I am no anti-Cupid. Let me make it obvious that I love love. After all, I am a pseudo-philosopher, a sometime poet and an avid consumer of Victorian romance novels. But lately, I have felt disillusioned with the commercialization of Valentine’s Day.

Don’t get me wrong. I am the patron saint of little knick-knacks like stuffed animals, heart-shaped boxes and other cute figurines. One look at my dorm room, which is stuffed to the brim with baubles, would tell you this. However, the reason why I collect these decorations and gifts is because I think that – ideally – they should have substance. 

February 14th has lost its substance. In my opinion, the whole month has just become an excuse to sell pink and red stuff without much reason at all. Where’s the passion, the joie de vivre? 

Perhaps it is time to remember the history of Valentine’s Day in order to re-inject some substance into our celebration. The origins of Valentine’s Day are a tad murky, but are filled with intrigue and horror. To understand the holiday, we should look at its Catholic and pagan elements. 

The Catholic Church recognizes three St. Valentines: what they each share in common is that they were beheaded by different Roman emperors. One St. Valentine was martyred for marrying men to their beloveds at a time when the Roman empire required young men to remain unmarried. The policy was implemented because the Romans believed single men were most capable of performing military services. Another St. Valentine was martyred for freeing prisoners from a jail. He was caught and arrested, but succeeded in converting the jailor’s family to Catholicism after miraculously healing the man’s daughter. Rumor has it that this St. Valentine was enamored with the jailor’s daughter, but that this romance was short-lived (after all, St. Valentine ends up losing his head). The third St. Valentine’s story has been lost – relatively little is known about him, and his story has likely been absorbed into the narrative accounts of the other St. Valentines. The Catholic Church has long celebrated the lives of these saints with a feast on February 14th. 

In the fifth century, Pope Gelasius I decided to combine this feast day with Lupercalia. Lupercalia was a Roman fertility festival that was usually celebrated during the month of February. To encourage fertility in young women, men would dress in loin cloths and gently whip women with hides of animals like goats and dogs. Unfortunately, when Pope Gelasius I combined Valentine’s Day with Lupercalia, we lost this gentle whipping tradition. 

I think we can bring back this tradition in a fun, modern way–without diminishing the importance of the Catholic Church. As Valentine’s Day is a celebration not just of romantic love, but of affection generally, we should encourage everyone to playfully whip each other with towels to show signs of affection, the way teenagers do in a locker room. Valentine’s Day would be much more fun–and substantive–if it became a frenzied, international game of towel-tag. 

Further, the Valentine’s Day knick-knacks could be kitschy and substantive if they included a little more beheading. In this way, they could hearken back to all three St. Valentines’. Instead of little stuffed bears kissing each other, we should buy little bears with removable heads that say such things like: “I would die for you!” 

Despite the commercialization of Valentine’s Day, I do think the holiday is quite nice. I am always cheered to see everyone decorate with great zeal in celebration of love. While I think we are not realizing the full pagan and Catholic potential of Valentine’s Day, with all its gore and ritual, I still think the holiday is worth engaging in. 

Remember to engage in some friendly towel whipping this Valentine’s Day!

Critics allege recent amendments approved by France’s Senate to an anti-separatism bill infringe on civil liberties and reflect rising Islamophobia among French political elites. 

The amendments were offered to a broader anti-separatism bill backed by French President Emmanuel Macron in response to recent terrorist attacks. The bill is intended to strengthen France’s policy of strict secularism. In particular, the French political elites widely viewed the murder of Samuel Paty, a public school teacher executed by 18-year-old Abdoullakh Anzorov after using cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed in a class, as an attack on France’s secularist tradition. 

The Senate-approved amendments include controversial provisions that would ban girls under the age of 18 from wearing a hijab and prohibit hijab-wearing parents from accompanying school trips. Critics condemn the bill for regulating girls’ bodies and also question the age demarcation in the Senate amendment, noting that the Senate recently backed a bill to impose 15 as the age of consent in France. 

To be enacted, the amendments would have to be approved by France’s lower parliamentary house, the National Assembly. The amendments face uncertain prospects in the Assembly where Macron’s La République En Marche! Party holds the largest bloc of seats. However, the party and Macron’s rightward shift in the last few months fuel concern.

Even if the amendments were to be included by the National Assembly in the final bill, experts contend that they would likely be struck down by France’s constitutional council. 

Lurking in the background of this debate is a charged political environment about France’s secularist tradition and the looming presidential election in 2022. 

Like the United States, France’s Constitution requires religious neutrality on the part of the state. This tradition in France is known as laïcité. Laïcité is a term commentators have struggled to translate into English. Its intended purpose is to impose a strict separation between religion and public policy. Different historical and cultural experiences underpin the American and French conceptions of the separation of religion and state.

Both originate in the intellectual ferment of the Enlightenment. Whereas the historical roots of the American principle of separation of church and state are rooted in a conception of individual religious freedom, laïcité is rooted in the idea of collective freedom from religious domination. In the French context, laïcité is historically identified as being in opposition to the traditionally powerful role that the Catholic Church played in France. 

During the convulsions of the French Revolution, the first glimpses of a laïcité policy are visible in legislation advanced in 1795 but were quickly discarded in the midst of political turmoil. 

The policy would resurface after the dissolution of the Second French Empire and the formation of the French Third Republic in 1870. Opponents of the Catholic Church’s continuing role in French politics successfully passed a version of laïcité in 1905 and the principle has largely proven a pillar of the French political system since. Both the Constitution of Fourth Republic and the current Fifth Republic enshrine laïcité. 

Though the policy was initially entrenched as a bulwark against Catholic influence, as France’s Muslim population has grown to one of the largest in Europe, fraught debates began between Islam and laïcité in French society. This ongoing debate between laïcité and Islam has drawn repeated accusations of Islamophobia on the part of the French government by critics in the past 30 years.

In seeking election in 2017 and during his first years in office, Macron cultivated a personal image as a political moderate and social liberal. However, following Islamist-inspired terrorist attacks, Macron has shifted towards the right.

To orchestrate and serve as a symbol of this governmental shake-up, Macron elevated Gérald Darmanin, a youthful lightning rod of French conservatism, to the powerful Ministry of Interior. 

This position – a combination of the duties of the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security in the U.S. who also has charge over France’s police force – is one of the most prominent in France.  

Darmanin remains under investigation for a 2009 rape allegation as well, drawing criticism to Macron for selecting him to head one of the most powerful ministries in France.

Moreover, Darmanin has polarized the electorate with staunch support for French police that draws strong support from powerful police unions while alienating much of the left. Further, critics accuse Darmanin of playing into Islamophobia with inflammatory rhetoric and action, such as criticizing halal shelves in stores. 

Darmanin’s appointment and tenure already have proven to be controversial. Loathed by the left for many of his stances, Darmanin is viewed suspiciously by the right for his defection from the traditional conservative party, Les Républicains, to join Macron. Darmanin remains close to former conservative French president, Nicolas Sarkozy.  

In a vivid illustration of the Macron Administration’s rightward shift, Darmanin recently accused Le Pen of being soft on radical Islam. 

Many have portrayed the anti-separatism bill as a strategy on the part of Macron ahead of next year’s presidential election. Analysts predict that Macron’s most formidable opponent will be Marine Le Pen, the leader of the far-right National Rally Party. 

Facing a fractured field on the left, pundits predict Macron is trying to lure some right-leaning voters away from Le Pen through taking actions on some of the far right’s focal issues.

This has included rhetorical changes to emphasize law and order and the introduction of this anti-separatism legislation that many see as explicitly targeting Islam. Macron and his ministers have also begun warning against “Islamo-leftism” in speeches. Macron also supports a controversial security bill that would toughen restrictions on filming police. 

Political experts and analysts warn Macron’s rightward shift risks alienating those on the left who Macron needs to turn out in a run-off election against Le Pen. In response to Macron’s strategy and recent tactics, critics repeat versions of Macron’s past statements, cautioning against weaponizing laïcité.

Saint Ann Catholic Church and School has reinvigorated debates about the relationship between the Catholic Church and the LGBTQ community after their leaders refused to admit an anonymous kindergartener because their parents are a same-sex couple.

The Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas released a statement defending the decision on the basis of adherence to the Catholic Church’s teachings.

“The challenge regarding same-sex couples and our Catholic schools is that same-sex parents cannot model behaviors and attitudes regarding marriage and sexual morality consistent with essential components of the Church’s teachings,” the Archdiocese expressed.

Contrary to popular belief, the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not teach that being gay or lesbian is a sin; they are considered beloved children of God like everyone else. However, the Catechism does determine sexual acts between people of the same gender to be “intrinsically disordered.”

“[T]he Archdiocese states that since same sex unions are not in conformance with the Church’s teachings on sacramental marriage and these unions have no current ability to bring their relationship into conformity, the parents cannot model behaviors and attitudes consistent with the Church’s teachings,” said St. Ann’s pastor, the Rev. Craig J. Maxim.

Maxim expressed unease about the family potentially causing confusion for Saint Ann’s students.

Angered families have expressed concern that this justification is a contradiction. They think that if the Catholic Church is most concerned with preaching love and morality, then surely a loving same-sex couple would set a better example than a troubled heterosexual one.

The Archdiocese’s statement was also criticized for not reflecting current scientific knowledge or even, arguably, the beliefs of the majority of its members.

“[Research] shows that children with gay and lesbian parents do not differ from children with heterosexual parents in their emotional development or in their relationships with peers and adults,” states a 2013 article from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

What does impact development is the quality of the relationship parents of any identity have with their child.

Little research has been done on how discrimination on the basis of familial sexual orientation may affect children, but according to UCLA, there is an observed relationship between discrimination in general and a higher risk of developing mental disorders. A child with a parent who suffers from a mental disorder is also more likely to exhibit symptoms of one themselves.

In the wake of the revelation of sexual abuse by clergy in Chile, one survivor who spoke of his sexuality was told by Pope Francis that God made him this way and loves him this way.

As of 2017, two-thirds of Catholics support same-sex marriage. Further support of the LGBTQ community is exhibited by an online petition started by Saint Ann families that has garnered over 1,000 signatures.

“Respectfully, we believe that the decision to deny a child of God access to such a wonderful community and education, based on the notion that his or her parent’s union is not in accordance with the Church’s teaching in Sacramental marriage, lacks the compassion and mercy of Christ’s message,” the petition states.

The letter further criticizes the Archdiocese’s statement by pointing out that the school has permitted students to attend Saint Ann’s if their parents are not Catholic or have strayed from its sacrament of marriage in other ways – including the practices of divorce, vasectomy and IVF treatments.

Allegedly, personal bias on the part of Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann is as much – or more – at fault for the exclusion of LGBTQ families as Catholic teachings. The Saint Ann decision also brings to light the bigger issue of the expansive power of bishops.

Bishops are the leaders of diocese and function in their relationship to the pope much like governors do the president. They control most funding, and schools and parishes must abide by their decisions. Consequently, if a priest were defy the bishop he would be excommunicated or defrocked.

The degree of this power means there is a high level of variance among different dioceses. According to New Ways Ministry, Kansas City, Missouri, is home to a number of LGBTQ friendly parishes and faith communities – including Guardian Angels, Holy Family, St. James and St. Francis Xavier.

Though Catholic schools are experiencing a decline in enrollment, they are still the most popular schools outside of the public system. Some Missouri Catholic schools have permitted students with same-sex parents to attend.

“There are some schools in our diocese in which there are kids from households with same-sex parents,” said Father Don Farnan, pastor of St. Charles Borromeo Parish and School in the Northland. “And if I was made aware of that, to me it’s not something I would go and ask the Archdiocese, because I would view it a little bit differently. I would say it is our job to love. I mean, that’s the base of God… Welcoming is an important aspect of loving, having open arms, open hearts, open doors.”

There are 36 Catholic Schools in the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph, but Farnan’s frankness is unique among his colleagues. When The Pitch reached out to local parishes to gauge other churches’ opinions, they were left without substantial responses. Instead, the reaction to Saint Ann’s admissions has come largely from media and members of the public.

A protester holds up a sign in reference to the sex abuse scandal within the Catholic Church as Pope Francis travels through the city in the Popemobile on Aug. 25, 2018, in Dublin, Ireland.

On Nov. 12, Pope Francis once again delayed the process to address the pervasive problem of child sexual abuse within the Catholic Church. The bishops from each of the 196 archdioceses in the U.S. were scheduled to meet to vote on measures to confront the child sexual abuse crisis when, in the first few minutes of the meeting, a message from Pope Francis was relayed – asking the bishops to withhold their votes until the Pope could lead an international meeting of church leaders in February.

This continuous refusal by Church authority to swiftly and effectively address child sexual abuse is undoubtedly due to a systematic failure. A failure, firstly, by church officials and institutional Church leaders within the Church to report egregious acts of priests who utilize their station to abuse the most vulnerable members of their congregations. Secondly, the primary failure I will examine in this article, is that of the Church authority to legitimately reform the institutional structure of the Church in order to stem the problem at its source so that there is no impetus to cover these crimes up in the first place.

Unique to Catholicism among Christian denominations is its strong regulatory body, centralized in Vatican City in the personhood of the Pope. This central authority facilitates the Church’s unique ability to maintain harmonious and collective action among its members. Given this potent capacity, the Church, especially those in the highest positions of its institutional structure, has the power to wholly reform its structural integrity – to root out morally questionable features in order to be as pure as possible.

Before I begin it is probably necessary for me to acknowledge the obvious fact that only a small percentage of priests have sexually abused children. Still, just because this number is small does not mean it is negligible or that the problem can be resolved by simply removing or rehabilitating the priests who’ve committed these crimes. Child sexual abuse within the Catholic Church is a well-known and all too prevalent problem to be solved with one of these quick fixes.

The purpose of this editorial isn’t to question the theological validity of the Church. Theologically and spiritually, the Catholic Church has a religious right to practice and worship in ways that don’t constitute harm. Furthermore, Catholicism’s modes of worship and dogma are not what spur the prevalence of sexual abuse within the Church; in fact, the most fundamental Catholic beliefs utterly oppose these acts. Rather, I argue that there is an institutional culpability in this  egregious instance of moral decay in the Catholic Church.

I can sit down and write thousands of words about the moral decay I see present in the Catholic Church, but simply writing down what is wrong won’t do anything to fix it. So, I will present my argument for the proper response to the state of the institution. I argue for the overhaul of the institution of priesthood. I propose two key changes that can be made to the institution of priesthood to root out the moral corruption within.

1.) Allow priests to be fallible.

Priests aren’t – nor should they be – Jesus incarnate. Allowing priests to be viewed both by congregations and by Church administration as humans capable of making poor decisions will remove impetus to cover up their missteps and remove the overwhelming pressure upon priests to obfuscate their inevitable struggles with temptation. By not expecting total infallibility, struggling priests could turn to legitimate sources of help for their turmoil and struggles with sin rather than letting troubling inward feelings mutate into horrific acts.

Removing the requirement of celibacy for priesthood could be a valuable initial step to minimizing sex abuse. This is a prospect Pope Francis is seriously considering – he referred to the practice of celibacy as simply “discipline, not dogma.”

Placing the expectation of celibacy on priests is unnecessary and, according to a 1985 study, the leading deterrent of young men from joining the priesthood. The removal of such an expectation is a prospect already supported by 71 percent of the U.S. Church laity and 51 percent of American priests.

It is not unreasonable to examine the role of the celibacy requirement in the motivation of priests’ to sexually abuse children. For a tempted, already morally unstable priest who feels the need to release his sexual frustration, targeting children would be the least risky way to give in to the temptations. Since children are vulnerable and relatively powerless, they won’t have the means or understanding to report the crime, and if priests convince them that the abuse is something they cannot talk about with others – an easy proposition to sell, since Catholic children are taught of priests’ religious authority from a young age – they can commit these horrific acts while still retaining the appearance of a celibate priest.

Photo courtesy of Stop Abuse Campaign.

The solution to this crisis, however, is not a responsibility of members of the priesthood alone. The institutional framework of the Church – including Church administration, all the way up to the papacy – systemically facilitates the obfuscation of egregious acts committed by priests. This obfuscation enables morally bankrupt priests, who are essentially immune to social or legal punishment through the powerful shield of Church officials.

All too often, due to an intentional failure on the part of Church officials, whether it be diocesan leaders or Vatican authorities, it is a secular source that reveals this corruption. The most recognizable example of this, and the subject of the 2015 Best Picture Academy Award-winning film “Spotlight,” is the revelation of rampant child sexual abuse – and consequent cover-ups – among Roman Catholic priests and laypeople in Boston, Massachusetts, by a local newspaper – The Boston Globe.

This was reiterated most recently in Pennsylvania, when law enforcement opened an investigation into Pennsylvanian dioceses after reports of sex abuse – spanning over several decades, with an alleged victim count in the thousands – that was covered up by diocesan leaders. This is the first investigation led by the federal government of a Roman Catholic sex abuse case.

Dismantling the false appearance of infallibility will make Church authority less hellbent on covering up priestly failures, perhaps making them more likely to report crimes within the Church to law enforcement, who – as a necessarily secular entity – can adequately serve justice.  

The Church’s biggest mistake has been refusing to address the issue in fear of devastating effects on its own reputation. Presumably, Church officials fear the demise of the Church as we know it if they come clean about this crisis, so they construct illusions of infallibility to shield themselves from being deemed hypocrites, further entangling themselves in webs of contradictions that are so knotted up, the integrity of the Church will be utterly unsalvageable.

2.) Expand the criteria by which people may become priests.

Most importantly, the Church should open up priesthood to women. The immense pressure on priests to cover their duties in the face of a shortage of people to fill the vocation undoubtedly allows people who are unfit to be bestowed with the precious authority that they don’t have the responsibility or moral aptitude to use correctly. In Nov. 2017, Pope Francis raised the prospect of admitting married men into the priesthood as a way of covering for the shortage of priests in the Church.

Photo courtesy of The Denver Post.

While I think this is an apt approach in both covering for the shortage and minimizing sexual deviance among members of the priesthood, I find this relaxed standard to be hypocritical, considering the Church’s unchanging opinion on women in the priesthood.

In 2013, Pope Francis reinforced the Church’s exclusion of women from the priesthood, saying, “with regards to the ordination of women, the church has spoken and says no … That door is closed.” The majority of American Catholics, however, disagree, with 59 percent saying they favor the ordination of women in a 2010 poll. When Pope Francis reaffirmed his position in 2018, he explained his position, arguing that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is not a discriminatory tradition, that, in actuality, it is based in Catholic dogma.

This supposed dogma is based simply on the fact that Jesus’ apostles, and their successors, were all men. The historical context, however, is ignored here. In order for the Catholic Church to spread and enlighten according to its proper course, male leadership was necessary to attach legitimacy to the faith. As the association of femaleness with illegitimacy in authority has weakened over time, the Church should restructure the priesthood to reflect this social change.

This isn’t about “liberalizing” the Catholic Church. The only agenda I have in proposing that the pool of people who are able to serve as priests is the eradication of sexual abuse within the Church. This is, at its core, an endeavor that is essential to the moral viability of the Church. It is also an endeavor that requires the transformation of the Church’s structure.

The perpetuation of child sexual abuse is deeply intertwined in the Catholic Church’s tie to tradition. Because tradition is such a significant part of the Catholic faith – and religion in general, the idea of making significant changes to the structural composition of the Church seems like a potentially risky and irreversible decision that should be avoided at all costs. Instead of navigating the intricate task of excising moral corruption all the while preserving the holy traditional rite of the Church, leaders turn instead to duct-tape solutions that address immediate concerns but don’t attack the root of the problem.

I don’t want to leave unacknowledged the extreme difficulty of adequately handling situations of this caliber. On one hand, the Church authorities have to be concerned with the reputation of the Church – with ensuring that corruption in the priesthood is contained and eliminated to the best of their abilities, with appropriately administering the core virtue of forgiveness when dealing with priests who commit atrocious acts. On the other hand, the Church needs to ensure its own legitimate moral uprightness – there is no room for such outright examples of moral corruption in an institution that seeks moral purity.

For Church officials, a few important trade-offs emerge, and I believe these are what produce the disconnect from Church higher-ups and angry observers: At the expense of appearing as if we permit the commission of significantly immoral acts, do we do our best to work with and rehabilitate culpable priests in the name of forgiveness and compassion? If we immediately remove priests from their stations, could the Church’s existence be threatened? If we admit that there is a problem with child sexual abuse within the Church, will the reputation of the Church be irreparably tarnished?

Pope Francis was celebrated for being an anomalously progressive pope, mainly for his decision to let Catholic social teaching – a doctrine based on the New Testament that promotes the upholding of the dignity of all God’s creation – guide his social initiatives, seen most clearly in his publication of the encyclical “Laudato Si,” which involved the unprecedented acknowledgment of climate change, global warming, consumerism and Catholics’ duties to protect the Earth from these crises.

Still, it is incorrect and hypocritical to praise Pope Francis for extending the Church into a new, progressive era when he still refuses to adequately reform the institutional structure – the domain of which he is explicitly in charge – in order to address the most egregious and imminent offenses that have resulted from the complacency and ignorance of previous popes.

Moreover, though some point to authorities on lower levels of the Church hierarchy as the reasons why plans to address the crisis have failed, the unpopular papal decision to delay problem-solving discussions Nov. 12 has proven otherwise.

Several bishops expressed their disappointment with the Pope’s decision, taking issue with the lack of urgency with which the Vatican has been treating the situation. There is overwhelming support by bishops, priests and other clerical members for quick and strong action against this crisis, but all of it falls on the deaf ears of Pope Francis, the sole figure in the Church structure who has the power to begin this intensive Church overhaul.

Photo courtesy of St. Louis Today.

Pope Francis refuses to accept the intense, arduous role of the theological surgeon. He has a duty to carefully excise this metaphorical cancer within the body of the Church while keeping its integrity intact. As he denies its severity and refuses to perform the extraction, the cancer only metastasizes. Unacknowledged, it will destroy the Church in totality.

Ultimately, the power lies in the papacy to effect meaningful, successful and long-term eradication of the pathology present in the priesthood – but this power clearly hasn’t been realized by the one person who needs to realize it.

This problem is imminent. It is recent. It is current. It is constant. There is no time to wait for another encyclical that explicitly decries sexual abuse. Most importantly, there is no time to wait until February before even the simplest of discussions begin to root out this most egregious atrocity that the Church itself has perpetuated. To appropriate the words of Pope Francis in “Laudato Si,” this crisis demands “swift and unified global action.”

So, the question must be asked: What’s keeping Pope Francis from calling for a widespread and thorough investigation into the priesthood?

To understand the answer to this question, one must also understand that the Church is experiencing a sincere threat to its sustainability – members of monastic life, especially the priesthood, have dwindled significantly. Younger people are continually gravitating away from the Church. Presumably, the Pope fears a massive blow to the Church’s reputation that public acknowledgement, deep investigations and quick, reckless response could engender.

These fears are negligible, however, when considered in context of the crisis from which they arise. No child should be molested as a sacrifice for maintaining a robust priesthood. One child saved from a lifetime of trauma is worth the elimination of thousands of priests from the priesthood. What’s more, the continued protection of children from sexual abuse is absolutely contingent on the thorough overhaul of the Church’s institutional structure.

The Church will be tested. The priesthood will dwindle. The Church’s reputation will be damaged. But these setbacks ultimately pale in comparison to the spiritually necessary promises of justice, reparation and purity that lie beyond them.

Photo courtesy of Charles McQuillan, Getty Images.