Letters to the Editor: June 2026

Too Much of a Good Thing?

Regarding Tony Foster’s article “Who Really Killed Goliath?” (April): How many different Bibles, Bible translations, and versions of the Bible are there, and which is the clear and precise word of God? How do we pick from a list that includes but is not limited to the KJV, NRV, NIV, NRSV, NAB, RSV2CE, ESV-CE, NABRE, and my favorite, the Douay-Rheims? How many times can the word of God be translated, revised, amended, and reprinted before it is watered down and no longer clear? Of course, this is why the Catholic Church says we must read Scripture in light of tradition and magisterial teachings.

One translation I have says it is a retranslation of the original Greek and Hebrew Scriptures. Were those “original” Scriptures pure, or were they altered by some good-willed scribe sometime in the past, as Mr. Foster mentions in his discussion of Elha’nan? And my Douay-Rheims is an English translation of a Latin translation of the Greek and Hebrew. God help us.

Joseph Droddy

Tionesta, Pennsylvania

While I found Tony Foster’s article fascinating, I was astonished by its lack of reference to, let alone consideration of, the bearing of the parallel texts in the Septuagint version of the Bible to those he discusses in the Hebrew text.

According to Jewish legend, the Septuagint is a Greek translation of the books of the Hebrew Bible by 72 bilingual Jewish translators (hence the name Septuagint, or “Seventy”) made at the order of Ptolemy II of Egypt (r. 284-246 B.C.). Many believe the translation project took decades to complete.

The Septuagint is important for at least two reasons. First, it was the Old Testament for all early Christian churches, both Greek and Latin, until St. Jerome translated the Hebrew Old Testament books into Latin, thus producing, together with his translation from Greek of the New Testament, what became known as the Vulgate version of the Bible, authoritative in the Latin West. But the Septuagint remains the authoritative version for Eastern Churches, Catholic and Orthodox alike, which are of the Byzantine tradition, and it formed the basis for translations into Armenian, Coptic, Ge’ez, and Syriac in other Eastern churches.

The second reason for the importance of the Septuagint is that it contains many variant readings from the text of the Hebrew Bible, many of which scholars deem more trustworthy than their Hebrew counterparts. The standard text of the Hebrew Bible, the Masoretic Text (the word masoretic comes from the Hebrew masorah, or “tradition”), took shape between A.D. 600 and A.D. 1000 and thus is about a thousand years older than the Hebrew text.

If you ask, How can this be, since (most of) these books were originally written in Hebrew? the answer is that written Hebrew originally contained only consonants, not vowels, and the “vowel points” handed down by tradition (hence “Masoretic” Text) were added nearly a millennium after the Septuagint translation, more than enough time to produce variant versions. Some scholars, pace St. Jerome, contend that the Septuagint ought to be the Christian Old Testament.

The point of all this is that, as it stands, Mr. Foster’s article is incomplete without any consideration of the Septuagint texts, whether or not they agree or disagree with the Masoretic Text.

William J. Tighe

Allentown, Pennsylvania

TONY FOSTER REPLIES:

To Joseph Droddy

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I, too, have grappled with different iterations of the Bible, as translation, in a general sense, can be subjective. The notion of what is considered the best source to guide translations varies considerably among scholars. An example is the emergence of New Testament scholars who prefer either the Byzantine Text tradition or the Critical Text (or Alexandrian) tradition. The Byzantine advocates prefer the most common form of the New Testament text, which was copied and standardized by medieval Eastern Christians (ca. A.D. 400-1400). The Critical Text proponents prefer the oldest manuscripts available, such as those found in Egypt, particularly near Alexandria, in the fourth century.

I strongly align with the Critical Text paradigm because I believe the earliest manuscripts are generally the most reliable, having undergone fewer generations of copying and scribal error/revision. I feel the same way with respect to the Old Testament. I’m emphatic about allowing the Bible to operate on its own terms, and I cringe at translations that add or subtract words from the earliest, most reliable text. The plain reading of the earliest text should stand on its own, in my opinion.

I don’t believe it’s the job of the translator or reader to make things fit by adding or omitting words. Such is the case with the New International Version (NIV) and the King James Version, which both added “the brother of” to 2 Samuel 21:19. In fairness, the NIV provides the Hebrew translation in a footnote, but footnotes can be obscure and overlooked.

I personally study and read three bibles: the New Revised Standard Version, the New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition, and the New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition. All three use the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Masoretic Text, and the Septuagint as lenses for their renderings. They reflect a shared principle that translation should be guided by the earliest available manuscripts.

To William J. Tighe

This is a fair criticism, and I agree that my article could have used a rigorous analysis grounded in the Septuagint. In the pursuit of truth, I turned to this text, hoping its passages might shed greater light on the mystery at hand. There are two versions available in digital format: the Brenton Septuagint translation from 1870 and the New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS), published by Oxford University Press in 2009. Here’s how the former renders 2 Samuel 21:19: “And there was a battle in Rom with the Philistines; and Eleanan son of Ariorgim the Bethleemite slew Goliath the Gittite; and the staff of his spear was as a weaver’s beam.” The latter renders it thus: “And the battle was in Gob with the allophyles. And Eleanan son of Ariorgim, the Baithleemite, struck Goliath the Geththite, and the shaft of his spear was like a beam of weavers.”

As we reflect on these passages, it seems clear that Elha’nan (or Eleanan) is the individual who slayed Goliath in this tradition. It might be argued that the NETS uses the word struck not killed, but in Hebrew combat narratives, this type of construction implies a lethal blow. Biblical scholar P.K. McCarter notes that in heroic combat reports, the verb nakah regularly functions as the kill-verb without an additional verb for die. Moreover, a few passages below, the NETS states that all the giants were slain.

The other issue that leads me to believe there are two different traditions is that in 1 Samuel 17, David is a youth when he slays Goliath; he has not yet been granted the status of king. But in 2 Samuel 21:19, David is king when the battle of Gob occurs. As the chronology moves forward in these narratives, how is it that Goliath is still alive?

Due to space restrictions, this analysis is not exhaustive. There’s always more to investigate. Thank you for bringing up the issue of the Septuagint.

Do They Know Their Scripture?

David Ross’s guest column “On Fundamentalist Objections to ‘Repetitious’ Prayer” (March) reminded me of the four living creatures of Revelation 4:8: “Day and night they never stop saying: Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty who was, and is, and is to come.” Talk about repetitious prayer!

Eduardo Bernot

Professor of Philosophy, Holy Apostles College & Seminary

Cromwell, Connecticut

A Series of Screeds

I’m a relatively new reader of the NOR, and I appreciate the respectful give-and-take between writers and readers in the Letters to the Editor section. Those of us on the sidelines can learn much from these exchanges.

Jason M. Morgan’s reply to Philip Sevilla’s letter “We Are Powerful Peacekeepers” (April) was, however, nothing more than a series of angry, combative screeds with no light being shone on the issues.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Please do better.

J. Brewer

Clayton, North Carolina

THE EDITOR REPLIES:

Our approach is to swing for the fences. Sometimes we hit home runs, sometimes we just hit singles. Other times we ground out, and on occasion we strike out. The best part is that each reader acts as his own umpire and can score the plays on the field as he sees fit.

That said, Jason M. Morgan came up to the plate again in our May issue and, we believe, hit it out of the park with his interview of Arthur Khachikian, “The Struggle for Power in the Middle East,” regarding the very issues he discussed in his reply to Sevilla. If you prefer a different metaphor: Light was shone!

Do you agree or disagree? As always, we want to hear from the crowd in attendance — both their cheers and their jeers. Go to newoxfordreview.org/letters-to-the-editor to send us your letter to the editor.

Bypassing Empty Slogans

Marcus Peter presents a misleading picture of Catholic social teaching on the question of free markets in his column “Dilexi Te & Christian Confusion About Poverty” (Covenant & Civilization, April). Anyone who reads the totality of the papal social encyclicals will come away with the impression that the Church is not only skeptical of the claims of free-market promoters but is actually opposed to them. In Quadragesimo Anno Pius XI writes, “Just as the unity of human society cannot be founded on an opposition of classes, so also the right ordering of economic life cannot be left to a free competition of forces. For from this source, as from a poisoned spring, have originated and spread all the errors of individualist economic teaching. Destroying through forgetfulness or ignorance the social and moral character of economic life, it held that economic life must be considered and treated as altogether free from and independent of public authority, because in the market, i.e., in the free struggle of competitors, it would have a principle of self-direction which governs it much more perfectly than would the intervention of any created intellect. But free competition, while justified and certainly useful provided it is kept within certain limits, clearly cannot direct economic life — a truth which the outcome of the application in practice of the tenets of this evil individualistic spirit has more than sufficiently demonstrated” (no. 88).

Numerous other citations could be provided to support and develop this point. Yes, the Church has always supported the right to private property, but this hardly means that she sees the free market as an acceptable way of organizing an economy. Whatever John Paul II meant in his wide-ranging encyclical Centesimus Annus, we can hardly read it as a rejection of his predecessors’ teachings, a point Benedict XVI made in Caritas in Veritate, in which he wrote, “It is not a case of two typologies of social doctrine, one pre-conciliar and one post-conciliar, differing from one another: on the contrary, there is a single teaching, consistent and at the same time ever new” (no. 12).

Of course, this does not mean Catholics must embrace the idea of a command economy. There are more than two possible ways of organizing economic activity. Any serious student of Catholic social thought ought to be aware of the unique Catholic proposals put forward for economic justice, such as distributism or Fr. Heinrich Pesch’s solidarism, proposals that bypass the empty slogans of both free-market proponents and statist socialists.

Lastly, while alleviating poverty is obviously a good and necessary task, we should not forget that the immense increase in material goods that has occurred over the past few centuries has also led to consumerism and materialism. We might ask whether most of the things actually produced in the past 200 years have brought any real benefit to mankind. Alleviating poverty means more than supplying people with stuff. A truly Catholic analysis of economic development would recognize that along with material poverty there is the more subtle and dangerous spiritual poverty, and that any economic development that fails to take that into account is seriously lacking.

Thomas Storck

Westerville, Ohio

MARCUS PETER REPLIES:

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I appreciate the substance of your concern, especially because Catholic social teaching is often mishandled by those who reduce it either to market triumphalism or state-centered economic control. On that point we agree: The Church has never taught that economic life may be morally autonomous, detached from public authority, indifferent to the common good, or governed by acquisitiveness masquerading as liberty.

You are right to cite Quadragesimo Anno. Pius XI forcefully rejected the idea that “the right ordering of economic life” can be left simply to “a free competition of forces,” and he condemned the “evil individualistic spirit” that treats the market as self-sufficient and independent of moral and public authority. That teaching must be honored. Any Catholic who speaks of markets without also speaking of justice, solidarity, subsidiarity, moral limits, the family wage, the dignity of labor, and the common good is presenting a truncated account of Catholic doctrine.

Where I would respectfully differ is in the conclusion that the Church is, therefore, opposed to the market as such. The tradition does not, nor will it ever, condemn exchange, enterprise, private property, human creativity, business, or the price mechanism when these are properly ordered. John Paul II makes precisely this distinction in Centesimus Annus. He says that if “capitalism” means an economy that recognizes “the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property,” and “free human creativity in the economic sector,” then the Church’s answer is “certainly in the affirmative,” though he immediately adds that it is better called a “business economy,” “market economy,” or “free economy.” He also insists that such activity cannot exist in “an institutional, juridical or political vacuum.”

That is not a rejection of Pius XI but an application of the same moral tradition to the historical circumstances of the present day. Benedict XVI’s point in Caritas in Veritate is exactly right: Catholic social doctrine is “a single teaching, consistent and at the same time ever new.” The continuity lies in the Church’s continued refusal to absolutize any economic mechanism. The development lies in the Church’s recognition that markets, when morally disciplined and institutionally ordered, can serve human flourishing.

This is why I caution Catholics to avoid two errors. The first is the libertarian error that treats the market as a morally self-regulating machine. The second is the anti-market error that treats ordinary economic freedom as if it were already a concession to individualism. Catholic social teaching rejects both. It defends private property while insisting on its social mortgage, and it defends labor while rejecting class warfare.

I also agree that distributism and Pesch’s solidarism deserve renewed attention. They remind us that the Church’s social imagination is richer than the stale binary of laissez-faire capitalism vs. command socialism. A truly Catholic economy should encourage widespread ownership, strong families, local institutions, vocational guilds or associations where appropriate, just wages, and, of course, deep moral formation.

Finally, your warning about consumerism is right. Poverty is not solved merely by giving people more things. Economic development must serve the whole person, body and soul. Material prosperity without spiritual grounding in Christ can produce moral destruction. Still, the answer to consumerism is not indifference toward material deprivation. Hunger, homelessness, unemployment, and economic exclusion are real evils. The Catholic’s task is to hold both truths together: man does not live by bread alone, yet a father unable to feed his children still deserves urgent consideration by the community.

So, yes, Catholic social teaching bypasses both market idolatry and socialist centralization. Hence, it opposes the claim that a morally ordered market economy is alien to the Catholic tradition. The Church’s position is more demanding than that. Economic life must be free enough for human creativity, ordered enough for morality and justice, humane enough for the poor, and holy enough to remember that man is made for God.

Time Out of Mind

I love and admire Jason M. Morgan’s contributions to the NOR. So, I am pained to call his “Kessler’s World” column (Cultural Counterpoint, March) misdirected. Prof. Morgan refers to Donald Kessler’s 1978 paper predicting that collisions of space junk will obliterate our satellite communications and, per Morgan’s thesis, so end the Internet. Kessler, an astrophysicist, should have known better. The solutions to low-earth orbits for a spherical planet were well known by the late 1950s. The settled solution to the junk-case scenario may be observed in the rings of Saturn, where millions of discrete objects have arranged themselves in varying orbits and no longer collide with one another. A network of communicating satellites would fit nicely in this arrangement.

Morgan extends the Kessler mindset to the idea of time. He says, and rightly so, that “time is immaterial and cannot be measured.” We have nevertheless attempted to measure various stand-ins, eventually using the vibrations of a cesium-133 atom to define Coordinated Universal Time from some 400 such clocks around the world, none of which gives exactly the same result. We have attempted to answer the question about what time it is, ignorant of what time is in itself.

Morgan goes from there to describe a somewhat dystopian view of our world. Well, I have good news for him. I can tell him exactly what time is. Time is the valid compound variable of observations that measures motion. What does that mean? To find out, Morgan might embark on a mighty intellectual venture by reading my little book An Inquiry into the Foundations of the Science of Physics: Time and Mass (2024).

Joseph R. Breton, Ph.D.

Walpole, Massachusetts

JASON M. MORGAN REPLIES:

I thank Joseph R. Breton for his delightful letter and for pointing me in the right direction about Kessler Syndrome. I am not, however, entirely convinced about the Saturn model. I have read theories that Earth once had rings, which would help explain the concentration of meteorite strikes around the equator during the Ordovician period some 466 million years ago. So, it’s possible that old satellites could line up in this way, too, inside Earth’s Roche limit. Still, I wonder. It would be great if space junk were to ring-ify itself so neatly, but my back-of-the-envelope calculations (read: my wild guesstimation) indicate that it would take a really, really long time for this to happen. Satellites in orbit today don’t seem to display this kind of planar ordering, but perhaps there is some kind of periodic propulsion keeping satellite rings from forming. How long would it take for our planet to start sporting junkyard rings as indicated? People binge-watching Netflix probably don’t have the patience to wait more than five minutes for a cloud of debris to flatten out into a nice disc of scrap metal.

Beyond the very important physics of bashed-up satellites, Kessler’s 1978 paper was a heuristic device for a metaphor about fake metaphysics, one I might have pushed too far. On that note, about time as measured motion, such an approximation sounds like the kind of middling metaphysics I was trying to avoid. But I would love to read Dr. Breton’s book (as a math-impaired struggler) to see where I might have gone wrong.

Staying in Touch

Thank you so much for the offer to renew my scholarship subscription. I love reading the NOR and sharing the issues with others. You publish intellectually stimulating articles that help me keep in touch with the Church and sharpen and deepen my understanding and knowledge of the truth. I came to truly believe in God, in Christianity in general, and in Catholicism in particular while in prison. I don’t have access to many materials or teachers that can help me grow in the faith. The NOR plays a huge role in forming my understanding of orthodox belief and the state of the Church and society in general.

The generosity of your staff and readers to those of us who benefit from the Scholarship Fund is so amazing. God bless you all! You and all the donors to and benefactors of this fund are in my prayers.

Patrick Carlopoli

Central Florida Reception Center, East Unit

Orlando, Florida

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you immensely for your kind charity in providing me a free subscription. I look forward to each issue, and I learn so much. I’ve shared each issue with my Catholic brothers at chapel.

I am still incarcerated, without financial support, and I cannot pay. So I humbly ask for another year’s scholarship subscription.

You are truly doing God’s work.

Jason Florence

Federal Correctional Institution, Milan

Milan, Michigan

Please do renew my scholarship subscription. If I could, I’d send you $10,000. The NOR is worth its weight in gold. I love it!

Daniel Elliston

Martin Correctional Institution

Indiantown, Florida

Another year, and NOR readers continue to bless me with a scholarship subscription. I very much appreciate it. Florida’s prison system allows periodicals and very little else to reach inmates, so to receive a well-composed issue of the NOR is a true blessing.

We no longer can receive hardcopy letters or cards. Anything sent to prisons is scanned and sent as a digital copy to a tablet that we can use to read our mail. We will never again hold in our hands a birthday or Christmas card. Years ago I received a Mass card following my father’s funeral. We cannot receive those anymore either.

The NOR deals with higher thought, God’s truth, God’s Church, and God’s creation. It reminds us to wake up, as the reason we first believed is closer now than ever (cf. Rom. 13:11). Thank you to all the donors who make scholarship subscriptions available.

Paul Spataro

Sumter Correctional Institution

Bushnell, Florida

Thank you for extending my scholarship subscription for another year. As always, I am very appreciative. I’m feeling my way around my new unit, and the chapel is limited in Catholic material.

I received your latest issue a few nights ago. It was a godsend. I really liked J. Budziszewski’s article about human nature, “Is Everyone Evil — or, Deep Down, Is Everyone Good?” (April). We do want a simple yes or no answer to this question. Coming to prison and learning my Catechism helped me understand it’s not all black and white. We are called to follow the Lord in all things, according to His command, but we fall short, so nuance is necessary. Knowing that makes it easier for me to get back up again as God reaches out for me. He came not only to forgive us but to heal us and help us understand His ways.

I could go on, but I don’t want to bore you any more than I already have. I don’t want to come off as preachy or sound like a jerk. If I have, I apologize. Please pray for me as I struggle with doubt about the Real Presence and the nature of the Church. But do know that the NOR has helped me. The well-reasoned articles you publish have inspired me to research these things further. The world’s turning, and I’m learning.

Thank you again. God love you!

Michael Bergeron

W.F. Ramsey Unit

Rosharon, Texas

As I read J. Budziszewski’s article, I began thinking about its application to our criminal-justice system (or should I say “systems”?) here in the United States. I agree with the general thrust of the article that “the condition of our nature really is complicated,” but I question the assertion that it’s a distortion of Calvin’s theology to say he taught that human nature is evil. How else are we to interpret the first of Calvin’s TULIP principles, Total Depravity of Mankind? (The others are Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints.)

I posit that the various criminal-justice systems reflect the dominant theology of the state’s religious leadership. For example, Georgia has one of the nation’s highest percentage of Baptists, and its religious leadership (and majority culture) is predominantly TULIP Calvinist. It is reflected in everything from criminal statutes to how the prisons are operated and how parole decisions are made. The differences are dramatic.

Georgia has almost as many sheriffs, jails, and legal jurisdictions as Alabama, Florida, and South Carolina combined. It has the highest per capita percentage of its population incarcerated of any state in the union. Even though Georgia is eighth in population, it has the fourth largest prison system, with nearly 50,000 inmates in 39 prisons, both public and private. Nearly ten percent of inmates are serving life sentences (or longer). The average sentence for non-lifers is more than 26 years; 80 percent of all sentences are longer than ten years. Georgia paroles are arbitrary and rare. More than a thousand Georgia inmates are over 75 years old; the oldest are in their 90s.

Not only does Georgia have the most draconian criminal statutes and sentencing of any state, it cares less about the welfare of those who are in its custody than any other jurisdiction. According to an October 2024 report by the U.S. Department of Justice, the Georgia prison system violates each and every constitutional protection of its inmates, and its inmates are more than three times as likely to be murdered by other inmates than those in any other state. The DOJ attributed this appalling record to Georgia’s lack of interest in or concern for its inmates.

The unspoken truth is that Georgia’s Calvinists have such a dark view of human nature that they believe “sinners” (those who transgress any law) deserve the most draconian forms of punishment (except, of course, for themselves, who are predestined for glory thanks to God’s irresistible grace and their “magic words” of acceptance of Jesus as their Lord and Savior — more TULIP). And they believe they are doing God’s will by imposing harsh punishments. An armed robber in Georgia who does not harm anyone can receive a life sentence for a first offense. The same crime just across the river in Alabama carries a maximum ten-year sentence. The logic is that “God shows how much he loves me by how much He gives me, so if someone steals from me, he’s stolen my blessings from God.” (Yeah, I’ve had this explained to me.) Whether these Calvinists have misunderstood the nuances in Calvin’s thought is beside the point, as this sort of theology is taught pretty much statewide.

The states with the most abysmal record of human-rights violations against inmates aren’t just the predominantly Baptist states. Budziszewski’s Texas has fewer influential Calvinists, but not by much. Oddly enough, the difference between the systems in Alabama and Georgia is greater than most would expect, and I suspect that’s attributable to the greater influence of Catholics and Methodists in Alabama. After all, it’s not for nothing that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once responded to a question about why he focused his efforts in Alabama rather than his home state of Georgia by saying something to the effect that “over here they might spray us with water hoses or chase us with dogs, but over there they’ll shoot us or hang us.”

On the other end of the scale from the Calvinist-influenced jurisdictions is Rhode Island, which has the most Catholic population in the nation. Its legal system works hard to hold people accountable for their offenses while seeking to avoid sending them to prison in the first place. The state also does everything possible not only to keep them incarcerated for as short a time as possible, it makes a significant effort to rehabilitate them. Restorative justice is the operative phrase.

Lastly, anyone who has been in prison can attest that there are men there who seem to be evil incarnate most of the time but who will periodically engage in the most amazing acts of goodness and mercy. I was in solitary confinement for the first eight years and eight months of my sentence. During that time, I was moved from one prison’s “hole” to another every few months. My “neighbors” were almost all men who had committed serious offenses against the prison’s rules — up to and including murder. Some of the greatest acts of kindness I’ve experienced were done by these men. They worried more about my health and well-being than any member of the prison staff ever did. The number of serious spiritual discussions that took place “out the window” never ceased to amaze me. These were all supposedly the worst of the worst, but as Budziszewski makes clear, we humans are “a beauty in ruins, gleaming through a coat of muck. Anyone who misses the muck is making an enormous mistake. Anyone who misses the beauty is making another.”

Thank you for a great article.

Frank J. Schwindler

Washington State Prison

Davisboro, Georgia

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I very much appreciate the NOR and eagerly await its arrival each month. I am never disappointed by the challenges it provides to my faith, my intellect, and my vocabulary (all in a good way!). I joyfully pass each issue on to those who would benefit from its contents.

I believe I have discovered a recurring typographical error in the magazine. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I do not believe “consideratino” is a word. Or maybe it is a carryover from your Italian edition? It occurs periodically in the “Manuscript Submissions” box. If it is an error, I promise that I have only mentioned it to my cellmate to confirm my sanity. I point it out to you for your quiet correction.

Thank you for your time and your thoughtful magazine.

Brian Kerzetski

High Desert State Prison

Indian Springs, Nevada

THE EDITOR REPLIES:

Indeed, Mr. Kerzetski, you have discovered a rare typo. At least, I hope they’re rare. There is no Italian edition of the NOR, and evidently the English edition (the only language in which the NOR is published) occasionally has words unknown to mankind. Consideratino? How embarrassing. I commend your keen eyesight — you’d make a great copy editor. Thank you for pointing out that error. It has been corrected.

Each of the above prisoners is a recipient of a gratis subscription to the NOR thanks to the generosity of readers who donate to our Scholarship Fund. I encourage those who would like to ensure that these men continue receiving the NOR free of charge, and that others who cannot afford a subscription may likewise receive one, to contribute to our Scholarship Fund. To do so, go to newoxfordreview.org/donations.

Additionally, readers who would like to nominate someone for a scholarship subscription (they don’t have to be prisoners) may send the candidate’s information (and their own) to our office either by mail (NOR, Scholarship Fund, 1069 Kains Ave., Berkeley, CA 94706), phone (510-526-5374), or email (magdalenamoreno@newoxfordreview.org).

Thank you for your apostolic zeal!

©2026 New Oxford Review. All Rights Reserved.

To submit a Letter to the Editor, click here.