The Campus Radicals
Two words were penned in the September 30 box on the whiteboard calendar in the office
cubical: blue moon. “What’s a blue moon?” a woman in the office queried. “It’s when two full moons
occur in the same month.” “How often does that happen?” she wondered.
“Sometimes, people say more than they realize,” exclaimed nationally-renowned Catholic
apologist Mark Shea as he began the lively introduction to his lecture, entitled “How to Be a Campus
Radical.”
During his lecture on the afternoon of October 2, Shea explained “how to live an authentic
Catholic life on campus among a diversity of ideologies.” Following his introductory anecdote, the
apologist quickly enumerated the most common complaints outsiders pose about the Catholic
Church. “Some exclaim, ‘The Church is lazy and wrong; it liberally absorbed pagan myths into the
Bible, incorporated occult ritual practices into its liturgies, and takes for granted events such as the
Assumption.’ Others maintain, ‘The Church is narrow, obsessed with doctrinal purity, and will
execute anyone who dissents from its teachings.’ Some lament, ‘The Gospel is so simple, and yet the
Catholic Church has made it so complex,’ while still others ask mockingly: ‘For how long does the
Church expect to rely solely on its simple little Gospel?’”
Shea remarked that British journalist and Catholic apologist G. K. Chesterton reconciled such
disparities in his work Orthodoxy, when he explained that some thought a particular man was too tall;
others, too short; some, too fair-skinned; and still others, too dark. Perhaps the accusers themselves
are “off:” too tall, or too short, for example, and the man about whom they speak is “just right” in all
the enumerated categories, just like the Catholic Church.
Next, Shea pointed out that society will often isolate biblical passages to justify some present
behavior. “The Bible proclaims there is life after death, so the use of ouija boards and psychic
mediums is justified. Scripture confirms that God gifted humans with free will, and that naturally
includes the right to have an abortion. God judges us on works, so it is certain that all will experience
salvation.”
Like many of the common complaints against the Church, these faulty justifications for sinful
acts or heretical beliefs are merely based upon pieces of Church doctrine that are not expressed in
their full content. Indeed, each argument expresses a concept or truth that has been isolated from the
ecosystem that is Church teaching. Shea remarked, “Environmentalists will not ask, ‘What’s the use
of this rainforest? Let’s just get rid of it!’” Rather, they understand that it functions as an integral part
of the world’s ecosystem, for it provides a home for thousands of unique species of flora and fauna.
Religious doctrine, too, is like an ecosystem: to understand the Catholic faith, one must appreciate the
necessity of all the components of the doctrine and not isolate or dispose of any part of it. “What does
it mean to be radical?” questioned Shea. “It means to be rooted. Root yourself in the whole of
tradition.” [Emphasis mine.]
Finally, Shea turned his attention to evangelization. His advice? Invite others to Mass. “There,
they will see Jesus. The priest holds Him up! There, they will hear the word of God proclaimed from
the altar.” After all, God reveals Himself to us in the person of Jesus, and we can experience a
tangible encounter with the Risen Christ through the sacraments.
While on earth in the corporal form, Jesus could have revealed Himself in a number of ways.
In Luke, the Devil suggests to Jesus, “Throw yourself down from the parapet of the temple, and
[God’s] angels will save you” (4:9-10). Doubting bystanders at the cross taunted, “If you are the Son
of God, come down from the cross” (Matthew 27:41). Jesus could have chosen a variety of majestic
and awe-inspiring methods with which to reveal Himself, methods that would leave no doubt that He
was the Son of God. But, He chose to accomplish this revelation through His disciples.
Jesus asked them, “Who do you say that I am?” (Matthew 16:15). When the disciples
answered, Jesus would listen. Shea outlined a list of three questions that we must ask when spreading
the Good News. First: Who is my neighbor? We must understand our neighbor. Jesus would always
reply to His followers so as to help strengthen their relationships to God. In other words, he
understood them and comprehended why they asked Him their questions. Second: What does my
neighbor love? All people desire their happiness, and Shea emphasized that Jesus is ultimately the
deepest desire of our hearts. We must help our neighbor pinpoint his desires. Finally: What is my
neighbor’s need? When encountering the blind man on the road to Jericho, Jesus asked him, “What
do you want me to do for you?” (Luke 18:41). We must point our neighbor to the One who will
answer his needs.
Passionately ending his speech, Shea proclaimed, “We must be rooted in the fullness of the
revelation of Jesus. Go to Mass, get Confirmed, practice love in little ways, read the Scriptures,
practice the corporal and spiritual works of mercy, and seek Jesus ‘in the least of these.’” When we
become living tabernacles of Christ, we help the Truth to shine bright among the variety of ideologies
on campus.
Stephen Barbarossa is a sophomore.
Too Catholic, or Not Catholic Enough?
I must admit, I was surprised to see the flyer on the bulletin board, which questioned in large
block letters: “Too Catholic or Not Catholic Enough? Come to the Town Hall Meeting to examine
the Catholic Identity of Gonzaga University.” “Can a Catholic university be too Catholic?” I queried
aloud. “Isn’t that like moving to Hawaii on one’s own accord, attracted by the allure of the sun and
the sand, and then complaining that it is too hot?”
On Wednesday evening, October 20th, approximately one hundred students, faculty, and
religious members gathered in Cataldo Hall, prepared to engage in a lively discussion on the
Catholicity of the university. Although only about 1,300 students completed the Campus Climate
Survey during the spring of 2010 (about a quarter of the campus population), many of those surveyed
broached the issue of the university’s Catholicity. Thus, the Campus Climate Committee organized
this meeting to solicit additional feedback from the Gonzaga community on that topic.
The meeting began with an opening prayer composed of three verses, each of which contained
a brief reflection on one of the three theological virtues: faith, hope, and love. During his portion of
the prayer, Dr. John Sheveland, Assistant Professor of Religious Studies, acknowledged that we, as a
Gonzaga community, “rest in the space between unity and diversity,” a statement which encapsulated
one of the primary motifs of the meeting.
Following the prayer, moderator Molly Pepper, a professor of the School of Business,
proceeded to enumerate statistics gathered from the survey, first pointing out that all means given are
on a six-point scale, with a five or higher representing that students collectively described the
category as having “high importance.” For example, the average for perceived importance of
diversity is 5.15 while the average for the perception that the campus environment supports, or
celebrates, diversity is only 3.86. The average for the perception amongst Catholic students that the
campus climate supports diversity was 3.83, while for non-Catholic students it was 3.57. Note that
the differences between the means in these cases seem negligible. Thus, perhaps the demonstrated
variation in values is a natural byproduct of any survey. Evidently, while interesting, the slew of
numbers presented during the first few minutes of the meeting left me asking whether or not there
was really a difference in the way Catholics and non-Catholics perceive the campus climate.
Pepper then presented several examples of students’ quotes from the survey, examples that
aptly illustrated the polarity between the Catholic and non-Catholic perceptions. For example,
consider the following two quotes regarding religion classes, the first from a non-Catholic student
and the second from a Catholic student. “Any religion class here is taught strictly through the
Catholic perspective. In order for this university to be considered more diverse, other religious
viewpoints should be allowed and encouraged to enter the classroom.” “To be a Catholic here seems
to be looked down upon by faculty members, particularly in the Religious Studies department.” Wait
a minute. All religion classes only include material from a Catholic perspective, but the teachers of
those same classes “look down upon” Catholic students, who profess the very beliefs the professor is
teaching?
Note the first student’s use of the indefinite pronoun “any,” which suggests the responder is
broadly characterizing all the religion classes as presenting material through a Catholic perspective
without an actual basis. Surely that student does not mean to suggest that the Protestant professors,
too, teach from a Catholic perspective? I myself have taken a class in which the professor explained
how he thought Catholics misinterpret the meaning of the word “rock,” saying it is upon this error
that the papacy is based. That is definitely not a Catholic perspective.
Now, consider the second quote. While some of the professors certainly disagree with the
principles of Catholicism, I cannot imagine them thinking less of a student who professed those
beliefs. Professors may, however, consciously or unconsciously challenge a student’s Catholic beliefs
through the material they present. Granted, such challenges can inspire students to seek to understand
the Catholic response to such criticisms, and thus afford them the opportunity to grow in their faith.
Oddly, a common, albeit invalid, critique which non-Catholic students offer on the classes here is that
some professors are “trying to convert them to Catholicism,” as is evident in the following response
to the Campus Climate Survey. “I feel as though Jesuit aspects are forced on me as a student and that
if I don't participate in Jesuit aspects, I am lesser of a person.” Well, if that is not acceptable, and
indeed it is not, then neither should it be appropriate for professors to criticize Catholic ideology or
promote non-Catholic principles; but again, a professor doing either or both of those is different from
a professor “looking down on” a Catholic student.
Thus, from these two quotes, one might glean that some responses to the survey, as
characterized by the first comment, were likely impulsive. Perhaps if the responder considered the
implications of his or her comment, he or she may have reworded it or even not submitted it,
realizing the presented claim was grossly inflated. In contrast, the second comment embodies an
element of truth, if interpreted as misconstruing the professors’ presentation of anti- or non-Catholic
opinions as looking down on Catholic students. While other viewpoints may be presented in the
classroom, they must always be tempered with a fair representation of the Catholic perspective.
After Pepper provided several more examples of survey responses, many of which seemed
impulsive, the attendees of the meeting were directed to discuss amongst themselves answers to a list
of questions regarding the Catholicity of the university. Below are three of the questions discussed at
length during the meeting, as well as proposed answers:
What does “too Catholic” look like?
Would a university that is “too Catholic” stipulate mandatory Mass attendance, prohibit the
presentation of any material that is not Catholic, such as literature or philosophies developed by nonCatholics, or host “conversion sessions” for the non-Catholic students? No, for none of those
decisions even reflects Catholic ideology. Mass attendance is voluntary. The Catholic intellectual
position prides itself on its holistic approach to knowledge, which includes examining the works of
non-Catholics. Finally, one must freely decide to convert; if one is forced, then a true conversion, one
in which the individual has dedicated his life to the Trinity and to acting on Christian principles, has
not occurred. Any institution that denied those three truths would not be a Catholic university. Thus,
since the above depiction was the commonly shared perspective of a “too Catholic university,” and
yet what it advocates is certainly not Catholic, it must be impossible for any institution to be “too
Catholic.”
What do you mean by “not Catholic enough”?
A university that is “not Catholic enough” fails to integrate the religious perspective into all
aspects of the education it offers students. To some extent, Gonzaga does encourage such integration,
through classes such as “Science and Religion” and “The Philosophy of Walker Percy,” Interestingly,
though, it is the Religious Studies department that does not offer many specifically Catholic classes.
There is no opportunity for students to take Mariology, Catholic Apologetics, or Patristics. A
Catholic university should provide ample opportunities for its students to discover the rich
intellectual tradition of the Catholic Church so as to deepen their understanding of their own faith. As
one survey respondent so aptly remarked, “I came here for a Catholic education; don’t water it
down.”
Do you see a difference between a Catholic education and an education in a Catholic university?
After the meeting, sophomore Lindsay Fague remarked, “A Catholic education makes
Catholic practices and knowledge essentially mandatory for its students. Education in a Catholic
university means crucial administrative decisions are subject to Catholic thought, while more
personal Catholic practices and learning are available to its community, yet are not mandatory.”
Fague also described her experience in Catholic grade school, emphasizing that everyone “would
pray before each class, attend Masses once a month or more, and take religion classes specifically
teaching Catholic doctrine.” Undoubtedly, such mandates are more fitting for a grade school where
nearly the entire population of students and faculty are Catholic.
Sophomore Laura Hylden expressed an opinion in concordance with that of Fague when she
asserted, “An education in a Catholic university should provide a Catholic education, as well as
create an environment with all the necessary resources in which young Catholics can learn about and
grow in their faith. This all happens while exploring contrasting beliefs, and even questioning the
Catholic Church in a safe environment.” Thus, both Fague and Hylden stipulate that an education in a
Catholic university must foster responsible discussion and facilitate the spiritual growth of its
students. Clearly, then, a Catholic education might be understood as one occurring on a smaller scale,
where students undertake an exploration of specifically Catholic doctrine. Conversely, an education
in a Catholic university allows one to examine a variety of viewpoints from the foundations of
Catholicism.
After only about thirty minutes of discussion, the small group talks ended, and Pepper invited
the attendees to share with everyone present any questions they developed during their discussions.
“Is Gonzaga here to own the Catholic identity, or do we put too much importance on political
correctness?” “How can we make students more comfortable expressing viewpoints in classes where
there is a supposed difference of opinions?” “What does it mean to be a Catholic university?”
Strangely, while the attendees were encouraged to pose their questions, others at the meeting received
no opportunity to suggest answers. Essentially, as Hylden observed, the meeting “did not resolve the
problem, but prompted more questions for a more specific discussion in the future. I think the
administration is going to have to hold another meeting as they try to narrow the scope of the
argument.”
Father Hightower offered a prayer to close the meeting, in which he included a quote from the
Christian Archbishop Desmond Tutu: “Disturb us, O LORD, when we are too pleased with ourselves.”
Perhaps this meeting will be the first in a series in which the Gonzaga students and faculty examine
the Catholicity of the university to ensure that we do not become complacent and lose sight of the
mission. In this way, the results of the Campus Climate Survey might be said to have disturbed the
Gonzaga community in regards to its Catholic identity.
Actually, it was a comment that Father Hightower made after concluding his prayer that
ultimately convinced those in attendance of the university’s commitment to its Catholic identity. He
jested, “We can tell this is a Catholic institution, because I was asked to make some announcements
after the prayer.” Some things just never change.
For more information, including all the questions that attendees posed at the meeting and the brief
report regarding the responses from the survey administered during the spring of 2010, please access
the following website: www.gonzaga.edu/campusclimate.
Stephen Barbarossa is a sophomore.
Ever Ancient, Ever New
Exploring the Changes Instituted with the New Third Edition of the Roman Missal
“I always thought if I built a church I would just put one row of pews in it—along the very
back wall. Then, at the last minute before Mass began, all the pews would slide to the front of the
church,” jested Bishop Blase Cupich as he began his January 22nd presentation.
On that Saturday morning nearly one hundred students, seminarians, professors, and members
of various religious orders filled to capacity a large basement classroom in the Jepson Center. They
came to hear the bishop’s three-hour presentation on the history of the text used for Mass, and the
changes that the liturgy would undergo once the new translation is implemented on the First Sunday
of Advent, 2011.
Cupich commenced by briefly explaining the shift which the Catholic understanding of the
Mass has undergone. Until Vatican II, the Church largely understood the Mass as a sacrament
celebrated by the priest for the community. It is for this reason that many churches which were built
prior to Vatican II were structured so that the priest and the people both faced east, towards the altar.
However, the landmark council ushered in a new understanding by proclaiming that the Mass is a
liturgy celebrated by the members of the Body of Christ. It is the entire community of believers, the
whole Church, which celebrates the Mass. The role of the laity, then, is clearly a participatory one. In
a sense, the attendees no longer sit at that single pew along the back wall, for the new understanding
of the liturgy draws believers closer to one another and to God.
“The Eucharist is the only repeatable Sacrament of Initiation,” the bishop explained. It
furthers the transformation of our hearts both through Jesus’ engagement with His flock and through
our dialogue with Him.
For decades since the Church developed the new understanding of the Mass, the bishops and
priests have seen a need for a new translation of the Mass, one that more accurately reflects the
participatory role of the believers. Before detailing the changes that will occur, though, the bishop
presented a brief history of the language of the Mass. “While this is not the first generation to use a
vernacular language for worship in the Roman Rite, it is the first to incorporate it by way of
translation,” Cupich reminded the audience.
Indeed, the sentiments that first inspired the translation may be best summarized by the
following question: “If the liturgy is the entire Body of Christ coming together, why do very few of
the parishioners know what is happening during the ritual?” Again, because the action of the
Eucharist involves the whole Church, the believers cannot stand by as mere spectators; rather, they
must become active participants, enthusiastically sharing in the Church’s worship.
Although the original English translation of the Mass recognized that fact, it was produced
astonishingly quickly, for the bishops, priests, and laity desired to implement the vernacular rendition
as shortly after Vatican II as possible. The first translation, the English edition of the Missale
Romanum, appeared in 1970. Then, the Church released a second English translation in 1985.
Notably, the speed with which these translations were produced may or may not have affected their
accuracy. However, a third English translation–the one to be implemented beginning in Advent of
2011–became necessary when the Vatican released the Third Latin Edition of the Missale Romanum.
Essentially, the publication of the third edition of the Missale Romanum presented the Church
with another opportunity to issue a new English translation. This time, they would ensure that it more
closely conformed to the actual Latin text. Thus, the Church had to determine exactly how to
translate the Latin. Eventually, the Church mandated that the new text must remain faithful to the
original Latin. However, they also stipulated that idioms or other expressions could be used if they
conveyed a concept in a manner true to the meaning of the Latin text.
This decided, as the twentieth century drew to a close, a committee composed of members of
fourteen English-speaking bishop conferences met to oversee the third translation process. The actual
translation work was completed by a large committee composed not only of Church officials, but also
of literature, poetry, patristic, and Latin scholars, and even select laity, to ensure that the finished
product was as close to the original Latin form as possible.
No less than ten years after they began, the committee presented a draft of the revised English
translation–now based on the New Third Edition of the Roman Missile–to a council in Rome. From
there, the translation was reviewed several times by various boards before the Vatican approved it.
Concluding the history portion of his presentation, the bishop then began presenting numerous
examples to illustrate the form the changes–both minute and significant – would take:
 At the beginning of the Mass, the priest says to the members of the congregation, “The LORD
be with you.” They respond, “And also with you.” Under the new translation, the believers will
now respond, “And also with your spirit,” which is much closer to the meaning of the original
Latin text. This change might cause some to ask, “Is this meant to emphasize the division
between the body and the spirit?” No, not at all. Remember, the priest serves as a
representative of Jesus Christ on earth. When the believers utter the new response, they do so
not to reply to the priest saying the Mass, but to acknowledge that the spirit of Jesus speaks
through the priest. This new response highlights that Jesus is truly present at the Mass.
 In general, Bishop Cupich explained that the new translation “reclaims the distinctive way
prayers of the Roman Rite are expressed, especially through complex rhetorical devices such
as parallelisms, repetition, and the use of concrete images.” Thus, during the penitential rite,
Mass participants will soon utter the lines “I have greatly sinned . . . through my fault, through
my fault, through my most grievous fault.” “The repetition,” noted Cupich “adds to the prayer
a sense of intensity that had previously been lost.”
 “We believe in one God, the Father almighty . . .” is the beginning of the Nicene Creed which
believers currently proclaim at Mass. However, “We believe” will soon change to “I believe.”
This does not emphasize division, but rather the individual commitment each of us make to
Jesus Christ. In The Creed in Slow Motion, Monsignor Ronald Knox explains, “When we say
[the Creed], we are not meant to lose ourselves in a crowd. Every clause of it is the expression
of my opinion, for which I am personally responsible” (2). [Emphasis mine.] Again, this
change reflects more closely the original Latin, in which the verb opening the Creed was
singular.
Other changes were made to better express the closeness of God to His people, to emphasize that God
takes the initiative and then we respond to him, or to accent our reliance on God. Musically, the
changes mandate that the priest chant more of his material, but there is no new dictum concerning
appropriate or inappropriate music.
After providing the attendees with numerous examples, both general and specific, of the form
the changes would take, the bishop proceeded to outline a plan for implementation. Obviously,
education and outreach will assume a prominent role in ensuring that Catholics are not only made
aware of the changes, but understand why these changes have been made. In addition to bulletin
inserts and articles in diocesan publications, Cupich is considering the possibility of producing a set
of informative videos on the new translation. He and his staff will also ensure that they use media that
will convey the message not only to adults, but also to youth. It is likely that other dioceses will
implement similar measures.
It is rather ironic that many perceive this translation as “new” or “a change,” when, in fact, the
overall goal of the Church was to issue a missal whose language was as close to the original Latin as
possible. Thus, while the original text is certainly ancient, the Church is also working to make it ever
more new, true, and effective.
Stephen Barbarossa is a sophomore.