspect of the work, and thus we believe that issues of violence against women need a better venue through which they can be discussed.  Raising awareness about physical violence done to women while simultaneously doing violence to a healthy understanding of sexuality and the human person bears little fruit.

My reaction, however controversial, should not be cast aside.  My opinion in itself is nothing, but it speaks for a large number of voices who should not be ignored.  Accusing someone of insensitivity towards rape victims simply for disagreeing with the presence of the play on campus only alienates critics who would otherwise improve discussion.  Such charges only buttress my argument that disagreement with the underlying ideas of the play yields no dialogue, only sarcasm and hatred.

After publication I remarked that I would change nothing of what I had written in my previous opinions piece.  That is, in retrospect, not true.  In the end of paragraph #4 of my opinions piece I clearly use the same phrase of words twice at the ends of two consecutive sentences – a mistake anyone who has taken English 101 should avoid.  I would alter that, and I otherwise stand by my every word.

This past week, Boston College hosted its annual performance of The Vagina Monologues, a play written by Eve Ensler.  Since its debut in 1996, the play has drawn considerable attention and controversy.  The performance consists of a series of monologues, each recited by different actresses, which tell stories and experiences of various women as these stories relate to female genitalia.

Ensler drew her inspiration for the Vagina Monologues from a series of interviews she held personally with women over several years.  Since the script as written is very much open to interpretation and new monologues are added periodically, no two showings of the play are exactly the same.  This year’s performance at BC, for example, featured a cheerleader who would return to stage periodically, dance provocatively, and remind the audience of facts about the sexual sensitivity of women’s sexual organs.

The performance, normally occurring on or around Valentine’s Day, has a broader mission of combating violence against women.  The Vagina Monologues are the high point of “V-Day,” a movement which stages performances of the play in cities and campuses across the world in order to raise money to work against sexual violence.  As the movement’s website describes, “V-Day is a global movement to end violence against women and girls.”  As Maggie Carr, A&S ’10, the student coordinator of V-Day at Boston College, explained, “One hundred percent of our ticket sales goes to organizations working to empower women.”  She remains optimistic about the V-Day efforts: “I absolutely believe that we will one day live in a world where sexual assault is a rarity”

Although well intentioned, the play is not without its critics.  Controversial aspects of the play include an interview Ensler did with a girl just six years of age, in which the child was asked intimate questions about her sexual organs.  Another controversial monologue tells of a women reflecting on being intoxicated and molested by an older women at the age of 16 (13 in an earlier version of the play).  The character describes this experience as healing and redemptive.  Critics such as the Cardinal Newman Society have voiced concerns that, had a work of art portrayed an older male taking advantage of a young boy sexually, the work would be unanimously disapproved by most institutions of higher learning.

Those concerned often call into question what place if any this play has at any university, especially a Catholic university.  “We do face challenges to putting on the play,” explained Carr, “but also have tremendous support from administration, faculty, and students who not only want to see the show, but participate in talk-backs and dialogues following the performances.” Carr is referring to faculty-led discussions following the first two performances, Monday evening’s Men and the Monologues, and the yearly panel discussion, Dialogues on the Monologues, featuring a faculty panel discussion.

“No we do not have any qualms about having a performance that has scenes that include statutory rape,” clarified Psychology Department Chair Prof. Ellen Winner. “We do not believe in censorship… we must never censor artists, writers, thinkers of any kind. We live in a free country, and it is only in totalitarian states that artists, writers and thinkers are muzzled.”

Professor Henry Rosser, Director of the Latin American Studies Program at Boston College, one of 14 academic co-sponsors of this year’s performance, said there is nothing wrong with controversy “as long as the controversy leads to a greater awareness of important human/social and cultural issues and suggest solutions that are beneficial to the greater good for a greater number of people.”  He said, “The relevance of the event/performance on campus is that it may be, and is, of interest across disciplines.”

Marjorie Howes, co-director of the Irish Studies program, explained that “a willingness to tackle even difficult or controversial issues, has been, and should continue to be, a hallmark of the Jesuit tradition in education that BC seeks to continue.”  For that reason, she does not “have any qualms about sponsoring this well-regarded and influential feminist performance.”

Despite criticisms, departmental support remains strong and The Vagina Monologues show no sign of slowing down in years to come.

Ultimately, the presence of The Monologues on our campus boils down to free speech.  Freedom of speech, constitutionally defined and as upheld by the court system, would be better named “license of speech.”  Legally, anyone can say anything in anyway at anytime for any purpose.

This is not free speech as understood in academia.  The goal of a university education is to give students and faculty an environment in which the “big questions” can be answered: Who is man, and where did he come from?  What is the meaning of life?  Why is there something rather than nothing?  If we speak but are only willing to accept certain answers to these questions, then we are not speaking freely in the academic sense.  Speech which presupposes answers or actively works against certain answers from being voiced has no place in academia.  This rule applies, as Catholic thinker Josef Pieper demanded, regardless of the religious affiliation of the school.  There is no difference in academic free speech between MIT and Boston College.

Do The Vagina Monologues fit this qualification of free speech?  Without a doubt they emphatically do not.  Departmental co-sponsors justify their support by regurgitating the same rhetoric about “free speech” and “engaging controversial issues.”  However well intentioned that rhetoric may be, it is ultimately without substance.  Those behind the performance have no intention of academically posing questions and seeking answers.  Having a full auditorium chant the “c-word” is not posing questions or starting a discussion.  On the contrary, it is the imposition, quite violently, of one group’s understanding of human sexuality upon a group of onlookers with no opportunity for meaningful debate.  Having a discussion afterwards is redundant and self-serving for those in charge.  If questions like “how do you feel about your orgasms?” can even be considered academic, then the answers have already been calculated by those in charge.  To challenge those answers guarantees one will be labeled a sexist or homophobe for disagreeing with the predetermined answer.

As evidence for my claim, look at the number of department co-sponsorships.  Many departments and programs support this event annually, many whose academic relationship to The Monologues is doubtful at best.  I would call to question the play’s relevance to Irish Studies, American Studies, Romance Languages, and History, among others.  Rather, the co-sponsorship en masse of The Vagina Monologues indicates thinly veiled political and ideological motives behind the play’s supporters.  The play’s explicit, one-sided attack on Catholic morality and virtue ethics appeals to secularist department heads.  They sponsor the performance not out of a concern for a “campus wide dialogue,” which has yet to happen at BC as a result of The Monologues.  Rather, they see an opportunity to undermine the university’s mission as a Catholic school and exploit that opportunity discreetly with their power to sponsor events.   If the many departments co-sponsoring the play truly do so in order to create a discussion on campus, then under those auspices they should be willing to support literally any and every event at BC.  Yet, I highly doubt whether Latin American Studies, Africa & African Diaspora Studies, and Sociology would be so enthusiastic about sponsoring a panel discussion about the Theology of the Body.

I am not sure if it is possible to have a non-politicized performance of The Vagina Monologues, which complies with academic free speech, properly understood.  If it is possible, however, I have yet to see it happen at Boston College.

I conclude by offering some food for thought for those who put on the play.  No one doubts that an alienation from one’s own body or a poor understanding of one’s own sexuality is a problem of self knowledge – an existential dilemma not easily solved. I don’t think I know the answer to that question myself, but what I will say is this: the solution is not the exhibition of these problems on a stage.

The outcome of exhibitionism was clear to me.  Boston College cannot fulfill its mission as long as politics is mixed with academia; as long as those entrusted with searching for Truth exclude certain answers from the search.  As the actresses on stage faked orgasms and danced in skimpy cheerleader outfits, I saw Plato’s Academy burning to the ground before me.

And it burnt to thunderous applause.

The radicals of the 60s were tenured in the 80s and are tainting liberal learning today.  It’s time for department and program heads to realize that John Lennon died a long time ago.  Fortunately, the University as a whole is forcefully moving away from having a Monologue on important issues like sexuality and beginning to finally have Dialogue on them.  A few narrow-minded leaders on campus are in a negligible minority.  It is only a matter of time before Boston College returns to its roots as an institution of higher learning rooted in the rich Catholic intellectual tradition.

Boston College Pro-Life Club Students after a Mass at the Catholic University of America.

Friday the 22nd of January marked the 37th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision Roe v Wade which stated that denying women access to abortion is a violation of due process of law.  In protest of the decision, seen by critics as a clear case of judicial activism, a reading into the constitution of “rights” or “privileges” not contained or implied therein, thousands of pro-life activists joined the annual March for Life in our nation’s capitol.  Some statistics claim that marchers numbered upwards of a quarter of a million.  Most marchers hope an annual presence in Washington will be one strong factor among many leading to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, eventually annihilating the need for a march in the first place.

Aside from gathering en masse, protestors normally hear from respected authorities in the pro-life world.  Past speakers have included Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the Feminists for Life, Presidents Ronald Regan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.  Benedict XVI, Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, has sent written messages in the past, encouraging the pro-life movement and voicing his appreciation for the enthusiasm exhibited by today’s youth.  Current U.S. President Barack Obama, who has stated that should his daughters “make a mistake” he would not wish them to be “punished” with a child, has not been in attendance despite invitations to speak.

Boston College students at the March for Life in Washington, DC

Although personally unable to attend this year’s march, I was able to fly into Washington to participate in the Students for Life of America’s (SFLA) annual conference at the Catholic University of America (CUA).  SFLA represents the largest gathering of pro-life students nationwide.  The conference has grown in size from 400 in 2007 to 1,200 in 2010, and continues to be a source of strength and support in the pro-life movement.

Despite arriving at 8 AM and not finishing until almost 9 PM, the long day hindered no one’s learning experience.  Being surrounded by fun-loving and likeminded people provides the strength and confidence necessary for pro-life work in the coming year.  We were fortunate enough to hear testimony from women and men alike who have been negatively affected by the violence of abortion, lawyers who provided information on student’s legal rights on campus, and members of the media industry on broadcasting pro-life messages in the media, to name a few.  Rep. Chris Smith made an appearance and gave a brief speech encouraging pro-life students in the work.  He said he is proud to stand up for children no matter where they are, in the womb or in Darfur.  The keynote address was given by social activist and author Phyllis Schlafly, whose spunk, wit, and common sense were a refreshing breeze over the almost violent rhetoric heard on both sides of the abortion debate.

Unfortunately, due to the long duration of the conference, many speakers do nothing beyond repeat what has been said earlier in the day.  Even with an issue as complex and trying as abortion, there is only so much to be said in one day to a crowd of likeminded people.  Also unfortunate, many speakers, reveling in the comfort of addressing a homogeneous crowd of pro-lifers, take the time to divulge in base rhetoric or overemotional, bombastic speech.  Some speakers throughout the day tended to sound almost like preachers delivering sermons.  A levelheaded, articulate, and reasonable approach to being pro-life was, sadly, a rarity at the SFLA conference.  For that reason, I was extremely impressed by speakers who broke from this pattern, such as Clark Forsythe of Americans United for Life.  He spent about 45 minutes giving a lesson on the virtue of prudence and how it can, when properly understood, guide successfully each individual decision of the pro-life movement, no matter how small.  When the pro-life movement submits itself, said Forsythe, to virtue, its mission can be better achieved.  He cited as an example William Wilberforce, the English politician depicted in the 2006 film Amazing Grace, who brought anti-slave trade legislation through Parliament.  His prudential decisions, made over the course of several decades, made his mission a successful one.  Forsythe insisted that such an example is one which students today ought to emulate and learn from.

Despite shortcomings such as hackneyed, bombastic rhetoric and a bit of redundancy, the conference proved yet again to be a sturdy support for pro-life students nationwide, providing us with the energy and motivation to carry out another year of pro-life work.  We students look forward to a time when our nation’s laws reflect the justice due to life at all stages, be it an unborn child or an expectant mother, and when the conference, much like the march in Washington, will no longer be necessary.

By the time I have eaten breakfast  at the American student center, read  my daily allotment of emails, and  worked on a bit of German, the  skies are normally clear enough  to see the late morning mists falling through the trees on their way  down the hills.  It is not until noon  that I welcome an interruption in  daily tasks – an interruption which  occasionally still manages to catch  me by surprise.  While the culture  has become increasingly secular,  the architecture still holds a remnant of the religious fervor that  Europe once knew and held so  close.  Heidelberg, like most German cities, is void of skyscrapers.   The churches are still the tallest buildings in the city.  And at  noon, the bells flood the narrow  streets, calling the city to prayer.

The bells of the Jesuitenkirche and  Heiliggeistkirche probably fall on  the dead ears of tourists more often than anything else, but they toll  nonetheless for the few people who  will listen.  How often is it God  calls on us in the middle of our day  when we least expect it? And then  how often is it, later after time to put  our day in perspective, we realize  how often we failed to listen?  How  often, like the tourists listening to  the bells at noon, do we treat God’s  voice as mere background noise?

The Advent season is well underway, and we have been hearing  during this liturgical year a series  of Gospel readings from Luke.  The  Evangelist writes about the preparation for Christ – how the entire  world was slowly “turned” for a  few brief moments to focus on a  small manger in Bethlehem.   I am  not sure if any respectable theologian has ever claimed December  25 as Christ’s actual birthday, but  if any have then they have missed  the point.  The global Church celebrates Advent and Christmas to  make sure that, for a few weeks every year, we can be “turned” as well,  to focus on what really matters.

It is exciting to wonder what those  shepherds were like, abiding faithfully to the Jewish law and prayerfully serving God in small ways.    But God rewarded that simple faith  and readiness to respond to Him by  giving them the greatest news in all  of history: Israel’s Messiah is born  and you are to greet him.  Advent is  a time when we, like the shepherds,  prayerfully await Christ’s entering  into our lives.  We see the directions  God has laid out for us, and we re-  spond generously, allowing God  to “turn” our lives as he sees fi t.

As college students, the challenge  of hearing those bells ring and taking time out of our day for prayer  and anticipation can be quite grueling.  During this time we are  normally mentally and physically  taxed to an extreme thanks to fi nals,  involvement in clubs, packing bags,  all night writing sessions, Christmas parties, and wishing friends a  good break.  But are we taking time  to fi nd God in the midst? Are our  studies merely tools for an eventual  career? Or do we see ourselves and  our scholarly pursuits subsumed  into the plan God has for us, the  vocations He wants to bless us  with, and the service He wants us  to render unto our brothers and sisters? Is our daily labor, and ever our  leisure, helping Boston College as  a whole to “turn” slowly, in every  waking moment, closer towards  its broader mission of giving God  glory in all things?  Our lives often  lack bells ringing at noon, reminding us to prayerfully take a knee  in the middle of our busy days.

Although it is not always easy for  me to see a connection between  memorizing a dozen new German  verbs and building the Kingdom  of God, it certainly helps to have  the bells remind me of the bigger  picture that I am a part of.  Such  is Advent.  As much as I look forward to seeing my home country once again, I will revel in the  last couple weeks here, with the  bells there to shift my focus for a  few moments every day at noon.

From Germany, wishing everyone back home a most blessed  Advent and a Merry Christmas.  Max Bindernagel posing in front of one of Germany’s historic cathedrals.

Unfortunately, the University’s lackluster response and the pathetic failure of the faculty panel/discussion on birth control midway through last semester fell miserably short of expectations. On a campus run by the most intellectually-elite order of Catholic priests with the excess of resources flowing from the various departments and offices at the University, there is no reason Boston College should not host a colloquium on birth control in light of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical letter Humane Vitae.

The debate on campus has – and still does – fail to mention many arguments and aspects of birth control with broader implications than those in the dorm room. For example, the philosophical relations between sexuality, birth control, and the human person have nowhere been mentioned.

There are questions that need to be explored, such as: What does it mean to be a sexual being, and is our humanity inhibited, enhanced, or affected in anyway by the blocking of our procreative processes? Do Catholics (ideally) save themselves for marriage because the Pope says so, or because doing so is in accordance with a life of virtue, the fulfillment of what it means to be human? Are there sociopolitical reasons for strengthening the core unit of society – the family?

The long-term effects of abortion and contraception are being felt in more places than college campuses. While the birth rate in the United States is just barely enough to replace the death rate, certain demographics therein are slowly inhibiting pregnancies and aborting themselves out of existence, such as the African-American community. Other nations similarly suffer insufficient population-replacement rates.

Austrian chemist Carl Djerassi, who was awarded the National Medal of Science by President Nixon for pioneering the oral contraceptive pill, lamented in January of this year his work in the field.

He holds himself somewhat responsible for the 1.4 children per family birthrate in Austria, a crisis he claimed to be worse than obesity. The Austrian newspaper Der Standard quoted him as saying that continental Europe sees “no connection at all between sexuality and reproduction.” The sociological problem of a country which cannot replace its own population is the greatest catastrophe of modern Europe, Djerassi explained.

The current era is the only one in human history which has seen absolutely no connection between sex, procreation, and love. It is conceivable, and indeed quite common, to have sex without love, or even to procreate with neither sex nor love due to sperm banks and in vitro fertilization.

Simultaneously, the positive aspects of expressing or promoting the virtue of chastity are likewise being ignored. For example, does chastity and monogamy within the context of marriage correspond to what each and every person needs? Is there something about being human which requires chastity as a formative tool to work towards our perfection? Need sex within marriage be the “repressing” of desires or the fulfillment of them?

In addition to these philosophical questions, there are practical aspects of chastity, too. Uganda, a country which has successfully implemented abstinence policies to halt the spread of AIDS, has been incredibly more successful than other African nations which have had relatively negligible success with a focus on condoms.

Further, a stable, secure family bonded by love and solidified in the profession of marriage has been the key to every viable citystate throughout human history. This truth was the wisdom that allowed ancient Greece and Rome to flourish as they did.

Moreover, Paul VI, in Humane Vitae, saw the crisis that would be caused by the lack of chastity and divorce between procreation and sex. The depths of his insight have yet to be exhausted in their entirety, but what better time or place to begin exhausting them than a prestigious Catholic university such as Boston College?

These preceding paragraphs serve as a reflection and grounding on which an academic inquiry can be built. Birth control is thus the center of a major crisis in modern times. Yet Boston College seems extremely reluctant to comment on the issue in all its complexities, facets, and challenges. With its resources, especially from the Church in the 21st Century and the incredible strength of our Philosophy Department, Boston College has the ability, indeed the duty, to host a colloquium about birth control.

Failure to do so would be a disservice to the student body, the intellectual needs of the school, and the Catholic Church at large which continues to struggle over this issue. On behalf of a curious student body and a Church in need, we at The Observer demand such a colloquium.

The student body voted 89% in favor of a sexual health initiative (SHI). To some, this may mean that 11% of Boston College students must not want their peers being healthy, which is absurd. In an unfair (and in some ways even sinister) move by the proponents of the SHI, the wording thereof grouped availability of condoms, birth control pill prescriptions, and testing for sexually transmitted diseases in one legislative package. This cluster required, as a whole, one vote – “Yes” or “No” to the whole deal. In short, students who may very well be in favor of certain initiatives, such as STD testing, but not others, such as university provided access to birth control, were forced to compromise their own position no matter how they voted. Even the name of the initiative was chosen so as to make opposition impossible (who could possibly be against sexual health?). In short, the writer here has very few reserves in claiming that the SHI vote did not capture accurately the student body’s opinion concerning so-called “sexual health.”

Regardless of statistical problems involved with the initiative, it did pass, and the current UGBC administration must handle it accordingly. The degree to which either the UGBC or university officials will take the sexual health issue is yet to be seen, but I should hope that both take these two issues into consideration: the hookup culture and a formational educational university experience.

Despite BC’s laudable opposition to the hookup culture, sexual usury still manages to show its gruesome face around campus. Though our university is one of the foremost in promoting respectful interactions between the sexes, everyone knows that one-night stands remain as much a problem as ever. The pending availability of condoms on campus thus begs a question: what message would the university be sending about hooking up? Do condoms, available in specified areas around campus, promote respectful interactions between the sexes, or do they more easily allow those one night stands to occur? Does access to last minute birth control provide for the committed couple who talk about their sexual encounters and plan ahead of time, or does it provide for those who have met an hour or two beforehand?

In addition, BC ought not forget that the purpose of its very existence is to educate. And to educate here does not mean in a superficial sense to make another memorize mindless facts. Education is, from preschool through doctoral work, the long process of forming the person to be able to do what people do best: asking questions and finding answers. When looking at education in this light, one may even be able to say (technically) that universities have no obligation to provide food, water, or shelter to students. In fact, many do not. And that brief list does not even include many of the luxuries students enjoy on the Heights, such as cable TV, pop music performances, and sports games. Yet none of these are necessary for the proper functioning of a university. When colleges do decide to provide the amenities, they normally manage to do so within the overall goal and mission of the university. For example, at the cafeterias, BC’s workers are paid a living wage. In the dorms we are encouraged to recycle, and we are asked to be respectful of visitors at sports games. All of these are best understood when subsumed under Boston College’s greater mission as a university.

So yet another question is begged: How do condoms fulfill the proper functioning of a university? Is the formation of the person, including the moral dimension of the person, inhibited when sexual immorality is facilitated for the sake of “health?” Will incoming students be challenged to lead moral lives, or will they receive a message merely about having any sex they want, as long as it is “safe?”

After writing all these questions out, I must say that I have absolutely no idea what we should expect in the aftermath of the SHI. All I can do is hope, and I hope the administration and UGBC think very carefully about everything at hand.