The Fenwick Review
10
April 2014
Putin: A Conservative Ally? (cont.) Eric Kuhn ‘16 Staff Writer Continued from page 10 Vladimir Putin has even incorporated Christian symbolism into his foreign policy. Earlier in the year the holiest icon in Russian Orthodox Christianity, Our Lady of Kazan, was flown over the Black Sea and the Crimean Peninsula ostensibly to bless the opening of the Sochi Games. In the past however, the icon had only been
used to bless the battlefields where the forces of the Russian Empire were about to fight. The icon had even been brought to Stalingrad where it helped to successfully fight off the Nazi invasion. Perhaps it is a bit presumptive to suggest that Putin had this in mind when he did his stunt. Besides this, Putin in his New York Times op-ed referred to the Christian basis for Russian civilization as opposed to the rampant secularism of the West. Even of the recent past, the Soviet Union, Putin speaks in condemnatory terms, saying of the Bolsheviks, “May God judge them.” In
the landmark speech announcing the re-annexation of the Crimean Peninsula he said as well, “Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values. Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan. This is the path to degradation.” Could it be that Russia represents the last vestige of Christendom as an idea? Russia has the opportunity to become a rallying point for global conservatism. Unfortunately, it is likely that conservatives
in America will not be receptive toward this due to historical enmities and the usual war mongering that have marked the decline of the Republican Party. Putin may very well be successful in his attempts to change the global regime. He might even create a Holy Alliance for our age to fight the culture of death and mark a new era of national sovereignty. The nations would no longer be slaves to progressive supernational organizations that legislate against the beliefs and will of the people.
Bipartisan Fight to Re-Recognize College Republicans Patrick Horan ‘14 Co-Editor in Chief Late in the afternoon of Saturday, March 22, the Holy Cross College Republicans received an email from the Student Government Association (SGA) Senate informing them that “the Senate is not able to offer re-recognition to your [Recognized Student Organization] at this time” for next academic year. The email, signed by the Senate Speaker, stated, “The SGA Bylaws indicate that RSOs ‘maintain viable function, sustained participation, and continued leadership.’ We felt after our meeting that your organization did not meet these criteria.” Three-year club co-chair, Alannah Heffernan ‘14, immediately responded to the email, writing that the decision was “ill-advised and should be reconsidered.” The College Republican e-board reached out to club members as well as friends, including College Democrats, to meet before the SGA Senate meeting the following day to discuss the decision further and to persuade the Senate to reverse its decision. In little over 24 hours, a group of over 50 students, including Republicans, Democrats, libertarians, and independents, assembled at Cool Beans and walked up to the Senate meeting on the fourth floor of Hogan. Senate members explained that the CRs had made errors in filling out the paperwork for club re-recognition. However, in words not consistent with the email sent to the College Republicans the previous day, the Senate also explained that the
club had not been denied re-recognition, but that they had only been not recommended for re-recognition by the Senate RSO Re-recognition Committee. The upset College Republican leaders responded that the paperwork errors were minimal and that not recommending the club for re-recognition was a severe, overly punitive action. They also demonstrated that the club had indeed met SGA Senate criteria of “maintained viable function” through meetings and political discussions it had held during the year as well as through the impressive showing at the Senate meeting. In an act of bipartisanship, the co-chairs, Jake Love ‘14 and Jack Green ‘16 of the College Democrats also spoke on the Republicans’ behalf. Green remarked that the College Republicans have been a “great ally,” and Love noted that it would “reflect poorly on the school” if the Democrats were allowed re-recognition, but the Republicans were not. After a heated discussion between certain Senate members and the Republicans and their allies, the Senate reversed course and voted to rerecognize the club. Yea votes included Jake Bass ‘14, Christina Rudolf ‘14, Kylee Sullivan ‘14, Declan Foley ‘15, G. Matthew Greco ‘17, Fallon Parker
‘16, Meghan Taing ‘16, and Makayla Humphrey ‘15. Nays included Brian Beaton ‘16, Ed DeLuca ‘17, and Auranous Abhar ‘15. It was only at the insistence of SGA Judicial Council head Paul Hovey ‘14 and members of the audience that the vote was done in public. Overjoyed at the victory, Heffernan told The Fenwick Review, “I have never been more proud to be a Crusader than today. Thank you, fellow Republicans, Democrats, independents, and concerned students, who showed up tonight in support of the College Republicans. You inspire me!” Fellow co-chair, Charlie Jakubik ‘14 proudly stated, ““We are so glad that the SGA Senate came to the right decision. We also thank everyone who showed up tonight to support us!” Secretary Ricky Gonzales ’14 said, “I think this was a victory for the entire Holy Cross Community. This goes to show that the student body cares about its voice and that it is willing to speak up when it feels that voice is threatened.” Democrat Jack Green told FR, “I was honored to show my support for College Republicans at their hearing, and could not have been more proud to voice my support for their group multiple times at the meeting.” SGA Senators Parker and Bea-
ton met with the College Republican at the club’s next meeting on April 2. In a cordial conversation, Parker and Beaton talked with Republican leaders and members on possible ways to improve the re-recognition process in order to avoid such drama in the future. Although he had voted against the club’s re-recognition, Beaton was enthusiastic about new ways to better relations between the Senate and clubs on campus. The possibility of having the Senate reach out to clubs prior to the re-recognition process to remind RSOs to meet SGA criteria was raised as a viable alternative to the present system. The College Republicans also expressed the need to improve SGA’s transparency as the original email seemed to incorrectly suggest that the club had already been denied re-recognition. The Senate RSO Committee, whose votes and minutes are not public, erred in not recommending the College GOP for re-recognition for relatively small errors in filling out paperwork. The Senate failed to make clear what the actual procedure of the re-recognition process until the night of the March 23 Senate meeting. Although I cannot say for certain, I image that the large attendance that evening was probably the largest voluntary showing ever before at an SGA Senate meeting. Despite these mistakes, the SGA Senate should be commended for making the right decision in the end. Senators Beaton and Parker, in particular, should be applauded for their willingness to learn from this event and taking positive steps toward improving the way college clubs are recognized on campus.
April 2014
The Fenwick Review
11
Against Artificial Birth Control On The Unitive Aspect of Sex
Steven Merola ‘16 & Micala Smith ‘16 Staff Writers There is a troubling and pervasive attitude about artificial birth control, in that it is accepted as normal, convenient and harmless. None of these attributes, however, prove to be true. Contraception is destructive to human nature primarily because it obstructs the unitive aspect of sex and affords an occasion for sexual objectification. Have you ever heard the notion that each time you have intercourse with someone, you take a part of them with you? Metaphorically, for some this may be true. Sexual intercourse is an intimate act that directly connects a male and a female. The physical closeness of this act is undeniable. However, some research has shown that while engaging in sexual intercourse, one may be, quite literally, taking a part of their sexual partner with them. Microchimerism “refers to a small number of cells (or DNA) harbored by one individual that originated in a genetically different individual” (PubMed). Fetal microchimerism would then refer to the small number of fetal cells remaining in the mother following her pregnancy. This form of microchimerism has led to developments in the study of male microchimerism in females. Male microchimerism may not seem particularly notable in females who have given birth to sons, miscarried a male child, or aborted a male child, since male microchimerism would be expected in these situations. However, a study conducted by the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center showed that some females who had never been pregnant previously, but who had engaged in intercourse, exhibited male microchimerism. Thus, from intercourse alone, there is a potential for females to display male microchimerism; these females are harboring male genes and DNA that remain within their system. This certainly legitimates the claim that one takes a part of one’s sexual partner with them. There is a clear biological ex-
change of genes and DNA taking place between the male and female partners engaging in intercourse. This natural process is a bonding force, making sexual partners come together as one. But what happens when one tries to block this natural exchange through means of artificial contraception? The two partners cannot fully unite as one; contraception is an impediment to the natural unity and intimate exchange meant to occur between the male and female. Inherently, the biological purpose of intercourse is to procreate. But in utilizing contraception to separate sex from procreation, the true nature of the sexual act is lost. In this, potential for objectification for the human person ensues. Particularly for women, the effects of contraception can be farreaching. Research conducted by the Cancer Institute drew connections between negative medical effects and use of hormonal contraception, including “elevated risk of breast, cervical
and liver cancer for estrogen/ progestin pill users.” However, having risks associated with treatments or medications is not atypical as most medicine does carry with it some risks or side effects. What does become questionable is the women’s role in carrying the burden of such risks. Why does this fall on the woman? If means of artificial contraception such as birth control were, in many cases, meant to be “freeing” for women, then how does this additional burden play into the situation? Natural methods, such as Natural Family Planning (NFP) provide women with the ability to have a voice in planning a family through a non-invasive manner in which women monitor fertility signs. NFP gives validity
to the women’s feminine nature, without the burden of potential health risks and side effects. Contraceptive use can corrode the woman’s femininity in the sense that it has the potential to lead to the objectification of women. By robbing women of that which their bodies are naturally meant to do as a result of sexual intercourse, that is, to procreate, contraception wears on that aspect of the woman’s femininity, rather than allowing her to freely express it. Morally speaking, the greatest detriment that contraception presents is objectification. There is a unitive aspect to sexuality, in that it allows a man
is not merely a large hunk of flesh that we use to move. Rather, our physical bodies are an integral part of our human existence. Our body is part of who we are. How that body interacts with other, then, is of paramount importance to our human existence. The sexual act, the greatest thing one can do with one’s body, is the giving of this essential part of one’s existence to another, and in turn the reception of the other’s physical being. Nothing could be more intimate than this; nothing could be so personal an experience. Its profundity is far beyond the realm of superficial, sensual pleasure, and instead extends to the core of our existence. In the total consummation of this unity, when the sexual act is perfected, a child is created. Artificial birth control destroys this intimacy. All forms of contraception prevent the sexual act from being completed. In effect, it damages the act and reduces it to a less perfect form. The partners are distanced from each other. Rather than truly uniting, they merely pretend to unite, held at a distance by the birth control. The intimacy and depth of the act is replaced by a cold wall of separation, a shield from closeness. This is the greatest tragedy of the rise of birth control: it has removed the intimate and replaced it with objectification. Contraceptive sex, robbed of the ability to create life, is instead used merely for sexual gratification. Each partner is simply a means unto the end of pleasure, a tool for the other’s lust, an object. Contraceptive sex is not the exchange of being. It is a shrunken simulacrum of a truly splendid act. It perverts the sexual act, and misuses it for faulty ends.
Contraception is an impediment to the natural unity and intimate exchange meant to occur between the male and female
and a woman to share each other’s being. A single human person is incomplete: the man lacks the physical attributes of the woman, and the woman lacks the attributes of the man. When they meet in the sexual act, each shares with the other their unique physical being, and the human person is completed. In effect, the consummate sexual act is a giving of the self to another. Consider: if sex is complete physical self-sacrifice, it is necessarily one of the greatest acts of love which a human being can partake in. The body