First, relativism teaches and holds that theological truths, including what constitutes “good” and “evil,” is a function of who is viewing, or judging, a certain thought or action. This means that different people, or even cultures, can have fundamentally different “truths,” all of which are equally acceptable. More importantly, this definition of relativism removes the ability of any one person or school of thought from claiming that they hold an exclusive truth which can be upheld in all circumstances (with the ironic exception of the relativists themselves).

In Catholicism, relativism is very often manifested through both the debate over which is more important, orthodoxy or orthopraxy, a fact which Pope Benedict XVI astutely points out in his book “Truth and Tolerance.” At Boston College, the relativists generally accept the notion that the orthopraxy, or the rituals through which religion is expressed, take precedence over the orthodoxy, or the theology itself. The end result, at least on campus, is that we find many students conditioning their Catholic beliefs in order to fit both parts of Church doctrine they like while maintaining beliefs which may not reflect the teachings of the Church. A common example of this occurs which the issue of premarital sex. A  student may say “I am certainly Catholic, but I also believe in premarital sex…”

Because the Catholic relativists claim that the Mass, or the ultimate orthopraxy, is more important than the dogma itself, as long as students attend Mass, they are indeed Catholic and can so condition their orthodoxy in accordance with disagreements they may have over Church teachings in regards to personal ethics. In other words, it does not so much matter that I disagree with the Church, as long as I attend the Mass.

Immediately, this notion runs into practical and theoretical concerns, because the orthopraxy is dependent upon the orthodoxy. How the Mass is said, how often one should attend, and what exactly occurs at a Mass are all ultimately matters of orthodoxy. The question very well may (and indeed it has been) asked, “isn’t the Mass, and in fact all orthopraxy a matter of relativism too?” Pushed on the point, the relativist would be forced to concede that the answer is yes. The ultimate result of this, however, is that the Church loses the moral authority to teach in a manner which invites its followers to participate in the fullness of both the orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

What follows is a fraying, or crumbling, of Catholicism, at first around the edges, and then at the very center itself. We are left with a religion which has lost the moral authority to teach to its faithful and to proclaim the logos it has been studying for the past two thousand years. Broaden the scale and apply relativism to all religions, and it is easy to see why a certain type of polytheism has developed in American culture. Because monotheistic religion has lost part of its ability to teach with authority, we now have generations which are orphaned in faith. Lacking the parental structure of religion, they cling not to higher goods, in part because the worth of these goods has been determined to be relative, and they instead seek what Pope Benedict refers to as the gods of old, sex, money, power, drugs, and perhaps even obsessive careers.

When these aspects of society become the focus of life over religion, I truly believe that society has stepped backward, and not forward. If religion is to exist, then surely relativism is not the answer. This is not to say, in the age-old logical fallacy; if not A, then B. The human experience, even when spread across continents, nations, and cultures, is remarkably interconnected. The relativists, in using barriers between cultures to justify their theology, have forgotten how resilient the human spirit is, and how cultures separated by thousands of years and insurmountable geographical circumstances very often still hold the same basic virtues dear to their hearts.

Furthermore, I believe that the relativists have mistaken when they see religion as an aspect applied to culture, almost in the same way that power windows were once an “add-on” to a new car. Seeing religion through the “add-on” lens would seem to suggest that Catholicism cannot be applied to all cultures adequately. In keeping with the car example, one would never “add-on” a tow-hitch to a compact car. What the relativists fail to understand is that religion, in and of itself, especially Catholicism, is a culture, complete with its very own people, music, food, dress, and even philosophies. Modern political theorists have already begun to realize this when they find studies which support the fact that people who tend to describe themselves as “religious” are also considerably more likely to make friends with other “religious” people, even if those people follow different creeds. While at face value this may seem to be obvious, below the surface we know that they everyday life of an ardent Catholic is considerably different from the average everyday life in modern society. Items such as abstinence, daily prayer, and constant spiritual reading are lifestyle, or cultural, aspects which run counter to mainstream American culture.

If we understand Catholicism as a culture which can be applied to any other culture, than the relativists ultimately find themselves in a position in which their basic assumptions are undercut, a position from which they cannot win. Thus, as I understand relativism, it is not only a theology which is bad for Catholic culture, but one which rationally does not make sense in a world which places great value on reason and rationality.

Personal interactions between the confessor and penitent will also be available to accommodate those who prefer face-to-face confessions. Spiritual direction and counseling will be available for non-Catholics. Catholics who do not usually take advantage of the Sacrament are encouraged to come and experience the healing power of Confession. Those who regularly attend are encouraged to bring a friend who may not have experienced the Sacrament in some time. If the event is successful, campus ministry hopes to have a series of “Midnight Mercy” events in the coming year.

More information may be found on this event via the facebook page found here: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=123997304281594&ref=ts

Also, in respect to Meg’s comment on the editorial, you did read the correct Heights article but I don’t think you read the Observer editorial carefully enough. The editorial, as I read it, does not claim that The Heights should not have published the material. Rather, it simply states that the publication should not have allowed the ALC to insinuate that greater transparency was an internal idea. Simply put, I think that the Observer staff has a hard time believing that the Heights was genuinely ignorant of this fact.

Unfortunately, this has taken away from the fact that the release of the budgets is a major win for the student body, which yearly devotes a large portion of its student activities fee to the two organizations.

1. St. Joseph’s Chapel: To me, St. Joseph’s Chapel looks suspiciously like a makeshift worship space in what used to be the basement of a dorm. The individual chairs give the chapel a temporary feel, almost as if the chapel were used for other purposes. In order to promote greater reverence for the Eucharist on campus, my top project would be to put in permanent kneelers. To keep some of my more liberal friends from removing them from the chapel once I kicked the bucket, I would also have them cemented to the floor.

2. Endowed Chair, Theology Department: If I ever make enough money to endow a chair at the university (doubtful, but hey, this is theoretical) I would endow a chair in the theology department for either modern Papal Studies or Canon Law. This would either ensure that undergrads are given the opportunity to take a survey course in Canon Law, or absolutely infuriate the theology department by forcing them to admit that the conservative Catholic thinkers might have some positive scholarly value.

3. Sunday Latin Masses: How much money would I have to throw at the university for it to sponsor a weekly Sunday Mass in addition to the already existing one’s offered. Not that I think the Hootie and Blow Fish Mass is worthless, but it has the spiritual depth of a kiddie pool. It would be interesting to see how many students would attend such a Mass if it were offered regularly.

4. Sons of St. Patrick: There are worse things for BC students to be doing on a Friday night than hanging out with some Catholic guys talking about everything from BC hockey to the ethnicity of St. Patrick. What attracts me the most is this group’s ability to take very conservative Catholics and reconcile them to modern society.

5. School of Theology and Ministry: The curtain in the STM chapel is so ugly that I would pay to have it taken down. The worst part about it is that there is still a beautiful mural behind the curtain. The mural contains images of the minor orders, and although I understand those no longer function in the Church, it still represents a great historical view of how the Church used to function. Love it or hate it (how can you hate seminarians?) the curtain has to go.

6. Replace the Broccoli Fountain: Same basic reasoning as the ugly purple curtain. Nothing that ugly should be on campus. Furthermore, the fountain only functions for two months while school is in session. To recap: its impractical and ugly. I would replace it with a bronze statue of Pope Benedict XVI, who would thereafter greet the Jesuits each morning on their way to campus. The gift that keeps on giving…

One of the most quoted lines in the Gospels is Matthew 7:16 (“by their fruits you shall know them”). In this day and age, whenever a young man has the courage to put on the white cloth of martyrdom in favor of serving Christ, something has gone very, very right in his spiritual life. Talking to the seminarians, it is clear what attracts them to the Church; God, the Eucharist, and the strong emphasis the seminary places on the intellectual priest. Even beyond St. John’s there are similar examples of these three aspects bringing people to Christ.

Think about the traditional Catholic groups on campus and the surge in attendance they have seen over the past two or three years. The St. Thomas More Society and the Sons of Saint Patrick have all dramatically increased their numbers. Even the number of students writing for The Observer has quadrupled over the past four years. Over the same period, less and less men and women have been attracted to the religious life by the liberalizing of the Church, theologies which place an emphasis on the temporal world, and relativist philosophies which hold that each person has their own truth.

The Jesuit order, thankfully, has perhaps been most touched by the springtime of faith. It’s no secret, even though rarely does someone mention this point in public, that younger priests, Jesuits included, are more orthodox than their older counterparts, sparking jokes in the younger Catholic population such as “gray, stay away.”

Even Senator Rick Santorum, on his visit to campus last year, remarked about the difference between the younger and older Jesuits.

This raises an interesting question. Is there a type of spirituality that is more successful at gaining vocations, and better “fruits,” than the modernist, “feel good” method which seems to be a favorite of certain groups on campus? It seems that way. Maybe after all this time it’s not always about making the Mass more “youth-friendly” or even about singing Hootie and the Blowfish songs pretending that they constitute worship. Maybe it even doesn’t always matter what you “feel,” because quite honestly, it’s not all about you.

Getting back to the basics, which seems to be bringing in the next crop of priests, should be the primary focus of spirituality groups moving forward. Instead of worshiping in a way where the primary concern is to make us “feel good” (and then consequently taking that good feeling and calling it “prayer”), we should recognize that prayer is a relationship which should espouse our love for God, and like all relationships, we need to be concerned for the other party involved, not just ourselves. It is entirely possible that the reason certain Catholic practices, such as adoration, memorized prayer, and orthodox Masses have continually been in existence for such a long time. They are very effective at bringing people to Christ. It’s time we recognize that these types of prayer care for the individual by engaging them in a true relationship with God, not simply by making them “feel good.”

No EIC can be successful without section heads who are professional, creative, and hard working. I could not have asked for better leaders than Rachele, Megan, Kaitlin, Allie, Dana, and Elise. It is funny how things change over the course of four years. When I first started at The Observer, there was only one female on staff, and now the males find themselves drastically outnumbered. Each of these ladies has been outstanding at every step of the process, and have had to deal with my whimsical overhauling of sections, staff changes, and “hissy fits” (as my sister calls them). I definitely could not have done this without them.

Second, I definitely have to acknowledge in a special way Jesse Naiman’s contributions to the publication. He has been a great help in running the day-to-day business of the newspaper while I have concentrated on big-picture trends and tried to raise enough money to keep the presses going. Without him, I am not sure where we would be right now but it would be nowhere good. He is going to make an excellent EIC and will continue to be a great mentor to the younger writers. He is someone who appreciates the craft of writing, works hard at investigative journalism, and brings a real sense of fun to the newsroom.

I also need to give a huge thanks to the people who have quite literally kept us financially afloat over the past two years, including the Collegiate Network, Michael LaTona, Tim Gavin, Joe Kelly, Ray Jeandron, Mr. Gallagher, and Mr. Currie. One of my favorite parts of this job has been talking to alumni and donors and getting feedback, both positive and negative. Lastly, I need to thank my sister, who keeps me well fed at all times and provides tons of moral support, my father, who made the beautiful newspaper stands that now house our publications, and my mother, who used to drive me a combined four hours each day so that I could go to a Catholic high school and get into a wonderful university like Boston College.

We have come a long way together since I wrote my first article as a freshman. People like Marty Singerman have helped provide the vision for what this newspaper could be, and we have done our very best to implement changes to make this publication one of the best alternative collegiate student newspapers in the country. I want to thank the BC community for being open to our publication and for their readership. I have never regretted one instant I have spent working on this publication and it has been a true joy serving you. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Theology Professor Margaret Schatkin Lecturing to Students in Greek Patrology

Professor Margaret Schatkin, a longtime professor in Boston College’s theology department, recently published extended research on the Biblical analysis  surrounding the Catholic doctrine of Marian virginity. A specialist in patristic studies, Schatkin has been working for several years to help better understand the relationship between the teachings of the Catholic Churchand Matthew 1:25, which reads,“And [Joseph] knew her [Mary]not till she had brought forth her first born son: and he called his name JESUS” (King James Version).

In her research, Schatkin  suggests that an error has occurred in the Greek version of the New Testament, possibly the result of either a smudge or a miscopy. Schatkin suggests that if two of the Greek letters were interchanged, the entire verse would be different, suggesting a sense of permanence to Mary’s virginity instead of a temporary nature.

Schatkin’s research, whichhas been ongoing for several years, grew out of an effort toanswer a student question about Marian virginity. Not initially understanding how Catholic teaching conformed to the Biblical implications of Matthew 1:25,Schatkin appealed to several Jesuits on campus, who were equally miffed. As she looked deeper into the Greek origins of the New Testament, Schatkin became more intrigued with the finer points of the script, and before long she noticed irregularities in the Greek verse which she believes clouded the original intentions of the evangelist. As she explains it, “The problem lies in the implication (from Greek grammar) that he (Joseph) did know her after she gave birth.”Eventually, Schatkin took a research leave, during which she formulated the research that appears in De Maria Numquam Satis.

The book is edited and produced by Professor Judith Gentle,an adjunct professor of theology at Franciscan Universityof Steubenville. Gentle also has a BC connection, having received her doctoral degree in theology in 2001. She lauds the contributions of Schatkin to the work as a whole, especially noting her expertise in patristic studies. “Dr.Schatkin’s superb command of both linguistic tools and the patristic tradition are highly evidenced in this article.€ Not only does she use her usual outstanding scholarship to support the Truth of Our Lady’s perpetual virginity,and therefore her Divine Maternityof God the Son, but she also substantiates the complementary Truth of St. Joseph’s virginity, which is essential to his being the foster-father of the Divine Child, Jesus Christ.”

Schatkin and Gentle met at Boston College while Gentle was writing her graduate thesis on the relationship between Mary and redemption. Schatkin,who was already a BC professor,served as a reader for the dissertation,which was eventually published. Gentle knew about Schatkin’s research as she was putting together the book and characterized her participation as an absolute “must.”

De Maria Numquam Satis was released on November 28,2009 and can be found through the inter-library loan system at Boston College. The authorspublished in the book hope that it can appeal to a wide audience,but it will probably be most useful to academics considering the meticulous nature of the research done within it.

Professor Catherine Cornille has succeeded Father Kenneth Himes, OFM, as the Theology department head.

Cornille received her Licentiate in Theology from the Catholic University in Leuven, Belgium and her MA in Asian Religions from the University of Hawaii.She went back to Leuven to finish her education, receiving a PhD in Religious Studies. She has authored four books and edited another four. In addition to chairing the department, she is also continuing to teach a graduate course on History and Methods in the Comparative Study of Religions and the core Religious Quest II:Catholicism and Hinduism.

Cornille is unsure how long she will remain chair of the department. As of now, she is only committed to one term.  Cornille has four specific goals for the department.She hopes to further enhance collegiality and theological exchange among members of the department, promote international relationships, maintain a strong faculty and an interesting list of course offerings, and optimize BC’s relationship with the School of Theology and Ministry.

Cornille will be the first incoming chair that will have to navigate a relationship with Boston College’s School of Theology and Ministry (STM). When speaking about the challenges of avoiding redundancy in the two institutions, Cornille commented that, “We are cultivating a strong relationship with STM in which we each further develop as independent institutions with our specific missions and strengths, but also with strong ties of collaboration. Together,we are indeed becoming one of the most important centers for Catholic Theology in the world.”

As the new chair, Cornille will be expected to navigate the sometimes controversial relationship between the academic theology department and the Catholic heritage of the university.She has not elaborated specifically how she plans to accomplish this, but acknowledges the Catholic influence on the university. “As a department of theology, we not only teach Catholic thought and values, but also reflect on them in light of the social, cultural, economical and religious context.”

The university has yet to release some of the details surrounding Cornille’s election,such as whether or not there were other candidates for the position. The Observer hopes to have a guest submission from Professor Cornille before the end of the semester.

The latest issue of The Observer at Boston College hit the stands today and is already causing quite a controversy on campus. Overall I believe that this is one of the best issues we have ever published. We have four excellent breaking stories, including one which should have some legs to it. The news section is rounded out with some really interesting features, which have taken the place of regional and national news in our publication. Additionally, the guys and girls in sports did an excellent job putting together in-depth analysis of BC’s Bowl selection and an original interview on Reggie Jackson. This marks the second issue in a row that they have gotten top-notch interviews with star BC athletes.

Congrats to our Business Section, which has won the first-ever Editor’s Cup! We are hoping to make this a tradition at The Observer, rewarding the most improved section for all of their hard work during the year. Dana Flynn has done an outstanding job and we can look forward to great work from her section in the future.

Michael

Margaret Gallagher spoke to BC students in an attempt to promote traditional marriage.

Boston College students packed a lecture hall in the basement of the law school to hear Margaret Gallagher give a speech on why she disagrees with gay marriage. Gallagher was invited to speak at Boston College by the BC chapter of the Federalist Society, in keeping with the society’s mission to promote a sense that the “judiciary should say what the law is, and not what it should be.” Gallagher has previously testified before the United States Senate, written for The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, and founded an organization to promote traditional marriage, the National Organization For Marriage.

The event was highly anticipated, with over 50 law students and the Boston College Police Department waiting outside of the lecture hall before the final class in SW120 was dismissed. The crowd was far from hostile, but most students in the audience disagreed with Gallagher. In an informal poll taken by Gallagher prior to the event, almost 95 percent of the student body identified themselves as being pro-gay marriage, while the remaining five percent were split between “anti-gay marriage” and “it’s none of your business.”

Gallagher, in forming her argument against legalized gay marriage, concentrated on the ramifications that legalizing gay marriage could have on traditional marriage. She cited “concern about marriage as a social institution,” and the need for the law to reinforce the idea that families with one mother and one father are best suited to raise children. Also, Gallagher referred to the definition of marriage which defines it as “an institution for the benefit of a child.” This definition, she claims, results from three essential truths about the human condition; that intercourse leads to babies, that society needs babies to exist, and that children need both a father and a mother.

Referring to sociology, Gallagher argued that almost every known civil society has an institution similar to marriage. “Societies either find a way to grapple with these children or they cease to exist” she said. “Marriage, as a legal institution, only has the power given to it by marriage as a social institution.”

Gallagher cited the preference for both a mother and a father from personal experience. She conceived as a single mother and Yale student in 1982, only to find out in 1986 that the father was no longer interested in helping to raise her son. She described the effects that this had both on her emotional state and the state of the child moving forward.

In speaking about gay marriage, Gallagher called for understanding in both directions. She lamented about what she sees as a tendency of gay marriage advocates to depict traditional marriage advocates as being bigots and comparable to racists opposing interracial marriage. The danger, she claims, is that the “idea of marriage becomes stigmatized as a form of bigotry.” To try and bridge this gap, Gallagher agrees to hold speaking engagements with gay and lesbian organizations.

In a particularly active question and answer session, law students challenged Gallagher to defend her philosophy against their personal experiences. Students and law professors challenged Gallagher to defend her statements about the preferability of two parent households, her exclusive view of marriage, and her belief that allowing gay marriage would decrease the importance of traditional marriage. The questions were very respectful to Gallagher, if not to other law professors in the audience.

Gallagher and the students actually agreed in more instances than the students probably thought possible, as she conceded that in some instances gay parents could probably achieve better parenthood on average than straight parents.

In terms of offering a solution, Gallagher did not pretend to offer any feasible alternatives to the gay marriage problem. Instead, she suggested that the first step towards any serious debate would include getting “out of a space…where there is licensed hatred against those who disagree.” Creating this atmosphere of mutual respect, she suggests, is the first step towards creating a solution that all can accept.

Father Luke has an interesting idea concerning vocations in New York City, encouraging college students to return and make a contribution to their home diocese, whether that be through a religious or lay vocation. Keeping talented Catholics who pursue higher education outside of New York interested in their home diocese could really bring a revival to the religious institutions in the greater New York area. Its a fantastic idea, and as a native of the Archdiocese of New York, I hope it goes well.

The essential question that should be considered is whether or not religion causes atrocities by its very nature or if there is a secondary causation which follows the practice of religion in certain situations. Upon careful consideration, it must be the case that the latter is true. Religion is, in some instances, accompanied by passion. Passion, is the most fundamental feeling which causes violence. Handling this passion is the key to avoiding violent confrontations between segments of civil society that are passionate about two diametrically opposed ideas, concepts, or entities.

The problem here is the passion, and not the cause of the passion. The two concepts are related but not nearly identical. Consider that murderous riots have resulted from relatively simple soccer matches. While this would be unthinkable in the United States, and not necessarily just because the U.S. is extremely apathetic when it comes to soccer, these riots are not unheard of in many Latin American countries, where soccer is of primary importance. In atheistic, or even materialistic societies, economic concerns can cause armed conflicts (oil anyone?). The larger point is that anything that is of a primary importance to a large group of people can cause violence.

If mankind really wanted to solve conflict once and for all it would have to abolish passion; but it is this passion that makes mankind human at its very core. Love for one’s family, country, and yes, even religion, are what makes us who we are. It gives us a reason to get up in the morning, but it also raises the possibility that we will have fundamental disagreements with other groups of people. Abolishing religion would not take these conflicts away, but just makes us most passionate about other concerns. While we could only eliminate passion in theory but not in fact, would we really choose to live a life of meaningless apathy instead of valiantly living for a cause and trying to control the passion that drives us?

In reality it is the few that give most a bad name in this instance. A vast majority of religious people are peaceful, preferring reason and logic to rule over the evil tendencies of a vindictive heart. Religious institutions are often the largest philanthropic organizations in society, and the Catholic Church educates more children than any civil institution in the world. Most people consider religion to be most saving aspect of the human race.

Our human passion has moved us to provide amazing feats which credit both the human race and our creator, but it also the ability to contort our greatest aspect. It is this contortion, and not religion itself, which injures and harms.

Contraception at BC?

Boston College is continuing a review of its Blue Care Elect Preferred plan, which first began in September. According to Thomas McGuinness, Director of University Counseling and a 20 year veteran of the university counseling department, this review is part of an annual effort to maintain the quality of the health insurance plan while ensuring that it falls in line with the teachings of the Catholic Church. McGuinness was able to confirm, however, that both voluntary abortions and voluntary sterilizations are specifically excluded from the policy by the university.

Both voluntary abortions and voluntary sterilizations are part of the initial basket that is offered by Blue Cross Blue Shield to employers and universities. Boston College works with its insurance agency, Gallagher Koster, and chooses to exclude parts of the basket that would conflict with the religious nature of the school. Although elective abortion is not covered under the policy, birth control and contraception will remain part of the insurance plan because of Massachusetts State Law.

Effective June 5, 2002, Massachusetts state law mandates that all employers provide “benefits for outpatient prescription drugs and devices shall provide benefits for hormone replacement therapy for peri and post menopausal women and for outpatient prescription contraceptive drugs or devices which have been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration under the same terms and conditions as for such other prescription drugs or devices…”

The law does provide an exemption for Church and Church-controlled institutions but Boston College is ineligible to receive such an exemption. Patrick Rombalski, Vice President of the Offices of Student Affairs, commented that “the state of Massachusetts views BC as an independent organization and not part of the Church. Of course we are related to the Church but Boston College is an independent not-for-profit, separate from the Church. That would be true of all Catholic universities and colleges with very few exceptions.”

These few exceptions seem to concern Catholic colleges and universities that were begun by specific dioceses or archdioceses, not religious orders, such as the Jesuits. Rombalski was quick to assert that although Boston College is legally independent from the Church, it is tied to the Church through philosophy. The Code of Canon Law, parts 793-821, articulate this relationship.

According to Rombalski, the university is currently working to update materials in Student Services so that students can easily track the benefits that they are covered for under the insurance policy. At least some of the materials in Student Services list the BC insurance agency as “Koster Insurance Agency, INC” which, according to McGuinness, became Gallagher Koster “about two years ago.”

Boston College’s insurance plan has gained publicity on the web, being cited on several blogs and the Cardinal Newman Society website.

The UGBC office located in 21 Campanella Way

The Undergraduate Government of Boston College recently released a very basic form of its budget for the 2009-2010 fiscal year. Although the budget allocates over a half million dollars, the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet is comprised of only 17 rows and two columns. This is definitely a start in terms of transparency, especially since UGBC seems to have plans to update how much money has been spent and how much money remains throughout the year. The real problem with the budget, however, is that so much of it is already tied up in events and programming that happens year in and year out.

The Student Programs Office provides programming resources for student clubs like the College Republicans and the History Club. This allows groups of students with similar interests to pull University resources together to put on campus events to which all are invited. SPO has no procedure to help students who are not attached to a specific club or organization who want to do programming. Additionally, even if, for example, a student from the History Club wants to bring in a speaker, like say Curt Schillins, who has nothing to do with the History Club per se, that student has no resources to put together the event. Speakers are just one example. Students could be thinking about student activities and other events which are a little more participatory.

UGBC seems like the perfect place for students to go if they do not have the backing of an official group or organization for an event. Unfortunately, a large percentage of UGBC money is already tied up in the same places every year. Just under 67% of the budget is tied up in administrative expenses, communications, and yearly UGBC events such as university speakers and the fall and spring concerts. Another 20.6%, or $111,000, is given to ALC and GLC.

It is completely understandable that these two groups garner money from UGBC because they would not exist if they did not. Spending 20.6% of the budget on two groups that comprise vast minorities of the BC population (there are not readily available numbers for gay and lesbian students but only a shade over 28% of students are estimated to be ethnic minorities) seems to be a little extreme. This problem is compounded by the fact that ALC does not make enough of an effort to be revenue neutral. Several groups on campus are successfully revenue neutral, including The Heights and The Observer. Students should demand that ALC make similar efforts, especially since a former UGBC Vice-president admitted, “With just a little effort, ALC could undoubtedly break even on the year.”

Perhaps revenue neutral may not happen anytime soon, but should students at least ask for a token effort to be made? If ALC fundraised just 10% of its budget UGBC would save $8,000 each year, more than most clubs are given through SPO.

Adding to the problem is the propensity of the UGBC Senate to give to the same programs and events each year. Giving $500 of $1,000 to the Vagina Monologues, an event which is actually in the green each year, or to the same service trips, does not allow for enough creativity in the student body. Perhaps these are not examples of undergraduate government waste, but at the very least I would make the argument that some of this money could be better served when spread around to students looking to bring new events and ideas to campus. The UGBC should either set up an additional department dedicated to students looking to bring events to campus without the backing of a club or increase UGBC Senate funding with the stipulation that only a certain percentage of the funds can be allocated to the repeat recipients of UGBC funding. This would allow for greater creativity and self-initiative in the student body while using our money in the best way possible.

Contraception is covered under BC Health Insurance

Boston College’s optional health insurance plan, Blue Care Elect Preferred (PPO), contains “Family Planning” under the list of services covered by the policy. A call by The Observer to Blue Cross Blue Shield confirmed that under these services include doctor’s visits related to family planning, contraception, and “in some instances birth control pills.” According to Koster Insurance Agency, INC, Boston College’s insurance agent, these services represent a “bundle,” or a group of benefits that the provider optionally selects to be part of a larger package.

In order to obtain birth control or contraceptives, a student would have to pay a $20 visit fee, and 20% of the cost of any prescribed contraception or birth control pills. The remaining 80% is picked up by the insurance company. Surgical abortions do not appear to be covered by the BC policy, but neither Blue Cross Blue Shield nor Koster Insurance Agency could rule out the possibility of surgical abortions being covered under the policy without a more thorough examination of its guidelines.

The Boston College Plan does meet the Minimum Creditable Coverage Standards (MCCS) for Massachusetts, but this minimum coverage standard does not require family planning services. Instead, it seeks to cover preventative visits, prescription drugs, emergency hospital visits, and a financial plan based upon the percentage of costs insured, not a plan that caps out after a certain dollar amount. According to the Koster Insurance Agency, covering contraceptives and birth control is “not required by the State of Massachusetts.”

University Spokesman Jack Dunn commented that “graduate students can purchase health insurance while studying at BC. The Blue Cross plan is a comprehensive health insurance plan that provides a wide range of services that the students are free to choose from or reject at their own discretion.”

The BC health insurance can be waived by students if they have adequate health insurance through their employment or families. Belmont Abbey, in North Carolina, recently made headlines for its lawsuit involving female employees demanding coverage for contraceptives. It is unclear whether or not the freedom of religion clause in the first amendment would disqualify religious institutions from being compelled by the state to offer services which conflict with their religious duties.

Boston College is one of only four Catholic universities that have been found to cover contraception and birth control in their health insurance policies for students. Fordham, DePaul, and Holy Cross are the other three, while other notable Catholic universities, such as Georgetown, Notre Dame, and Xavier University have health insurance programs which do not cover procedures that threaten life.

It is unclear what, if anything, BC will do in order to ensure that its health insurance policy conforms to its duties as a Jesuit institution. It is equally unclear which experts on Catholic ethics and Catechism were consulted about the insurance plan before it was implemented.

Research done at the Cardinal Newman Society, Jesse Naiman, and JP Bonner contributed to this report.

[CLICK HERE FOR AN UPDATE ON THIS ISSUE]

Roger Robinson, president and CEO of Conflict Securities Advisory Group, has helped develop a financial terrorist watch list, which compiles information about companies who currently engage in business with countries suspected of terrorist involvement, such as Iran. At its highwater mark, Conflict Securities advised investment holdings totaling approximately one trillion dollars, lending advice to groups ranging from the New York Police Union to multiple state pension funds.

Robinson takes a two-track approach to his financial strategy. First, he stresses the asymmetric risk, or risk which is not accounted for in a stock’s price. Usually, with everything else equal, a high risk stock will have a lower price than a low risk stock. Robinson does not believe that companies who do business in terrorist sponsoring states have an additional risk factor subtracted from their stock price. Second, Robinson believes that there is a moral obligation for investment companies to disclose when they buy stocks of companies that do business in terrorist sponsoring states.

Conflict Securities Advisory Group (CSAG) researches businesses with publicly traded stocks and looks for potential links to terrorist-sponsoring states.

The greater the stake a business has in a terrorist sponsoring state, the more ardently CSAG warns against investment. “There are already divestment campaigns in a dozen states,” says Robinson, “but we refrain from advocating for divestment. We simply present the information and let businesses decide what to do.”

There are certainly a few challenges to be overcome with CSAG. With a relatively small staff, thorough research on all companies doing business with terrorist-sponsoring states is difficult. “Firms don’t usually advertise when they’re doing business in Iran or North Korea,” admitted Robinson. To compensate, CSAG subscribes to foreign business journals and newspapers, which generally report on American companies opening new operations.

Robinson has experience working with financial foreign policy, leaving Chase Manhattan to join the Reagan Administration in early 1982, at age 32, as the Director of International Economic Affairs. Robinson’s article in the Washington Quarterly, entitled Soviet Gas: Risk or Reward?, caught President Reagan’s eye in July of 1981, and Reagan convinced him to join government service soon afterwards. Robinson met with the president four to five times a week as the two worked on a strategy to bring down the Soviet Union. Robinson wrote several National Security Decision Directives, or NSDDs, including several which mapped the specific strategies to be used to stop the influx of available credit to the Soviet Union.

While ambitious, Robinson’s plan was particularly difficult because of the secretive nature of NSDD-75, which created the fi nancial master plan for the Soviet takedown. “There were only twelve people in the loop in the United States,” Robinson remembers, “it created the framework for the Soviet takedown.”

The crux of Robinson’s plan was to squeeze off Soviet credit by pressuring allied banks to stop lending money to the Kremlin. President Reagan bought the plan, claiming that he always knew the Soviet Union was not financially independent. “I don’t care how you do it. Just do it,” Robinson says Reagan told him. Even now, Robinson seems awed by Reagan’s instructions, remembering that his plan “wasn’t a rollback of the USSR; it was the literal takedown of the Soviet Union.”

The United States ended up excluding six major European countries from the U.S. market, which Robinson admits created a “major dispute” between the allies. “It was war with the allies because they were underwriting the Soviets, and furthermore Western governments were giving the Soviets loans at a full percentage point and a half less than the market value. This closed a 15 or 16 billion dollar deficit, about half of their operating budget.”

Robinson’s plan saw fruition two days before the formal collapse of the Soviet Union, when the USSR defaulted on over 90 billion dollars of Western debt. “Our plan was almost intuitively obvious,” Robinson claims, “but as far as I know we never had an international banker in national security before me, and that’s why I think international fi nance is still a very neglected part of national security.”

I have never had to write an open letter to the BC community in my four years here. Together, we have often engaged in crucial, productive, and sometimes heated dialogue over the years. We have found common ground whenever possible, listened to all points of view, and trusted that each person’s opinion was based upon what they thought was honestly best for the college as a whole. We now have a situation before us that threatens this spirit.

In the September 22nd issue of The Observer, an article appeared entitled “Can I, as a Caucasian, Be a Part of Your Group?”. I understand that this article stirred up a fair amount of controversy among the student population. Regardless of your view on this article, I think that we can all agree that the conversation that surrounds it is one that the BC community needs to have. We need to know why BC is one of the worst universities in the nation when it comes to interracial relations. It is a black eye for the school and we, the students, need to take proactive measures to change the status quo.

Unfortunately, this conversation has taken an ugly turn with threats being leveled against the author, a freshman, who is understandably taken aback by the situation. Whether or not you agree with what the article said, I once more believe that we can all agree that all people have a right to articulate their point of view without fearing for their personal safety. I am not going to outline the specific threats in this publication, but I will call on leaders of the BC community to stand behind this letter and call for respect and civility in this matter.

I have come to love and respect the people on this publication that I have grown so very close to over the past four years. I see them as my brothers and sisters and would do anything for them. As such, it pains me incredibly to see this happen to one of my writers. This has to stop, and it has to stop immediately. From the time of this publication forward, any threats or harassing e-mails to the writer will be reported immediately to the Boston College Police Department.

Since I have taken over as Editor-in-Chief, this publication has made a strong commitment to dialogue. I have previously met with members of the Global Justice Project, the President of College Democrats, and we will continue that commitment. In the two days after the publication of this issue, I will be meeting with the co-president of the Cuban-American Students Association, the AHANA Caucus, and any other minority student group which asks for my time. Additionally, I have already committed to a panel on race-relations sponsored by the Student Programs Office and Dean Karl Bell on October 26th.

Thanks so much for reading The Observer.

Michael Karl Reer
Editor-in-Chief
bcobserver@gmail.com

Oldřich Černý

A full twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, successful Eastern European democracies continue to amaze scholars and political scientists. With little previous experience or education in democratic practices, countries like the Czech Republic were able to build western-style governments virtually from scratch. One only needs to look as far as Oldřich Černý, former Director General of the Czech Foreign Intelligence Service, to see how these governments grew from the most unlikely parts of society.

Although most observers of the region know that Václav Havel, the first president of the democratic Czechoslovakia, was a playwright before starting his political career, few know that Oldřich Černý made his living moving apple crates and dubbing movies shortly before being assigned National Security Adviser to post-Soviet Czechoslovakia. Having met Havel previously at a gym, Černý was an active participant in the Velvet Revolution. Thinking his job was done after a democratic Czechoslovakia was established, Černý sought to return home for a life outside of government service, but Havel asked him to serve in his new cabinet as National Security Adviser. At first, the idea seemed “absurd and preposterous” to Černý, and, in fact, the job was the only unfilled cabinet position because “no one even wanted the job.” Despite his misgivings, Černý would serve as National Security Adviser until the breakup of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia in the mid-1990s, and would later serve as head of the nation’s intelligence core.

Černý’s inexperience in government was the rule rather than the exception. “We were all hopelessly inexperienced,” he recalls. He admits that most of the new civil servants at least attempted to look the part of government officials, donning “ill-fitting suits” instead of their usual jeans and t-shirts. The first thing he noticed as head of intelligence was that the former dissidents would make terrible intelligence officers because, by nature, none of them would accept authority. It was then that Černý admits to making one of his biggest mistakes in turning to the professionals who had previously served under the Soviet Union. “They were eager to help, but were still in the mindset of the 1960s when they were purged from the Soviets. They organized us to fight the United States!”

Realizing the absurdity of the situation, Černý decided that it was time to rustle up a few new recruits, sometimes using persuasion through “heavy drinking.” These recruits were sent to Great Britain, despite the language differences, for training at MI6 and MI5, which had recently created new courses for the Czech intelligence under the direction of Lord Butler.

Not being an expert in English himself at the time, Černý could not understand why he “had to meet with some butler, who was supposedly the highest civil servant in Britain. I didn’t want to meet with servants. I wanted to meet with the people who could help the Czech intelligence,” he laughs.

Černý is also quick to recount how idealistic the young democratic leaders were, as they all wanted to fully embrace the West as quickly as possible. “When the [United States] Senators and foreign delegates came, we said that we wanted to be a part of NATO and the European Union even though seventy thousand Soviet troops were still in our country.” The new Czech intelligence agency also had to deal with the vast army of Soviet intelligence and counter-intelligence that still roamed much of the country. In addition, the new problems of a democracy often confronted the intelligence community, as drugs, crime, and bank fraud became more common in the Czech Republic. Today, despite the imposing threat of Russia, Černý believes that the intelligence community must focus more strongly on the threat of terrorism, as he believes that the “threshold for awareness is low and that the people are not prepared.”

Despite the fact that the Soviet intelligence community unsuccessfully tried to recruit Černý early in his professional career as a book editor, little in his early life would indicate that he would rise to such success in the new democratic government. His experiences are seen by many Americans and Czechs alike as being indicative of the grassroots democracies that took root in the Eastern European post-Soviet bloc.

Today, Oldřich Černý is the head of the Prague Security Studies Institute, one of the first thinktanks in the Czech Republic.

The Czechs had every reason to be optimistic about Obama. He came to visit Prague in his first international tour, something no U.S. president had done since the first President Bush had come in the wake of the fallen Berlin Wall. Obama’s rhetoric matches that of the classic liberal, putting an emphasis on the free choice of nations and individual national sovereignty. From all indications, Obama would be a different type of Democrat than Roosevelt, who acquiesced to Soviet domination of Central and Eastern Europe, throwing the entire region into a reign of darkness.

Perhaps this optimism is the reason why the Czechs are so disappointed now. Obama’s scrapping of the missile shield was a blatant sell-out. The Russians, to be fair, were putting up stiff resistance to the missile shield, but this resistance was token at best. As one Czech foreign policy official told me, “The Russians want the Americans to put the shield on one of their countries…as if we are still a Soviet satellite and can’t make our own decisions.” It is highly doubtful that the Russians would have taken concrete action against the Czechs for deploying the U.S. missile shield, especially since the missile shield would not have presented any danger to the Russians themselves.

The physics and mathematics of the situation are crucially important. The U.S. proposal included a radar system in the Czech Republic and actual antiballistic missiles in Poland. This system would protect the United States only from ballistic missiles originating from Iran, not from Russia. It seems strange, therefore, that the Obama administration would take the Russian’s opinion into such high account considering that the Russians had no security stake in the matter whatsoever.

It seems doubtful that the Obama administration actually scrapped the missile shield in order to save money. The stimulus packages makes this look like chump change. Additionally, if this missile shield is thought of as insurance, the economic tradeoff is a very good one. Billions or trillions of dollars of U.S. money would be lost if Iran successfully delivered a missile to Western Europe or the east coast of the United States. Some missile experts think that Iran can successfully deploy this type of missile if left unchecked for five or ten years. Do we really trust the Iranians to make the sane move here?

Two possibilities, therefore, present themselves when considering why the Obama Administration made such an odd move. First, it is possible that the government achieved concessions from the Russians in exchange for the scrapped missile shield. This amounts to nothing more than a blatant sell out. Obama, upon taking office, promised a new era of cooperation with American allies. If this is the case, American allies will now no longer have significant incentive to help the United States achieve its goals, knowing that they might be double-crossed at any point.

Secondly, it is possible that Obama intends this as a goodwill gesture towards the Russians. President Carter tried something similar when he first took office, moving U.S. missiles away from the Soviet Union’s boarders, hoping that the U.S.S.R. would respond by rolling back its own missiles. The strategy failed miserably, eventually scarring Carter’s reputation in foreign policy beyond repair.

The Czechs are realistic about their own importance in the world, attempting to supplement NATO forces by providing specialization instead of bulk troops. They have provided NATO with the best chemical unit in the world, and strive to make sure that redundancy in NATO is kept to a minimum. Hopefully, the Obama administration continues to give the Czechs incentive to cooperate with NATO and the United States and does not leave them hanging out to dry like the Roosevelt Administration did.

Crucifixes like the above were recently placed in classrooms across campus.

Returning to school for the spring semester, some professors were shocked to learn about a new university policy that added crucifixes to every classroom on campus over the winter break.  Calling the crucifixes and Catholic icons offensive at a Jesuit university, at least one professor is refusing to teach in classrooms adorned by a crucifix even if he should have to move his class to a different room at his expense.

The crucifixes have been a part of The Heights in scattered classrooms since the 1970s.  Former University President and current University Chancellor J. Donald Monan, S.J. has confirmed that there was no specific directive or university initiative to make the classrooms uniform in appearance.  Indeed, many of the professors who have come forward against the new crucifixes typically lecture in Merkert, a hall which did not have crucifixes adorned on the walls prior to the current semester.  Some classrooms in Gasson, meanwhile, have had crucifixes for the past few years.

Professor Hoveyda, the Vanderslice Millennium Professor and Chairperson of Chemistry at Boston College, found it disconcerting that the faculty were not consulted before the decision to implement crucifixes was reached by administrators.  He stated that “in any respectable university, it is the faculty who are responsible for the level and the quality of the education of our students; this does not pertain to administrators, particularly those who are either not scholars or are have never in their lives been highly respected serious scholars.”

Professor Hoveyda went even further when he said “I can hardly imagine a more effective way to denigrate the faculty of any educational faculty of an educational institution.  If that has been the purpose of the administration of Boston College, I congratulate them, as they have succeeded brilliantly.”

Even some professors who recognize a duty on the part of a Catholic university to expose its students to Catholicism object to the crucifixes on the basis that they impose too much upon the religious freedom of students.  Professor Scott, a member of the chemistry department, commented that “as a Jesuit university, BC does have a duty, in my opinion, to expose its students to Catholicism.  However, ‘expose’ and ‘impose’ ought never to be confused.”

The university denies that the crucifixes were ever meant to be or are in any way offensive to the campus community.  In fact, it seems as though the move to  introduce crucifixes into the classroom has been underway for some time as the administration has searched for some time for crucifxes that represent both Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross and BC’s commitment to social justice and missions around the world.

In a short statement to The Observer, University Spokesman John Dunn said that “Several years ago, University President William P. Leahy, SJ, appointed a Committee on Christian Art at Boston College, chaired by T. Frank Kennedy, SJ., then chairman of the Music Department and now director of the Jesuit Institute.  The committee’s charge was to promote Christian art on campus, reflecting the Jesuit, Catholic mission and character of Boston College.  Over the past few years, the committee’s efforts have resulted in statues, banners, paintings, music recitations, crucifixes and icons in buildings, residence halls, and classrooms throughout campus.  Many of the artifacts have been donated by students who brought them back from immersion trips.  This Christian art is meant to constitute an enrichment of the culture at Boston College and is reflective of the University’s pride in its religious heritage.”

Student reaction, meanwhile, remains mixed.  Although Professors Hoveyda and Scott cited several examples of even Christian students taking offense to the new icons and crucifixes, some members of BC find their arrival “comforting.”  Billy Cody, A&S 2011, argued that “having a Crucifix or an icon in the room is a powerful daily reminder of Christ’s sacrifice for us and that without him we are nothing.  It fits perfectly with the Jesuit motto ‘Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam’ (For the Greater Glory of God) because its presence reminds us that even in the classroom, we act for His greater glory.”

The university has declined to comment on what, if any, action will be taken against professors who refuse to hold classes in their assigned classrooms.  How far professors will press the issue also remains unclear, as one professor recently said, “I do not feel comfortable sharing with you what the faculty plan to do, but I can tell you that we are not going to just sit back and watch this.”

CREDIT: University Archives, John J. Burns Library, Boston College