Denver, Colo., Mar 11, 2020 / 03:01 am (CNA).- By this time in the coronavirus outbreak, you may have cruised the empty toilet paper aisles and pasta shelves at your local grocery store, and could have had moments of panic, or at least heightened anxiety.
With 13 U.S. states having declaring a state of emergency over COVID-19, what was once an overseas worry is now stateside. And for the general population, being a part of something like this is a new, and disconcerting, experience.
But it’s not a new experience in the life of the Church.
In the middle of the 14th century, the plague – also called “The Black Death” – also also called “The Greatest Catastrophe Ever” – ravaged Europe, killing 50 million people, or about 60% of the population (a vastly higher death rate than coronavirus), within a few years.
Lacking the advances of modern medicine today, and layering dead bodies in pits like “lasagne with layers of pasta and cheese,” the people had no choice but to cling to their faith.
It was at this time that the Fourteen Holy Helpers – Catholics saints, all but one of whom were early martyrs – came to be invoked by Catholics against the plague and other misfortunes.
According to New Liturgical Movement, devotion to these 14 saints started in Germany at the time of the plague, and they were called “Nothelfer,” which in German means “helpers in need.”
As bouts of the plague resurfaced over the decades, devotion to the Holy Helpers spread to other countries, and eventually Nicholas V declared that devotion to the saints came with special indulgences.
According to New Liturgical Movement, this introduction to the feast of the Holy Helpers (celebrated Aug. 8 in some places) can be found in the Cracow Missal of 1483:
“The Mass of the Fourteen Holy Helpers, approved by Pope Nicholas…it is powerful on their behalf, however so much one is in great illness or anguish or sadness, or in whatsoever tribulation a man shall be. It is powerful also on behalf of the imprisoned and detained, on behalf of merchants and pilgrims, for those that have been sentenced to die, for those who are at war, for women who are struggling in childbirth, or with a miscarriage, and for (the forgiveness of) sins, and for the dead.”
The collect for their feast in the Missal of Bamberg reads: “Almighty and merciful God, who didst adorn Thy Saints George, Blase, Erasmus, Pantaleon, Vitus, Christopher, Denis, Cyriacus, Acacius, Eustace, Giles, Margaret, Barbara and Catherine with special privileges above all others, so that all who in their necessities implore their help, according to the grace of Thy promise, may attain the salutary effect of their pleading, grant to us, we beseech Thee, forgiveness of our sins, and with their merits interceding, deliver us from all adversities, and kindly hear our prayers.”
Here’s a bit about each of the Fourteen Holy Helpers:
Saint George: While little is known definitively about his life, St. George was a fourth-century martyr under the persecution of the emperor Diocletian. A soldier in Diocletian’s army, St. George refused to arrest Christians and offer sacrifices to Roman gods. Despite bribes from Diocletian to change his mind, St. George refused the order and was tortured and eventually executed for his offenses. He is invoked against skin diseases and palsy.
St. Blase: Another 4th-century martyr, St. Blase’s death is very similar to that of St. George. A bishop in Armenia during a time of Christian persecution, St. Blase was eventually forced to flee to the forest to avoid death. One day a group of hunters found St. Blase, arrested him and brought him back to the authorities. At some point after his arrest, a mother with a son who had gotten a fishbone perilously stuck in his throat visited St. Blase, and at his blessing, the bone dislodged and the boy was saved. St. Blase was ordered by the governor of Cappadocia to denounce his faith and sacrifice to pagan gods. He refused, and was brutally tortured and eventually beheaded for this offense. He is invoked against diseases of the throat.
St. Erasmus: A 4th-century bishop of Formia, St. Erasmus (also known as St. Elmo) faced persecution under the emperor Diocletian. According to legend, he fled to Mount Lebanon for a time to escape persecution, where he was fed by a raven. After he was discovered, he was arrested and imprisoned, but made multiple miraculous escapes with the help of an angel. At one point he was tortured by having part of his intestines pulled out by hot rods. Some accounts say he was miraculously healed of these wounds and died of natural causes, while others say that this was the cause of his martyrdom. St. Erasmus is invoked by those suffering from stomach pains and disorders, and by women in labor.
St. Pantaleon: Another 4th-century martyr persecuted under Diocletian, St. Pantaleon was the son of a rich pagan, but was instructed in Christianity by his mother and a priest. He worked as a physician to the emperor Maximinianus. According to legend, St. Pantaleon was denounced as a Christian to the emperor by his peers who were jealous of his rich inheritance. When he refused to worship false gods, St. Pantaleon was tortured and his murder was attempted by various methods – burning torches on his flesh, a bath of liquid lead, being thrown into the sea tied to a stone, and so on. Each time, he was rescued from death by Christ, who appeared in the form of a priest. St. Pantaleon was only successfully beheaded after he desired his own martyrdom. He is invoked as a patron saint of physicians and midwives.
St. Vitus: Also a 4th-century martyr persecuted by Diocletian, St. Vitus was the son of a senator in Sicily and became Christian under the influence of his nurse. According to legend, St. Vitus inspired many conversions and performed many miracles, which angered those who hated Christianity. St. Vitus, and his Christian nurse and her husband, were denounced to the emperor, who ordered them to be put to death when they refused to renounce their faith. Like St. Pantaleon, many attempts were made at killing them, including releasing them to lions in the Colosseum, but they were miraculously delivered each time. They were eventually put to death on the rack. St. Vitus is invoked against epilepsy, paralysis, and diseases of the nervous system.
St. Christopher: A 3rd-century martyr originally called Reprobus, he was the son of pagans and had originally pledged his service to a pagan king and to Satan. Eventually, the conversion of a king and the instruction of a monk led Reprobus to convert to Christianity, and he was called on to use his strength and muscles to help carry people across a raging stream where there was no bridge. Once he was carrying a child who announced himself as Christ, and declared the Reprobus would be called “Christopher” – or Christ-bearer. The encounter filled Christopher with missionary zeal, and he returned home to Turkey to convert nearly 50,000. Angered, the Emperor Decius had Christopher arrested, imprisoned and tortured. While he was delivered from many tortures, including being shot with arrows, Christopher was beheaded around the year 250. He is invoked against epilepsy and toothache, and is the patron of a holy death.
St. Denis: There are conflicting accounts of St. Denis, with some accounts claiming he was converted to Christianity in Athens by St. Paul, and then became the first Bishop of Paris sometime in the first century. Other accounts claim he was a Bishop of Paris but a martyr of the third century. What is known is that he was a zealous missionary who eventually came to France, where he was beheaded on Montmartre – the Mount of Martyrs – a place where many early Christians were killed for the faith. He is invoked against demonic attacks.
St. Cyriacus: Another 4th century martyr, St. Cyriacus, a deacon, was actually favored by the emperor Diocletian after he cured the emperor’s daughter in the name of Jesus, and then the friend of the emperor. According to the Catholicism.org and The Fourteen Holy Helpers, by Fr. Bonaventure Hammer, O.F.M., after Diocletian died, his successor, emperor Maximin, increased the persecution of Christians and imprisoned Cyriacus, who was tortured at the rack and beheaded for refusing to renounce Christianity. He is the patron of those who suffer from eye diseases.
St. Acacius: A fourth-century martyr under the emperor Galerius, St. Acacius was a captain in the Roman army when he heard a voice telling him to “Call on the help of the God of Christians,” according to tradition. He obeyed the voice and immediately sought baptism in the Christian faith. He zealously set about converting the soldiers of the army, but was soon denounced to the emperor, tortured, and sent before a tribunal for questioning, before which he again refused to denounce his faith. After many more tortures, from some of which he was miraculously healed, St. Acacius was beheaded in the year 311. He is the patron saint of those who suffer from headaches.
St. Eustace: Little is known about this second-century martyr, persecuted under the Emperor Trajan. According to tradition, Eustace was a general in the army who converted to Christianity after a vision of a Crucifix that appeared between the antlers of a deer while he was hunting. He converted his family to Christianity, and he and his wife were burned to death after refusing to participate in a pagan ceremony. He is invoked against fires.
St. Giles: One of the later Holy Helpers and the only one definitively known to not be a martyr, St. Giles became a seventh-century monk in the area of Athens, despite his birth to nobility. He eventually retreated to the wilderness to found a monastery under the rule of St. Benedict, and was renowned for his holiness and the miracles he performed. According to Catholicism.org, he also once counseled Charles Martel, grandfather of Charlemagne, to confess a sin that had been weighing on him. Giles died peacefully around the year of 712, and is invoked against crippling diseases.
St. Margaret of Antioch: Another fourth-century martyr persecuted by Diocletian, St. Margaret, like St. Vitus, converted to Christianity under the influence of her nurse, angering her father and causing him to disown her. A consecrated virigin, Margaret was tending flocks of sheep one day when a Roman spotted her and sought to make her his wife or concubine. When she refused, the Roman had Margaret brought before a court, where she was ordered to denounce her faith or die. She refused, and she was ordered to be burned and boiled alive, and miraculously she was spared from both. Eventually, she was beheaded. She is invoked as a patron of pregnant women and those suffering from kidney diseases.
St. Barbara: While little is known of this third-century martyr, St. Barbara is thought to have been the daughter of a rich and jealous man who sought to keep Barbara from the world. When she confessed to him that she had converted to Christianity, he denounced her and brought her before local authorities, who ordered that she be tortured and beheaded. According to legend, her own father did the beheading, for which he was struck by lightning shortly thereafter. St. Barbara is invoked against fires and lightning storms.
St. Catherine of Alexandria: A fourth-century martyr, St. Catherine was the daughter of the Queen of Egypt, and converted to Christianity after a vision of Christ and Mary. The Queen also converted to Christianity before her death. When Maximinus started persecuting Christians in Egypt, St. Catherine rebuked him and attempted to prove to him that his gods were false. After debating with the emperor’s best scholars, many of whom converted due to her arguments, Catherine was scourged, imprisoned, and eventually beheaded. She is the patron saint of philosophers and young students.
[…]
“learn from any mistakes on the part of anyone involved,”
Like, say, jumping to conclusions without knowing all the facts?
“and begin the process of healing.”
I can’t begin to express how very tired I am of hearing about “the process of healing.”
The Diocese and the school bore false witness against these young men, and acted with rash judgment, participating in the calumny against them.
The only honorable thing for the Diocese and the school to do is PUBLICLY confess that the condemnation they issued was intentional, willful, and of grave matter, and a serious mistake. Then a PUBLIC apology should be issued to the students.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, whoever “even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor” is guilty of rash judgment, and whoever, “by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them” is guilty of calumny.
These are not apologies.
About fifty years ago, as a member of a group of boys from an all male Catholic high school, I attended events in Washington DC. We were wearing ROTC uniforms, and I remember a moment when we were heckled by Vietnam war protesters. Some in our group wanted to respond, but others said, “…just move on, keep moving”. As we discussed the incident, the conclusion was that any response by our group would have legitimized the protesters and provided bad optics for us as bad actors, at best. And, the possible discovery of our actions would have brought the ire of our famously irate principal. We were more concerned about his possible disciplinary action than fulfilling our own tribal loyalties.
What made us different from the Covington group? “There go I, but for the grace of God”? Possibly… at any rate, cooler heads prevailed in our group.
My thought is that the Covington group had multiple opportunities to truly defuse the tension, but chose instead to ramp it up by voicing “school spirit” cheers. That is the reason for spirit cheers, after all, right? Yes, express enthusiasm for your cause. We typically use those cheers in a school sports event scenario to “intimidate” the opposing team, but when used in another context, they can be threatening. The young student facing off with the drummer could have more easily defused the incident by gracefully opening a path, and by encouraging respect. Yes, the optics here are, in a word, bad.
I think about those young men, and about my brotherhood with them, recipients of a fine education. I’m hoping that sooner, rather than later, they come to realize the reality of the situation, and the higher expectations placed on those of us privileged to participate in the Catholic education system.
“The young student facing off with the drummer could have more easily defused the incident by gracefully opening a path”
That would be true only if the drummer wanted a path. He didn’t; there was a clear path to the monument already. He wanted to get into the boy’s face, and he wanted to cause an incident, or he wouldn’t have been accompanied by cameramen and so forth. You’ve only to look at his group’s attempt to disrupt Mass at the Basilica. The boys did not give him what he wanted, which was a violent reaction; and the boy in whose face he was drumming remained calm and smiling, which was admirable.
If the boys had moved away from him, it is most likely that he would have followed them or, judging by his record, have claimed that they were disrespecting an elder by walking away.
There is nothing the boys could possibly have done to make the “Black Israelites” calm down, and their cheer did nothing to provoke the “Black Israelites” because that’s group entire function seems to be to scream insults and everybody who isn’t them, including not only the boys but Indians, whom they were also badgering.
The students did nothing wrong. Period. The full tape shows that they were verbally abused by a group of anti-Catholic bigots for an hour and did nothing in response. The phony Vietnam ” vet” who fixed appliances next to Disneyland during his Vietnam tour and ended 4 years in the USMC as a private jumped in the face of the kid for a photo op- as anybody with two synapses can see. The poor kid victimized as a “racist” did what many of us would do- try to ignore the taunts of an ignorant man.
But hey, what is that to 3 bishops who want to cast the first stone? Too bad the students were not abusing little boys- then these “princes of the Church” would have said nothing.
Acting as an apologist for the instigators is not a character trait to be proud of. The next time some thug wants to rob your home while you’re in your bed sleeping by all means diffuse the situation by getting up out of bed and help them loot your belongings.
Another big blunder by the Catholic hierarchy. They jumped to conclusions without knowing the facts just like the mainstream media did. Their revised statement should, at least, have been the first statement, instead of threatening the boys with expulsion. Another example of where the Church ranks are so quick to throw children under the bus, while they continue to close ranks and protect the SHAMEFUL coverup they’ve all engaged in over the years!!!
ALL Diocese and school authorities who bore false witness against the young men must apologize and then resign. There must be a boycott of the church until that occurs.
“That would be true only if the drummer wanted a path, he didn’t…”
I cannot pretend to know exactly what was in the minds of the teens, or the drummer. My question was left unanswered in your response, “What made us different from the Covington group?”
Look again at the net results. The Covington boys group will be known in history as willing, enthusiastic participants in a controversial incident. Their primary purpose, the Right to Life March, has already been relegated to footnote status. Now, Catholics are divided… some in full throated defense of the boys actions; some shaking their heads at the thoughtlessness of the participating boys.
How is it possible that 50 years ago a Catholic boys group possessed a situational awareness of outcome, where the current boys school crop failed to recognize the pitfalls ahead of them?
I ask educators to examine the problem closely.
“I cannot pretend to know exactly what was in the minds of the teens, or the drummer. My question was left unanswered in your response, “What made us different from the Covington group?””
The difference is that there was nobody there trying to set you up and film it. But how *dared* you wear ROTC uniforms when you knew that htere were some people who hated the military?
“Look again at the net results. The Covington boys group will be known in history as willing, enthusiastic participants in a controversial incident.”
The *only* thing that caused a controversy was the Indian with the drum and the boys’ reaction to that. Nobody even knew about the Black Hebrew Israelis or whatever they call themselves until the controversy was well under way and the longer video was found. And the controversy was ginned up by selective editing. There was no reason that the boys should have had to walk away. They were doing nothing wrong. When the drummer started his bullying, they *still* did nothing wrong.
“How is it possible that 50 years ago a Catholic boys group possessed a situational awareness of outcome, where the current boys school crop failed to recognize the pitfalls ahead of them?”
Pitfalls for standing and smiling? Pitfalls for dancing to a drumbeat? If they had walked away it would have been “How dare they disrespect this well-respected elder by walking away from him?”
You are blaming the victims, and it’s shameful.
“The difference is nobody was there trying to set you up and film it.”
Please honestly answer this… How could you possibly know that, unless you can claim you were present at both incidents? My point is, my group was quite aware of opportunistic media reporters fifty years ago, ready to jump to photo at the first signs of a confrontation. The Covington boys should have had similar awareness.
Don’t try to create “victims” of the boys. I’ve watched that practice evolve over the years by all sorts of religious groups.
There is no doubt in my mind that the boys made a choice… whether or not to turn the other cheek. God given, a right given to us at creation with free will. We should more carefully consider it’s practice.
“The difference is nobody was there trying to set you up and film it.”
“Please honestly answer this… How could you possibly know that, unless you can claim you were present at both incidents?”
Because, for one thing, judging by the rest of your remarks, you would have been sure to preen yourself that you noticed cameras and that was the reason for your brilliant decision. For another, fifty years ago there were far, far fewer people filming anything.
Your original statement was, “As we discussed the incident, the conclusion was that any response by our group would have legitimized the protesters and provided bad optics for us as bad actors, at best.” Really? Any response? Any at all? Even just standing there quietly and ignoring them? Manifestly a cheer routine or dancing along with any drums they may have decided to pound would have been inappropriate because you were in uniform (and again, it’s all your fault for wearing a uniform in the first place, you know, and provoking them).
Specify what exactly it is that you find so terribly heinous about the boys’ behavior. You keep accusing them of being to blame, and I have seen no action that deserve any such blame. You seem to forget that the video that caused all the outrage had nothing at all in it about the Black Isreeli group. Any responses they made to that wasn’t what caused the problem, so you can leave that aside entirely.
The Indian drummer was not blatantly heckling them at first, as you say the Vietnam War protestors were heckling you. It appears as if at first nobody knew what the drummer was up to; after all, he was unaffiliated with the Black Israeli group, and came out of nowhere, drumming; until he got into their faces and his companion starting making racist comments, why would they have moved, and after that, why should they? And the incident lasted only a few minutes. It would be as if those protestors who were heckling you had been succeeded by somebody who came up to you playing bagpipes or something. Your first thought wouldn’t have been to assume they were there to cause trouble.
“Don’t try to create “victims” of the boys. I’ve watched that practice evolve over the years by all sorts of religious groups.”
The boys were the victims of an attempt to make them look bad. I don’t have to “create ‘victims’ of the boys.” That’s already been done.
“There is no doubt in my mind that the boys made a choice… whether or not to turn the other cheek.”
There is no doubt in my mind that you have no idea what you’re talking about. The boy who was most vilified especially didn’t respond in any way that was blameworthy. He stood there quietly in the face of rudeness and an attempt to make him angry, and he smiled. That actually pretty much *is* turning the other cheek.
“Please honestly answer this… How could you possibly know that, unless you can claim you were present at both incidents?”
“Because, for one thing, judging by the rest of your remarks, you would have been sure to preen yourself that you noticed cameras and that was the reason for your brilliant decision.”
….
If you will be kind enough to refer to my earlier posts, you should note that I stated, “some in our group wanted to respond”, (I’ll truthfully admit I was one of those wanting to respond, I never made a “brilliant decision” worth “preening” myself. In fact, I am embarrassed when I recall my actions in the event). A few cooler heads prevailed in our group. You should remember, this was at the height of the war protest era, videos and photos in the news every day, plenty of reporters in DC. And, as I stated, our primary concern was of discovery by our disciplinarian rector. I fail to understand how your reasoning whether or not I would “preen” myself could affect your answer??? You still failed to answer my question, choosing instead to make uncomplimentary characterisations and speculation of what I might do.
“you were in uniform (and again, it’s all your fault for wearing a uniform”
We were required by our school to wear military uniforms… and, you are correct, that was a provocation to some protestors. I doubt that Covington required students to wear MAGA hats, which is admittedly offensive to some. Perhaps that is not equivocal, but since you brought up “provoking”…
“Specify what exactly it is that you find so terribly heinous about the boys’ behavior. You keep accusing them of being to blame”
I’ve checked my attitude, and revisited my posts, and cannot find a single instance where I characterized the boys behavior as “terribly heinous, or where I have “accused them of being to blame”. I see the words I used… “thoughtless, made a choice not to turn the other cheek, willing participants in a controversial incident, failed to recognize ,and optics are bad.”. Not a single one of my phrases fit the “heinous” or “blame” narrative that is portrayed of my posts.
I submit I have maintained the position that the boys are neither blameless or to blame. I merely pointed out possible alternative actions, that in hindsight, some boys likely would have preferred, as one stated, he “wished it had never happened.”
Another of my questions was not answered, what is different about the incidents fifty years apart? That was never about who cast the first stone, rather it was about rising above the fray to find a gentler, less confrontational approach to teach our children. Considering the smiling boy’s comments at his interview, sounds to me as if he wished he had done it differently. Perhaps he learned his lesson the hard way, like so many of us.
Peace
I said, “The difference is nobody was there trying to set you up and film it.”
Your reply was, “Please honestly answer this… How could you possibly know that, unless you can claim you were present at both incidents?”
Now you’re complaining, “I fail to understand how your reasoning whether or not I would “preen” myself could affect your answer??? You still failed to answer my question, choosing instead to make uncomplimentary characterisations and speculation of what I might do.”
I answered quite clearly. Your said that only if I had been present at your incident would I know if someone was trying to film you to set you up. The implication is that since you were there, you did know whether someone was trying to film you. I still don’t believe that anybody was filming you, for the two reasons I mentioned:
“Because, for one thing, judging by the rest of your remarks, you would have been sure to preen yourself that you noticed cameras and that was the reason for your brilliant decision. For another, fifty years ago there were far, far fewer people filming anything.”
You quote me ( ““you were in uniform (and again, it’s all your fault for wearing a uniform”) and then replied, “We were required by our school to wear military uniforms… and, you are correct, that was a provocation to some protestors. I doubt that Covington required students to wear MAGA hats, which is admittedly offensive to some.”
That you actually believed that I was seriously blaming you and your companions for wearing ROTC uniforms tells me a lot about you. I would have thought it blatantly obvious that I was engaging in reductio ad absurdam regarding your belief that the boys are to blame for the incident because they wore MAGA hats. I can’t believe that you didn’t reply to me something along the lines of “We had every right to wear our uniforms!” as any normal person would.
“I’ve checked my attitude, and revisited my posts, and cannot find a single instance where I characterized the boys behavior as “terribly heinous, or where I have “accused them of being to blame”.”
You have said that the situation is their fault in essence because unlike you and your companions of ffty years ago, they were not “situationally aware” and weren’t afraid of their disciplinarian principal, so they didn’t scuttle away.
“I submit I have maintained the position that the boys are neither blameless or to blame.”
That makes no sense at all.
“Another of my questions was not answered, what is different about the incidents fifty years apart?”
1. You had a group of hecklers who were angry about the Vietnam War (a political issue which at a stretch at least connected with the fact that you were in uniform) who were probably stupid but also probably sane. You ignored them and moved away (you wrote that someone said “Keep moving,” so it might even have been that you were already moving when they started heckling you, but I can’t tell for sure).
The boys from Covington Catholic High School were gathering at a designated meeting point. They had insults yelled at them by a group of hecklers who were, to say the least, none too stable mentally, and who were yelling at them and at everybody else in the vicinity, for reasons unrelated to anything the boys were doing or wearing. They could not move away because this was where their buses were meeting them; and there was no reason they should. In any case, the heckling by the group screaming at them really wasn’t an issue, and neither was any response they made. That’s not what went viral.
2. You knew from the get-go that the hecklers were targeting you, and why. The boys from Covington at first apparently did not realize that the Indian drummer was targeting or attacking them; he was just some guy drumming who came toward them. The incident didn’t last all that long, and even after the drummer was pounding his drum in the face of students some of the group were still not sure that he was attempting to provoke them.
The hecklers in your case were quite forthright and obvious. The drummer was not, and has since lied through his teeth.
“That was never about who cast the first stone, rather it was about rising above the fray to find a gentler, less confrontational approach to teach our children.”
You are ignoring the fact that the boys didn’t cast a stone, even a metaphorical one, at the drummer at all. I can’t think of anything gentler than smiling and not doing anything. The only confrontational approach I saw was on the part of the drummer and his companions.
“that in hindsight, some boys likely would have preferred, as one stated, he “wished it had never happened.” Considering the smiling boy’s comments at his interview, sounds to me as if he wished he had done it differently. Perhaps he learned his lesson the hard way, like so many of us.”
I think you are drawing unwarranted conclusions. If someone stole my locked car, parked in a mall parking lot in broad daylight, I’d wish that it had never happened; but that wouldn’t mean that I considered that I should have done something differently, with the implication that it was somehow my fault, perhaps for daring to own a car.
Why do anyone you bother with this hateful astroturfer called Bob. It is obvious he was hired to “hate” in this comment area. I wouldn’t respond …the video speaks for itself. The boys are TOTALLY innocent and acted with great restraint. We should be proud of them. Look into the Indian and his background and you can see why Bob the hater loves him. It’s his reflection.
I am astounded that any poster could perceive me as a “hater”, or that my comments are “hateful”.
Again, look at the words I posted…
“the optics are bad”, meaning that the boys participation could easily be subject to varying interpretations, some not favorable.
“I think about those young men and my brotherhood with them, and the higher expectations placed on those of us privileged…”
“thoughlessness of the participating boys”
“boys failed to recognize…”
“boys should have had awareness”
…and so on.
Why should my comments be interpreted as anything more serious than a gentle rebuke to the boys for allowing themselves to be “played” by a group of bad actors? One of those students now expresses a wish he “could have walked away and avoided the whole thing.”. What does that tell you about a real participant’s feelings in hindsight?
A gentler discourse would provide a great example to students, perhaps allowing them to choose “the high road” rather than sacrificing their self respect for a fleeting moment of tribal gratification.
Peace
I think this sadly speaks of the cowardice and bad intentions of the Church hierarchy. The politicization of everything by secular progressives has infected the Church. Unfortunately, we don’t have Pope John Paul II to face this threat.