In recent years, there has been an effort by Christians of different stripes to “put Christ back in Christmas.” Noting the ubiquity of the anodyne phrase “happy holidays” – even when a holiday (or “holy day”) greeting is exchanged between Christians – they have launched a movement to insist that Christ remain the central focus of Advent and Christmas.A similar effort is needed at Georgetown, a place that one would think should have little difficulty making Christ the central focus of its campus life. I have been considering this in recent weeks on my daily trips past the Hariri Building. It appears that not a single religious image was incorporated on its vast exterior, in contrast to noble, older campus buildings like Healy, White-Gravenor and Copley Halls – which are richly adorned with religious iconography, in acknowledgment of the Catholic character of the university. We might be tempted to conclude that the newest religiously naked building is solely a temple to Mammon – the biblical personification of wealth and greed.If our newest building evinces no external acknowledgement of the university’s Catholic identity, this is hardly a radically new development. It is striking that the campus of the nation’s first Catholic and Jesuit university should have such a dearth of images or icons devoted to Jesus or the Saints of the Church. Even worse is the fact that some symbols that apparently were once on display were at some point removed. For example, a photo of the main stairway in Healy Hall – published in a 1934 book on Georgetown – shows there was once a bust of the Sacred Heart of Jesus centrally on display on the landing between the floors. This was once a prominent space displaying the image of Jesus; one is hard-pressed to think of any currently significant campus space where a statue or image of Jesus is present.As for other icons: In the porticos at the front of Healy’s main entrance – where today there are two unremarkable urns – there were originally plans to place statues of John Carroll and St. Ignatius of Loyola. According to the university archives, that plan was never implemented. The university has been exceedingly active putting up self-congratulatory video displays and expensive media equipment in the Hariri Building, but seems to have lost interest in meaningfully filling prominently empty sacred spaces elsewhere on campus.Of course, such religious iconography would be meaningless without the accompanying practice that such symbols are meant to reinforce. Daily afternoon mass in Dahlgren Chapel is often sparsely attended. Might attendance increase with the exemplary presence of various campus leaders and faculty, demonstrating that there is no meeting or lunch appointment more important than daily communion for those who are practicing Catholics? What of encouraging the restoration of the norm of beginning classes in prayer? And should we not create a new administrative position devoted to pursuing potential faculty with a strong interest in and dedication to the Catholic identity of Georgetown? We seem to have an administrator for nearly every activity of the university, but not for this central facet in the ongoing life and character of the institution.What of incorporating in a prominent and serious way the teachings of the Catholic “Theology of the Body” – so beautifully articulated by Pope John Paul II – in our first-year orientation activities, in contrast to most campuses where a more mechanistic theory of sexuality reigns? And what of devoting occasional space on the university Web site – where we regularly call attention to students who have been awarded various honors – to more prominently acknowledge the decision of some of our extraordinary students to enter the priesthood or the convent? I have known several graduates in recent years who have decided to enter the Jesuit order and at least one alumna who is a novitiate in the Dominican order – why have they received no official acknowledgment in our public pronouncements?Georgetown – perhaps aspiring to mimic its religiously disaffiliated peers – today apparently shies away from firm identification with its faith tradition. But, by dint of this drift, it finds itself increasingly unable – much like its academic peers – to address the pervasive utilitarianism and materialism of our day. Today, we increasingly treat the world, its resources and fellow humans as means to our individual ends – whether in economics, politics, sexuality or biotechnology. Our main political alignments are no great help in stemming this tendency, with the right endorsing unfettered economic utilitarianism and the left defending reproductive and bio-technological utilitarianism.Today, it is increasingly only the firmly grounded religious traditions – and above all, Catholicism – that resists this great and nearly unstoppable philosophic trajectory of modernity. Far from being ashamed of our grounding in this great tradition, we should embrace and commend it in a broken world. Putting Christ back into Christmas is to commend His presence one day a year; putting Christ back into Georgetown is to exemplify a year-round commitment and lifelong devotion by a community of witnesses.Patrick Deneen is an associate professor in the government department. He can be reached at deneenthehoya.com.*To send a letter to the editor on a recent campus issue or Hoya story or a viewpoint on any topic, contact [opinionthehoya.com](opinionthehoya.com). Letters should not exceed 300 words, and viewpoints should be between 600 to 800 words.*”