Past Issues

“Peace is the tranquility of order,” St. Augustine tells us. And it is notable that the conception of both peace and order in his famous dictum transcends the political in the narrow sense. Rather, the Bishop of Hippo was getting to the roots of the question, to the foundational arrangement of all things in divine wisdom and love. Peace, then, requires an attunement to the order of the cosmos, from the atomic to the astronomic. In a world marked by disorder in virtually every sphere, it behooves us, no less than Augustine, to explore the wellspring of peace to be found in the order of creation.

What authority does the pope have and why should we obey? How is the papacy, which is still a stumbling block for so many, a source of reassurance for the faithful? Or is it? What of the bishop’s authority? The priest’s? A living thing needs to grow and authority is at the service of that. It makes the Church—–Christ’s body—grow (augere) in accord with the order established by the one who brought it forth (the Auctor). Priestly authority is in the image of the Father's authority who shows it by generating the Son, then by creating the world in Him. Christ who received all authority from the Father handed it to the disciples. To have the “keys” to the Church, then, is to assure and guard the presence of the One who builds and grows it—“the Son of the Living God”—so that He might be with us always, till the end of time.

In his 1978 Harvard address, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn spoke as a survivor of the terrors of “hard totalitarianism” under the Soviet state, but he warned of a softer version, emerging from different, less obvious agents of control. This “soft totalitarianism,” enforced by the media, the academy, and corporations, was no less dangerous than its communist counterpart; it was undermining the spiritual freedom of the West. Today, there are individuals and institutions—whether totalitarians of some stripe or merely “influencers”—attempting to manipulate what we do, say, and think, often against the claims of conscience and the transcendent moral order. To recover our sense of dignity and agency over against the likes of the biomedical security state, surveillance capital, or gender ideologues, might well, in Solzhenitsyn’s words, “demand from us a spiritual blaze.”

Clifford Geertz once observed that law is a way of “imagining the real,” that it offers “visions of community” rather than “echoes of it.” If so, then the gender debates represent more than clashes between interest groups. At stake: what do we think is real?

This special edition presents some of the papers given at a recent colloquium on U.S. v. Skrmetti, which was decided by the Supreme Court on June 18, 2025. The case concerns a Tennessee law prohibiting the use of puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones on children. The Supreme Court's upholding of this law has profound implications.

The principle recognizing the prerogative of parents to educate their children is no longer just a haven from the tyranny of the State. The “right” itself has become an arbitrary claim, with “gender-affirming” parents appealing to it as proxies of their children’s “right to choose.” And the “parents” bearing the right are, increasingly, those who choose children—producing and buying them—not the ones who have them. Unless parents’ rights are grounded in the authority mothers and fathers possess as participants in a prevenient natural order, to which they themselves are beholden and for which they are responsible, it will become the arena of a lesser known, yet no less terrible, tyranny: the Huxleyan tyranny of our own desires.