Check Back Later !
Defending the Defenders: ROTC at Holy Cross
Every September 14th since 1982, protestors have come to Holy Cross to demand the removal of the ROTC, or Reserve Officers Training Corps, program from the College. This year was no exception, with protestors handing out flyers describing their beliefs to students on the steps of Dinand Library. This demonstration is led by members of the Catholic Worker Movement, who are Catholic pacifists. They argue, quoting both the Bible and notable Jesuits, that the Christian faith and any form of violence are fundamentally incompatible. Training for war should not exist at an institution of higher learning, especially a Jesuit liberal arts college, according to the demonstrators. They believe that ROTC takes advantage of impoverished students by offering free college tuition, doing little more than making the poor fight the wars of rich men.
Certainly, pacifism has a place within society. The Christian tradition has a long history of pacifism, including those who refuse to choose violence even when their own lives are at stake. Martyrs such as St. Peter, St. Sebastian, St. Maximilian Kolbe, and even Christ Himself are demonstrators of the nobility of those who choose not to lower themselves to violence. They remind humanity that violence should not exist, and that evil has corrupted the human soul and world. Even outside an explicitly religious context, non-violence has been proven to be an effective way to change societies and the human heart. The Civil Rights Movement with MLK Jr. and the Indian Independence Movement led by Mahatma Gandhi show that peaceful protests can work. But do not be mistaken — there are times when violence is justified and necessary.
Christianity has long held the idea that just wars are not only possible, but even necessary in a fallen world. In the Old Testament the Jewish Kingdoms were instructed many times by God to go to war to defend themselves. Later, as Christianity began to spread in the Roman Empire and eventually become dominant, Christians found themselves having to understand the relationship between their faith and the necessity to defend their civilization. St. Augustine in the early fifth century, St. Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century, and other theologians have all discussed this idea. It has been agreed, in both Catholic doctrine and much of wider Christian thinking, that wars in the pursuit of peace and defense of the common good — if waged morally — are not only justified, but could even be the duty of a society. This is not just an invention of post-Biblical thinkers, however; passages such as Luke 3:14, Romans 13:4, and more all suggest the justification of warfare in certain contexts. An understanding of the necessity of warfare and militaries is not something that only exists within the Christian context. Other faiths, Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic, along with secular thinkers also agree with the justification of armed conflict.
This is because the failures of society-wide pacifism are evident to all critical-thinking human beings. If the United States did not have a military and was unable or unwilling to protect itself and the free world, who would instead reign? At this moment, a war is waging in Eastern Europe between Putin’s autocratic regime in Russia and the people of Ukraine who only desire to live independent and happy lives free of tyranny. Would the protestors who came to Holy Cross recently tell those people to lay down their weapons and live as slaves? Well, they very well might, as they complain of the US “financing a seemingly endless war in Ukraine” in their handouts. Meanwhile in East Asia, the People’s Republic of China threatens the free people of Taiwan, menacing the small island nation with constant aerial incursions and declarations of an inevitable reunification. It is only with the deterrence of war through military strength by nations such as the United States can we hope a shooting war does not begin in the near future. History has also demonstrated the necessity of violence to protect what is right, as seen in America’s own history with World War 2 and the American Civil War. If it is clear that wars are sometimes justified and necessary, and therefore militaries are essential to the protection of free societies, why should America not want its military officers properly educated?
One of the key reasons for students at Holy Cross to receive a liberal arts education is that regardless of their career path after graduation, a broad education and understanding of the world will be invaluable. A military career does not make one ineligible for such an education. Do warriors not need to be able to think and understand? We want sailors, marines, soldiers, and airmen who are intelligent and well-rounded individuals. We want our nation’s guardians to have instilled in them the Jesuit, Catholic tradition of the College of the Holy Cross that enables them to be “men and women for and with others.” We want servicemen and women who love and respect human life, understand what is right and wrong, and have the knowledge and strength to protect good and fight evil. What we do not want are uneducated and improperly formed brutes, like those who committed war crimes in Bucha, Ukraine. What we do not want are unthinking automatons, like those who marched under the swastika eighty years ago. If we truly desire intelligent and moral leaders in our military, what better place to educate them than Holy Cross?
Our college certainly has its issues, the price of tuition being one of them. Many readers would agree with the idea that tuition should be lower than it is now, tuition with room and board costing a colossal $74,980. But, the idea that the ROTC program takes advantage of the poor by offering a full scholarship for eligible cadets is incorrect. Should society not reward those who risk so much to protect it? Across the United States, there already are many veterans who lack proper health coverage for service-related injuries and struggle to attain valuable employment. Taking away any such scholarship for our officers would not only decrease economic mobility for those who would no longer be able to attend college, but also saddle both our active-duty military members and veterans with large debts. If one wants to address the student loan crisis as a whole, that is a valuable conversation, but it is separate from the legitimacy of ROTC at the College of the Holy Cross. Those who serve the United States and are willing to put themselves in danger’s way should be honored and cared for.
So, should ROTC continue to be offered at the College of the Holy Cross? It certainly should, as our military is necessary for our defense and needs educated leaders. Holy Cross, with our uncommon Catholic liberal arts tradition, is a perfect place for our servicemen and women to be trained. Holy Cross offers ROTC not to help fight wars, but rather to protect peace.
Lest Tradition Kick the Bucket: Holy Cross’ Quest for a New Leader
Following Father Boroughs’ September announcement that he will be stepping down as the 32nd president of the College, the Holy Cross community is faced with the uncertainty of who their next leader will be. The ambiguity of Boroughs’ email only reinforced this feeling, as a key component was missing: there was no commitment to choosing a Jesuit priest to succeed him. This decision contrasts with the 2011 Presidential Search Committee following Father Michael MacFarland’s 11-year tenure, which explicitly committed to choosing another Jesuit to fill the position. In fact, the College has seemingly been committed to a Jesuit leader since our institution’s founding, with only Frank Vellacio, Ph.D. as an exception, serving as acting president of the College from 1998-2000.
Until the early 2000s, Jesuit institutions across the nation were exclusively led by Jesuit presidents. This began to change when Georgetown University chose layman and current president, John DeGioia, in 2001. Other Jesuit institutions started to follow its lead soon thereafter, which leaves us today with only about half of the nation’s Jesuit institutions being led by a clergyman. Perhaps this doesn’t leave Holy Cross’s consideration of both men and women, in addition to its use of a third-party recruitment firm, as much of a surprise. I mean, how many Jesuit priests have you heard of as being placed through Isaacson, Miller? One must wonder if Holy Cross has told the firm to keep the following key question in mind during its search: what does it mean to be a Catholic, Jesuit, liberal arts institution? This question should be at the forefront of the Presidential Search Committee’s mind as it seeks to choose a fitting leader to take Father Boroughs’ place.
This question is perhaps losing resonance with the Holy Cross community, though, as our identity as an institution is at a crossroads. We can choose to follow an ever-growing populist crowd and defer to a layperson to lead us into the coming years, or we can stand with the strong, principled tradition of Jesuit leadership.
Now, what exactly does it mean to be a Catholic institution? Last fall, the Fenwick Review’s Jack Rosenwinkel ‘21 interviewed Worcester Bishop Robert McManus, who said the following:
“What fundamentally makes Catholic colleges Catholic is that they have to be completely and unambiguously supportive of promoting, fostering, and furthering the great Catholic intellectual tradition [. . .] I think fundamentally, you do that by hiring for mission. You only hire people—even if they’re not Catholic—that thoroughly and authentically commit themselves to supporting the mission. The Catholic identity of a college is completely tied up with the mission, and if we don’t get the mission straight, the identity is going to be undercut. When you don’t hire for mission, you get off the track.”
This mission would be best accomplished by having a Jesuit as the leader of our institution, as we have since 1843. The president of the school sets the tone for those under his leadership. We need a leader who fully embodies and embraces the Catholic, Jesuit tradition of Holy Cross, but all signs indicate that we’re making a left on red.
Bishop McManus has expressed his concerns in the past, saying “These days, I’m less than certain that the Catholic identity of Holy Cross is strong. I’m very concerned.” With rising tensions between the bishop and the College, would a layperson really be the best move? After all, a school can only be recognized as Catholic if endorsed by the local bishop. Choosing a president who does not belong to the Society of Jesus for the first time would not explicitly reaffirm our Catholic mission. This is not to say that Bishop McManus would revoke our Catholic status were we to choose a layperson, but I think it would certainly raise some eyebrows.
Recent polls among the Holy Cross student body indicate a reason for concern. For starters, only 342 students bothered to respond to the poll indicating their preferences for future leadership. As reported in The Spire, 15% of students believe the next president should be a layperson, 55.7% are indifferent, and only 29.3% remain committed to Holy Cross’ long history of clergymen at the helm of our institution. The fact that the majority of the few students polled are indifferent to the matter raises the question of whether we actually want to be, or consider ourselves, a Catholic institution at this point. Additionally, on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important) students polled an average of 3.27 for how important they think it is that the next president has worked at a Jesuit institution. How would a president without a lived experience of a Jesuit institution’s mission be able to lead Holy Cross? We must recommit to our Jesuit values through our 33rd president to combat this indifference towards the school’s foundation.
One may wonder how important the president’s role is. The Holy Cross website lists the role of the president as the “chief executive of the College, charged with responsibility for overseeing all affairs of the institution.” This is a fairly broad definition, but from it, one can determine that the president at least sets the tone for carrying out the college’s mission and priorities. At the forefront of these endeavors should be working on reaffirming our commitment to being a Catholic institution. Who better to lead these efforts than someone with a vocation to live a life directly consecrated to God?
Some may wonder why Holy Cross should retain its Catholic identity to begin with. Well, put simply, that’s who we are and that is what students and alumni signed up for when we chose to come here. Disregarding our long history of clergymen would be an unnecessary statement amid Holy Cross’s increasing efforts to be progressive. Our goals and mission can be aptly, and better, accomplished through maintaining a distinguished Jesuit identity. Holy Cross students polled their top priorities for the incoming president as being 29% academics, 27.9% diversity, equity, and inclusion, and 18.5% transparency. Additionally, some of the keywords that many are looking for in a leader include: understanding, charismatic, proactive, honest, etc. All of these priorities can be accomplished by maintaining a commitment to clergy leadership. Let’s avoid becoming the College of the Un-Holy Cross.
Lastly, in addition to choosing a Jesuit priest, I suggest the Committee choose someone who is apolitical. Tensions are at an all-time high, and the College would benefit from a leader who builds bridges rather than walls. Our newest leader should embrace debate and productive discussions rather than enforcing his own agenda. This way, students will be intellectually stimulated and challenged rather than indoctrinated. We must embrace and promote the critical thinking that comes with a liberal arts education. We come to Holy Cross to learn and grow as both people and thinkers; let’s not leave as clones.
Holy Cross has had presidents for as long as 24 years and as little as 2. When it comes down to it, we have little idea of how long our next leader will serve. The selection of Father Boroughs’ successor will not only represent current students––the College is selecting a leader for future Crusaders as well. We, as an institution, must stay in-line with the mission of the College.
We invite those who would like an apolitical, Jesuit clergyman as the next president of the College to fill out this Google Form, which will be forwarded to the Presidential Search Committee. Identities will not be shared with those outside of the necessary channels
A House Fitting for the Lord
You’re stuck shoulder to shoulder with a somewhat familiar face from your orientation group while a voice echoes from the ambo, barely audible over the droning roar of circular fans. The sharp crack of a small rock dropped on the marble floor jolts your mind from the stifling stupor of the late summer heat, if only for a moment. A bead of sweat journeys down your forehead as the grumbling of your stomach recalls the promise of food ere long. Convocation – perhaps, the first time you’ve truly sat in St. Joseph’s Chapel.
This first time formally gathered with your entire class may not have instantly screamed beauty, though it was undoubtedly a charming event. Too often are we caught unaware of the beauty that St. Joseph’s chapel holds. However, I must say, the chapel, although far from the pinnacle of church architecture, maintains a standard of beauty unsurpassed by any other structure on campus – a standard of beauty sacrosanct with the beauty of the Mass celebrated within its walls. A beauty too often buried by apathy. In reality, Church design far surpasses everyday beauty and encompasses a realm of symbolism that encapsulates the whole of salvation history. I invite you to simply observe. If you’re able, take this article and read it in the chapel so you may observe any details I highlight. Let me take you on a tour.
St. Germanus of Constantinople prescribes the standard of a Christian church in his work “Ecclesiastical History and Mystical Contemplation,” pronouncing “The Church is an earthly heaven in which the supercelestial God dwells and walk about.” And we as Catholics know this to be true. Does not our God truly dwell in the tabernacle? Does He not walk about in each of us when we receive His true Body and Blood? Surely, He does. So the Church must then look the part. This is why we see Gold ornamentation a plenty. This is why the predella is constructed from marble. This is why the ceilings lift high as though to somehow mimic the vast glory of Heaven. What houses the glorious must be glorious, if only a mere shred of the glory of the former. The earthly beauty helps our weak mortal minds to conceptualize the incalculable majesty of God – a God truly present in the Church.
Perhaps my favorite feature upon the predella is the ciborium. The four columns support a grand golden canopy, under which is the tabernacle of Christ (though St. Joseph’s Chapel houses the true presence of our Lord off to the left side, a decision I will not discuss here). This ciborium not only supports the majesty of what dwells beneath, but as St. Germanus connects, harkens to the Holy of Holies – the dwelling place of God in the Old Testament, which housed the Ark of the Covenant. This similarity deepens once we recognize that, as the Ark housed the sign of the Mosaic covenant, the tabernacle under the ciborium houses the sign of God’s final covenant, Christ Himself.
The columns, which support this grand canopy hold weight, yet hold a vastly greater host of symbolism. In 1 Kings 6:16 Solomon adorns the temple with “palm trees and open flowers.” Upon closer glance, we see that St. Joseph’s Chapel is similarly adorned: the Corinthian column, with their capitals of foliage rise like the palm trees. Rosettes comprise the backdrop of the stained-glass windows and carved flowers adorn the edges of the octagonal segments on the ceiling. These are not exclusive to St Joseph’s Chapel but adorn most any church, though the symbolism runs deeper than mere decorative similarity. Church tradition holds that this design of churches, and Solomon’s temple reference the Garden of Eden, before the fall. As places of Heaven on Earth, they recall the time when man was closest to God. This perfect, unblemished state of man is paralleled by the neat, orderly rows of the columns, the consistency of the foliage from capital to capital, the seemingly perfect placement of every floral detail. The Church itself strives to be perfect as was the garden before man ate of the forbidden fruit.
Still, there is more to learn from the columns. Notice how the columns are Corinthian, not Ionic like those of Dinand. This differentiates the house of God from merely a house of study. There are two other places on campus, to my knowledge, where Corinthian columns can also be found. They can be found in Fenwick, for instance, but even more importantly, they can be seen in the interior of Kimball. Why do these similar architectural choices appear in both locations? Well, think — what do Kimball and the chapel have in common? Two things, for me, come to mind – they are both houses of feasts and of celebration. In Kimball we hold banquets and common meals – we eat and are sustained. In the chapel we consume the Body and Blood of Christ – we eat and are sustained. In Kimball we celebrate holidays and events, and in the chapel, we celebrate the most magnificent moment in history: our salvation.
So far, I’ve elucidated some deeper symbolism and ancient significance of the Chapel, however one particular detail, a personal favorite of mine, speaks to more recent church History. If you venture up the steps of the predella and look closely at the marble floors, you’ll notice something peculiar – a thin rectangular strip of marble, a slightly different color from the marble surrounding it. A quick glance, left or right, will tell you why the floor was patched. On either flank are the remnants of the altar rail, a relic from the Church pre-Vatican II. The rail once separated the lay from the priest, maintaining a higher degree of sanctity about the altar. It was a place where only those performing the sacrifice might dare to step. Now, we’ve lost that symbol of deep sanctity, though the altar remains as holy as ever. It’s these little details that go unnoticed, and that many in the Church want to go unnoticed, that speak to the true sanctity of the place, as well as the historical operations of the church.
As the altar rail (or the remnant thereof) tells us, the congregation of the Church stands removed from the altar. The altar is the place of God, the pews are the place of people. What great reminders of this are the beautiful stained-glass windows that flank the walls depicting Confessors on one side and Martyrs on the other. We stand, not only amid those other people present with us at Church in the moment, but with the entire congregation of the Church in Heaven as well. What great company to dwell with us! Yet, they are, like us, nowhere near the greatness of our Lord.
I would now like to return this tour to you. You’ve heard my spiel on some symbolism. You’ve heard my interpretation, that of the traditions of the church, and of St. Germanus. But take some time to view the chapel with your own eyes. What catches your glance? What enraptures you? What lifts your mind and heart to God?
There is so much beauty within this chapel, a beauty common to many Catholic churches across the globe. We are lucky to have such a rich history of architecture – of architecture with meaning. So let us not forget the importance of the Church. Quoting St. Germanus once more, “…it is glorified more than the tabernacle of the witness of Moses, in which are the mercy-seat and the Holy of Holies. It is prefigured in the patriarchs, foretold by the prophets, founded in the apostles, adorned by the hierarchs, and fulfilled in the martyrs.” It is the house of our truly present God.
The Climate Strike
Environmental activists gathered on the Dinand steps today, in front of the statue of Christ’s Crucified Hand. Representatives from the Chaplain’s office tried to hang one of their strike signs on the statue, but the wind blew it off; they made sure to use the statue for the remaining time as a placeholder for their plastic water bottles and cell phones. To prevent starvation, protestors were given dozens of colorful bagels to munch on as they paraded with their capes and signs.
“The world is dying and we need to do something about it,” said student Jack Parks ‘23, who told The Fenwick Review that he was protesting “deregulation on things like mercury, or waste - how people handle waste, stuff like that. Companies throwing stuff into any bodies of water that they can pollute just to get waste away from them.”
Despite the protesters’ widespread opposition to plastic items like straws, the protest’s organizers were passing out plastic Climate Strike stickers. When pressed, protestors acknowledged that it seemed a little hypocritical.
At a little past nine, the event officially started, with speeches given by the march’s leaders. The first speaker was a junior who attempted in vain to rally people up. The cheers were vaguely reminiscent of teenagers at a concert. There were calls to demand action, and to interrogate their fellow students on why they didn’t attend the rally: “...you must hold the people around you accountable.” The first speaker was the longest and was followed by other students with similar points.
Finally, Marybeth Kearns-Barrett, the head of the Chaplain’s office, addressed the crowd. She continued to use the same rhetoric as the former speakers, quoting Pope Francis and calling for action. Towards the end of her speech, she spoke about God’s graciousness and love, referring to God with the pronoun “she.” When asked to clarify that this is what she meant, she did so without hesitation. Her speech ended with a prayer.
Our warriors then proceeded to march through the streets of Worcester to City Hall to demand their voices be heard.
Holy Cross Hysteria
On Vanderbilt University’s campus in November 2015, a bag of fecal matter was discovered on the porch of the University’s Black Cultural Center. As might be expected, the incident garnered widespread attention on campus, and outrage immediately ensued. The discovery of the bagged feces came the day after a group of black students staged a public protest against alleged racism on campus. Naturally, the optics of an incident like this are less than ideal; the placement of feces on the doorstep of a University’s Black Cultural Center only a day after a major protest might have certain implications and play into particular narratives. Vanderbilt’s black student organization didn’t hesitate to denounce the incident as a “deplorable” act of hate: without delay, the group condemned the episode on its Facebook page, contacted police, and informed campus administrators of what it saw to be a “vile” act “of hurt.” Within hours of the student group’s allegations, however, law enforcement officials revealed that the bag was left on the porch not as an act of racism or bias, but by a blind student who had just picked up after her service dog and hoped someone at the Center would properly dispose of the bag on her behalf.
In recent weeks and months, the Holy Cross community has been practically bombarded with allegations, assumptions, and assertions that echo the false cries of bias and racism from Vanderbilt’s campus several years ago. Students and other members of the campus community have received a plethora of frantic emails, walked past constantly expanding arrays of condemnatory posters and signs, and attended narrative-driven on-campus events that paint Holy Cross as a nasty community festered with hate, plagued by intolerance, and beleaguered with bigotry.
““...The administration should practice what it preaches and aim to seek the truth rather than to impose a narrative.”
”
The Holy Cross administration’s tendency to leap to particular conclusions about rumors and allegations on campus has become entirely predictable. Rather than withholding judgment about reported incidents until additional facts are available and investigations are completed, the school chooses to immediately default to the “hate crime” label. This pattern has led to immeasurable harm within the Holy Cross community: the administration’s habitual rush-to-judgment approach when handling ambiguous incidents has cultivated an atmosphere of hypersensitivity on campus. How can Holy Cross in good faith call for students to “be patient with ambiguity and uncertainty,” as it does in its mission statement, when the school itself refuses to be? Instead of force-feeding students with unsubstantiated narratives of racism, sexism, homophobia, and bigotry every time vague incidents are reported, the administration should practice what it preaches and aim to seek the truth rather than to impose a narrative.
Like the occurrence at Vanderbilt in 2015, many of the incidents to which the Holy Cross administration has responded appear nefarious on a surface level. When students are informed of torn-down black history signs and missing rainbow flags, it’s not entirely unreasonable to assume that such acts are bias-motivated or otherwise wicked in intent. But the automatic presumption that these acts are ‘hate crimes’ is preposterous and unfair. On more than one occasion during my rather short time at Holy Cross, students have drunkenly torn down signs in residence halls. Is it that far-fetched to think that the removal of the “Black Herstory” board in February could have been the result of drunken recklessness rather than an instance of “bias-motivated vandalism” and an “act of intolerance”? Is it that far-fetched to think that the disappearance of a rainbow flag last November could have been caused by the wind? According to Holy Cross, apparently. In both of these instances, the administration explicitly noted that investigations had not been completed. In the case of the rainbow flag, students were informed that school officials “do not know the motivation for the flag’s removal,” yet they still didn’t hesitate to label the incident as “deeply troubling.”
Of course, it’s not infeasible that some of these incidents have been bias-motivated. And in cases where bias is proven and verified, such incidents should be condemned in the strongest possible terms. But the constant presumption of bias in cases where no such bias is evident makes the Holy Cross administration look reactive, hypersensitive, and possibly motivated by a victimhood narrative. As Professor David Schaefer of Political Science wrote in a previous issue of The Fenwick Review in response to the appearance of a swastika on campus, “Judging from my long acquaintance with Holy Cross students, I would guess that the swastika was far more likely a stupid prank provoked by the College's ever-increasing barrage of ‘multicultural’ indoctrination than a reflection of Nazi sentiment.” In a sense, the College’s ultra-reactive responses to incidents like the torn-down black history sign, the missing rainbow flag, and other allegations with zero evidence are comical. How can one make such jarring assumptions based on such little information? How can the administration justifiably cancel a day of classes and force a summit on “campus culture” when over 100 hours of security footage and more than 40 interviews produced not even an iota of evidence for the supposed “hate crime” the summit was intended to address? How does jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions and advancing uncorroborated narratives of hate in any way benefit students or the greater campus community?
Several national incidents have invoked this same sense of false outrage in the first two months of 2019 alone. The alleged bias-motivated attack against actor Jussie Smollett, which several prominent politicians did not hesitate to label as “an attempted modern day lynching” and a “racist, homophobic attack,” turned out to be part of a not-so-elaborate hoax staged for the advancement of Smollett’s own career. Ironically, it wasn’t until after the alleged Jussie Smollett attack was revealed as a hoax that Democrat presidential candidate Senator Kamala Harris said she wasn’t “going to comment until I know the outcome of the investigation” and Senator Cory Booker, another 2020 candidate, vowed to “withhold until all the information actually comes out from on-the-record sources.” If the “outcome of the investigation” and “all the information” are important, why weren’t they when each senator immediately decried the attack as a “modern day lynching”? Likewise, students from Covington Catholic High School were instantly characterized as racist and bigoted based on a few seconds of video footage depicting a confrontation with a Native American elder, until it was revealed based on extended footage that the elder was provoking the students, not the other way around. What do incidents such as these say about the state of the culture? Perhaps more importantly, what can we learn from them?
We live in a reactive society. Whether our nation’s current level of hypersensitivity is rooted in animosity towards the President, towards people of faith, towards ‘straight white men,’ or towards anything or anyone else, people tend to jump to conclusions based on what they want to believe. In reality, narratives of racism don’t hold any water when evidence for such racism ceases to exist. America in 2019 is a pretty great place to exist: very few are truly victims, and all people – including women and minorities – have more opportunities now than at any other time in history. Likewise, whether we like to admit so or not, Holy Cross is an extremely inclusive and welcoming campus. Everyone who is fortunate enough to attend this school is far from being victimized, regardless of what the powers at be might want us to think.
Ultimately, everyone on campus would be better off if the administration were to take a step back, examine all available information, and let any investigations run their course before sending campus-wide emails decrying unclear incidents as “hate crimes” the second they’re reported. Do we want to be a campus based on narrative or a campus based on fact? Do we want to assume the worst in one another or the best in one another? Do we want to be a campus that jumps to conclusions or a campus that strives to reach the truth? I can only hope we aim for the latter. Our campus, our community, and our culture will be better for it.
““Ultimately, everyone on campus would be better off if the administration were to take a step back, examine all available information, and let any investigations run their course before sending campus-wide emails decrying unclear incidents as ‘hate crimes’ the second they’re reported.”
”
In Defense of Being a Jesus Freak
For a long time, I was convinced that only weirdos were called to take Christianity seriously. That sounds harsh and judgmental, but in my defense, there are a lot of weird Christians. This isn’t anything new; Jesus spent most of his time on earth hanging out with the social outcasts, the weirdos of his day, and for the last 2,000 years, Christianity has embraced those on the fringes of society. The result, at least in my mind, was a religion full of weirdos. By that logic, I figured that, since I’m not a weirdo, I’m not called to take Christianity seriously or follow Jesus.
““As a result, plenty of people are content to write off the Catholic Church by its stereotypes, and society is full of rhetoric that consistently paints religious people in a bad light.”
”
I was wrong. I am weirdo. And I am called to follow Him. Now I’m not saying that God only calls weirdos, but I am saying that I certainly don’t break the stereotype. Furthermore, if you look around at groups of faithful, young, intelligent Catholics, you’ll find tons of weirdos. The result is that many people, inside and outside of the Catholic Church, come to believe the stereotype. It doesn’t help that the very structure of Catholicism can seem designed to breed weirdos: it’s full of secrecy and strange smoke and odd rules about sex. At times, it can seem like the Church is designed to attract weird people and then make them weirder. As a result, plenty of people are content to write off the Catholic Church by its stereotypes, and society is full of rhetoric that consistently paints religious people in bad light.
Here’s the truth: there is no shortage of…unique Catholics. But contrary to what society or even those within the Church want to tell you, I don’t think that’s such a bad thing. For one, society’s disdain for the uniqueness of Catholics can be hypocritical. Social media is full of people urging one another to be true to themselves and to fight conformity, but Catholics are derided or mocked for their refusal to conform. Our culture promotes pseudo-countercultural movements (like being hipster) while it simultaneously attacks ideologies that are actually countercultural. Ironically, the very people praising non-conformity miss the fact that some of the most unique, countercultural people are faithful Catholics. Even within the Church, there is often an unspoken pressure for young Catholics to not be “too” Catholic, too overtly or outspokenly faithful. While some think that “playing it cool” could make the Church more attractive, this approach could be lethal.
That is because uniqueness—authentic uniqueness, not the hipster uniqueness that can be found in every nook and cranny in Portland—is the stuff of Saints. Many writers have said that true holiness is about becoming yourself. If that’s true, then it makes sense that holy people don’t really blend in with the crowd. We were made to be unique individuals, and when we are the people we were made to be, we’re going to be a little unique. (I’m not claiming to be holy - I’m just saying I’ve got the unique part down pat.) If you look at the saints, this holds true. The lives of the saints are often shockingly different from one another, illustrating that sanctity runs contrary to conformity. For example, Anthony of Padua got sick of nobody listening to him, so he started preaching to the fish. That’s weird. St. Philip Neri once shaved off the right half of his beard so people wouldn’t take him too seriously. St. Therese of Lisieux was meek and gentle; St. Nicholas (aka Santa) punched a man during a gathering of bishops and spent a night in jail. God’s chosen ones come in all shapes in sizes. He calls all of us, and we’re all a little odd.
Society also freaks out about weird holy people because they don’t understand Christ, and true holiness divorced from Christ makes no sense. Take Mother Teresa. Most called her a living saint, yet a variety of atheists slandered her, condemned her, and compared her to Satan. Why? Because Mother Teresa was too Christlike to possibly comprehend without comprehending Christ. Her critics made up a million selfish motivations to explain the way she lived her life because they couldn’t figure out what her real reward was. They assumed she was driven by ulterior motivations. No one, they argued, could be that... good. True holiness is incomprehensible to those who don’t understand Jesus. When confronted with inexplicable goodness, the world naturally tries to explain it away with explicable badness.
I’m not saying that holiness necessarily makes you weird. As Fr. Mike Schmitz said, “I’ve met a lot of weird holy people, but most of them were weird before they were holy.” Nor am I saying that everyone who’s weird is also holy. I am saying that society tends to hyper-focus on the fact that Christians are weird. This weirdness comes in part from being ourselves. That’s a major aspect of holiness. It also comes from the countercultural nature of Christ’s message—anyone who wants to reject the culture in favor of Christ appears to be out of their mind. But I also think that some of this has to do with the devil.
I know, I know. Bringing up Satan. I sound like one of those weirdos from church. Oh wait—
Here’s the deal. The devil doesn’t just dance around in a red unitard with horns and a pitchfork. That would be too easy (and too funny). Instead, he gets in our heads. As C.S. Lewis points out in The Screwtape Letters, one way the devil does this is by convincing us that everyone at church is weird. If we think weirdness and holiness are inseparable, we’ll be deterred from our desire for holiness by our desire to be normal. I’ve been there before. I rationalized not living a Christian life by telling myself I was normal, and therefore not obligated to follow God. Looking back on it, I can see my exorbitant pride and selfishness. Yet how often are our impulses to follow God curbed by the fear that we’ll be seen as a “Jesus-freak”? The enemy benefits from that. By sheer pride, he can convince us to never even try to follow God.
““As a College we didn’t get to where we are now by inching away from our Catholicism.”
”
One last note. As the College reviews and examines its own Catholic identity, it’s all too easy to fall into the same trap. It would be easy to sacrifice our Catholic identity in the name of attracting more diverse applicants, gaining prestige, or earning respect in the increasingly secular world of academia. Whether we admit it or not, the same self-consciousness that prevents a college freshman from standing up for his or her faith can be found at an institutional level. There’s a fear of being “too Catholic.” There’s a worry that outsiders will stereotype us, laugh at us, and judge us. As a College, we didn’t get to where we are now by inching away from our Catholicism. In fact, Holy Cross has a long and storied history of embracing Catholicism, even when it wasn’t popular: the College is only in Worcester because Bishop Fenwick was run out of Boston by an anti-Catholic mob, and we chose the Crusader mascot in 1925 to anger the KKK, who had been attacking Catholic schools. Both instances highlight how, instead of shying away from our faith, we have embraced it. I urge all those involved in reviewing the school’s Catholic identity to do the same. Do not be afraid.
All I can say is this: maybe we’re not all called to be weirdos (most of us already are a little weird) but we are all called to holiness. So let’s embrace that and live for Christ—in all the wild weirdness that that may entail.
Holy Cross Athletics: Quo Vadis?
This article was written in March 2019, previous to the hiring of a new Athletic Director.
In view of the multimillion dollar enhancements which have been made to the Holy Cross (HC) athletic facilities in the past few years, primarily as a result of alumni donations, this analysis was undertaken to assess the trajectory of athletic success which has accompanied these developments. For this purpose, we have conducted an analysis of the win-loss records and winning percentages of all HC sports teams for which such records have been compiled in the Go Holy Cross website (including the men’s baseball, basketball, football, ice hockey, lacrosse, soccer and tennis teams and the women’s basketball, field hockey, ice hockey, lacrosse, soccer, softball, tennis and volleyball teams) during the years 2013-2018. The analysis consisted of an examination of the win-loss records for each team for each year and the compilation of cumulative win-loss records and winning percentages for the entire study period as both overall results and conference-specific results.
Men’s teams:
Overall Records: Over the 5 years of the study, 4 of the 7 men’s teams achieved a winning record at least one year, all but one before 2015: baseball 2/5 (last 2017), basketball 1/5 ( 2013), Football 1/5 ( 2015) and Ice Hockey 1/5 ( 2015). None had an overall winning percentage, and 4 won less than 40% of their games over 5 years.
Conference records: Three teams had at least one winning season in conference play: Baseball 4/5 years (all but 2014), basketball 1/5 years (2013) and Ice Hockey 4/5 years (all but 2013). Two (baseball (0.74) and Ice Hockey (0.53) had winning conference percentages, while four of the other teams won 37% or less of their conference games over 5 years.
Women’s teams:
Overall Records: Three of the 8 women’s teams posted a winning record in at least one of the 5 years: Basketball 1/5 (2013), Ice Hockey 5/5, and soccer 1/5 (2014). Only Ice Hockey had an overall winning percentage (0.76) and 6 teams won 39% or less of their games over 5 years.
Conference Records: Two of the 8 teams posted at least one winning year in conference play: Basketball 3/5 (last 2015) and Ice Hockey 5/5, which was the only team with a winning percentage (0.75) over the 5 years while 6 won 39% or less of their conference games over the 5 years.
Summary:
During the study period, 7/15 teams posted at least one winning overall season for a total of 12 out of 75 (16%) seasons of play. In conference play, 5/15 teams posted winning seasons for a total of 17 out of 75 (0.22%) seasons of play. Over the five years, none of the men’s teams and only one of the women’s teams achieved a cumulative overall winning percentage of 50% or greater, while 10 of the 15 teams won less than 40% of their games. In conference play, two men’s teams and one women’s team posted cumulative winning records while 10 won less than 40% of their games.
In addition to these team sports which produce W-L records, two other categories of sport were reviewed: 1) individual sports which do not routinely report team scores (e.g. track/field; swimming/diving which could not be further assessed); and 2) team sports involving competition with several teams in which team scores are reported based on the team’s standing among the competing teams (e.g. cross country and golf). In reviewing the latter sports for this study, team records were rated based on whether the team scored in the top half of the total competing teams for each meet. Of these teams only the women’s cross country team recorded a winning record in one year (7-3 in 2014) out of a total of 20 seasons of play (5%).
Discussion:
At the time of his appointment as Athletic Director, the current Holy Cross AD was quoted (Holy Cross Magazine) as setting a goal for Holy Cross Athletic teams of winning conference championships in all sports in which teams were fielded by Holy Cross. From these data, during the study years, 2 men’s teams (Baseball and Ice Hockey) and 2 Women’s teams (Basketball and Ice Hockey) posted winning records in conference play in most years, which could be judged to approach this standard, although the last winning conference record for the women’s basketball team was in the 2015-16 season. In contrast, 4 men’s teams and 6 women’s teams never posted a winning season in any of the 5 years and their trajectories over the 5 year span were fairly flat, indicating little or no improvement. Clearly, if the stated goal of the Athletic Department is to be reached, especially for the latter teams, a strategy for accomplishing this is needed. There appear to be at least two possible courses of action to develop such a strategy (which are not mutually exclusive):
Specific sports (especially those without a history of winning) could be considered candidates for a change in their levels of intercollegiate competition, such as going down in Division of competition (e.g. from NCAA Div I to Div II or III or to a non-NCAA level) while keeping the successful (or revenue-generating) teams in the higher division). This option has worked well for schools such as The Johns Hopkins University which fields only one NCAA Div I team (Lacrosse) which is highly successful and usually nationally ranked while competing in a Div III conference quite successfully in all other sports. This would entail decisions about conference participation as well, especially for those teams which have traditionally been non-competitive in the current conference as noted above. Holy Cross has implemented a variant on this theme in the current year by upgrading the level of competition of the women’s hockey team from Div III to Div I. Unfortunately, at the time of this writing (February 2/12/19), this team, which achieved an enviable (and the best of all Holy Cross teams) prior 5 year overall record of 88-35 (winning %= 0.75) as a Div III team, currently has a record of 1-26-3 in Div I. Another strategy in this category would be to remove these teams from NCAA competition altogether and designate them as club teams, which several colleges have done very successfully at major savings in cost.
Consideration can also be made to initiate changes in the staffing of the team leadership, especially for teams which have a longstanding history of poor performance (e.g. beyond this 5 year window) under the same management. This could include both changing coaching staff and improving recruitment efficiency and practices. Again, Holy Cross has in the 2018-19 year hired a new football coach after the dismissal of the prior long-term coach with somewhat positive results (overall winning record went from 4-7 in the previous 2 years to 5-6 (although the record in 2015 was 6-5) and the conference record went from 3-3 to 4-2, the first conference winning record in the study period of 6 years. However, this option might be limited since the majority of both men’s and women’s coaches are of recent tenure (5 years or less).
Personal Reflection:
““...the Holy Cross student body deserve(s) at least some evidence of an attempt by the Holy Cross Athletic Department to carry out the laudable goals set forth by the Athletic Director at the time of his hiring.”
”
As a member of the Holy Cross Class of 1959, I was fortunate to have experienced an era (1955-1959) of almost unparalleled success of the limited number of teams fielded by Holy Cross during my student career. The major sports teams (Football (22-13, pct 0.63); Basketball (66-35, pct 0.66 with one appearance in the NCAA tournament); and Baseball (47-13 for 3 years, pct. 0.78 with two bids to the NCAA College World Series) all had overall winning records (there was no conference at that time) for all years except for a 12-12 record for the basketball team in 1956-57. The one team with an overall losing record (Ice Hockey, 16-23, pct. 0.40) was dropped as an intercollegiate sport in the 1958-59 season due to lack of support. In addition, the sports of Lacrosse and Tennis saw substantial improvements in performance over the 4 years, with records going from 1-6 in ’55 to 7-3 in ’59 for Lacrosse and 5-4 to 8-2 for Tennis. The success described had a very salutary effect on the morale and enthusiasm of the student body and, of course, was very supportive of the student athletes. With this as background, it is my personal opinion that the Holy Cross student body and especially its student athletes as well as alumni (especially those donating large sums to the upgrading of the sports facilities) and the sports fans of the Worcester area deserve at least some evidence of an attempt by the Holy Cross Athletic Department to carry out the laudable goals set forth by the Athletic Director at the time of his hiring.