Letter from the Editors: March/April 2019

Dear Reader,

Thank you for reading the March/April issue of The Fenwick Review. It’s about time that we let it clear the press.

Given that our writers usually have entirely different ideas about what they should cover in the next version of the Review— ergo the “Holy  Cross’ Independent Journal of Opinion”—we most often do not create themed issues. However, after reading through the series of articles on these pages, it seems that there’s a common sentiment floating about. We all are looking back fondly on the past.

Mr. Foley’s article about sacrifice, Mr. Buzzard’s about St. Patrick’s Day, and Dr. Thomas Craig’s article on Holy Cross Athletics all explicitly look backward. They gesture to an older, finer time, where reverence and excellence were virtues held in higher esteem. As for Mr. Pietro’s article? The United States surely would not have dared entertain socialism 70 years ago.  Mr. Brennan’s article begs the question of why, now, so few people have thick skins. Ms. Anderson’s article and Mr. Rosenwinkel’s articles push us to recall a time when Catholicism was not lukewarm.

This issue of The Fenwick Review, thus, has a keen sense for tradition, whether it be our economic policies, athletic excellence, fervency in the Church, and so on. We hearken back to tradition because, in these so chaotic times, we desire it. 

In G.K. Chesterton’s Orthodoxy, he quotes: “Tradition means giving a vote to most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead.”  Let us not forget what they have given us, for it is they who brought us here.

Seamus Brennan & Michael Raheb

Co-Editors-in-Chief

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.

The Faith of the Least of All Believers

What comes into your mind when you think about St. Patrick’s Day? Is it the parades, the waves of green, and everyone getting to be ‘Irish for the day’? Is it a day of binge drinking with your friends on the lot? Even in the most innocent of descriptions about St. Patrick’s Day, one thing seems to be consistently forgotten: St. Patrick himself. How is it possible that we celebrate the Feast of St. Patrick on March 17th, and yet so many people ignore its actual purpose? All of these questions find their answers in how secular our society has become, in our ignorance of religious feasts and our focus on earthly desires. So, then: who is this St. Patrick, and why does he deserve to be appreciated with something other than binge drinking?

St. Patrick was a brilliant 5th century Saint who was responsible for bringing the entire island of Ireland to Christ. He was a gifted evangelist, so he could explain the fundamentals of the Christian faith to the pagans in Ireland in a way that made sense. For example, St. Patrick used his famous shamrock to explain the Trinity to the pagans, who were able to grasp the concept of Threeness from their own faith. With this foundation, Patrick was able to teach the Truth and establish the Church in Ireland. Since the Irish were deeply steeped in oral tradition, it is unfortunate that many of Patrick’s works are not written down like those of of equally popular saints. We know of Patrick mostly through his Confession and the tradition of the Church that speaks about his bravery and miracles. His bravery was seen in his ability to speak directly to the Pagan Kings of Ireland, to their druids, and to ignore the threats of violence that resulted from his attempt to convert them. His miracle-working and effectiveness was seen in his conversion of those same people who threatened him and success in saving their souls. How great is this Saint that, while staring down imminent danger, he did all things for Christ?

To understand the Patrick that exists in tradition, it is important to understand the Saint from his own perspective in his Confession. The Confession begins with the following admission: “My name is Patrick. I am a sinner, a simple country person, and the least of all believers.” As we think of our own lives as believers, and I think particularly of my own life, we must note that this is a man who genuinely believes that he, a sinner, is the least of all believers. This man is a Saint and the Confession is his defense of not seeking any ulterior motive in baptizing the Irish. He views himself as a lowly person who deserves neither status nor riches. Later in the Confession, Patrick discusses the temptation that he faces constantly in the pagan society, but he adamantly protects himself from those who wish him ill. He puts all his trust into the Lord. Patrick survived slavery, torture, 12 dangers (and many more that lay hidden, which Patrick spares his reader from seeing), with the confidence that the Lord was the author of his protections. To put it simply: Patrick was a Saint who was indebted to God for his freedom and, rather than using his earthly freedom for his own pleasure, decided to use that freedom to win souls for God. In his Confession, Patrick describes a portion of his life’s journey and how God, in all His mercy, helped Patrick to win over thousands of souls in Ireland during the 5th century onward.    

One story of St. Patrick is worthy of note in that it has been passed down in the Church through the centuries as a ‘small “t” tradition’ because its credibility is questionable, due to Ireland’s oral history. The tradition regards his 40 days fasting and praying on Croagh Patrick, one of the holiest mountains in Ireland. His intention, for those 40 days, was to pray for the salvation of the Irish people in present and future generations. In such an intense period of prayer, Patrick communicated with God through an angel and petitioned that, when he would be in Heaven, no unbeliever of Christ would ever hold Ireland. One of the most famous parts of his petition is his request that when “the twelve royal seats shall be on the Mount, and when the four rivers of fire shall be about the Mount, and when the three peoples shall be there - that is, the people of Heaven, the people of Earth, and the people of Hell - I myself shall be judge over the men of Erin on that day.” The angel told him that the Lord would not grant his request, so Patrick resolved to remain on the mountain until it was granted - with the stipulation that someone would follow in his place to fast should he die in the process. Patrick was then blessed with the proclamation that, “all creatures, visible and invisible, including the twelve Apostles, entreated, and they have obtained what you have requested.” This powerful proclamation may lack a base in theology, but the sentiment stands that Patrick intensely desired to save the Irish and wishes to watch over them through his intercession until the Judgement Day. No witnesses to his claim exist, since Patrick was alone on the mountain for 40 days, but if we are to trust in his claim, Patrick prayed for the intercession of all of Heaven to grant his request. While Christ is the judge, the sons and daughters of Ireland and their worldwide descendants should have some hope that St. Patrick is praying for them every day - including on that final day.

Patrick was truly a man of God and a man who humbled himself before the foot of the Cross. It is egregious that we have decided as a society to embrace drinking culture rather than to prostrate ourselves before Christ. We must ask ourselves: how would the Saint himself want us to celebrate his Feast Day? To put it simply, we ought to use our reason to come to love God rather than lose our reason in loving temporary pleasures. If you are of Irish descent, you have a powerful patron in St. Patrick, who loved the Irish people so greatly that he was granted God’s grace to live over one hundred years and see the establishment of the traditions and foundation of the Church in Ireland. We are called to be Christians every day and bear the suffering that comes with our faith. Let us pray for the intercession of our powerful patron, St. Patrick, that we may have the faith to earnestly honor our Irish heritage on his Feast Day rather than submit to the drunkenness of the world. To end with a final quote from St. Patrick in his Confession:

“I pray for those who believe in and have reverence for God. Some of them may happen to inspect or come upon this writing which Patrick, a sinner without learning, wrote in Ireland. May none of them ever say that whatever little I did or made known to please God was done through ignorance. Instead, you can judge and believe in all truth that it was a gift of God. This is my confession before I die.”

““While Christ is the judge, the sons and daughters of Ireland and their worldwide descendants should have some hope that St. Patrick is praying for them every day —including on that final day.”
”

The Problem With Christian Socialism

As I have progressed through my year at Holy Cross, I could not help but notice the deep intermingling of socialism and Catholicism. I came to Holy Cross with the expectation of receiving a traditional Catholic education, one based in the Christian values of free will, selflessness, and fairness. Unfortunately, that is not quite the message I have received. As the younger generations in this country continue to accept socialism at an ever-increasing rate, this is a problem that I feel compelled to address. I do not find it necessary here to make economic or philosophical justifications for socialism, which would be better suited to an article unto itself. I also find those justifications of socialism far less dangerous than the Christian justification. Socialism based in Christian faith is far more concerning, for economics and politics can be compromised upon, but for many, religion is not up for discussion. Beyond that, socialism is anathema to Christianity, and to fuse the two is a corruption of the very foundation of the faith.

Socialism, on its surface, appears to be perfectly acceptable in the Faith. Christ teaches us to help those in need and to care not for worldly riches. Socialism seems to be compatible with these, for it is predicated upon giving to the less fortunate at the expense of those who value their worldly riches. That conclusion, however, is far too simplistic. I do not doubt that supporters of Christian Socialism only want the best for our country’s people and want to live out the teachings of Christ to the fullest. But it is for that reason that I find it necessary to make my counter-argument.

““Beyond that, socialism is anathema to Christianity, and to fuse the two is a corruption of the very foundation of the faith.”
”

A core teaching of most Christian denominations, and one especially prevalent in the Catholic and Orthodox churches, is that of free will. Free will is the ultimate manifestation of humanity, for it is what differentiates us from all other creatures. Socialism, however, is no friend to free will. It sounds kind and generous to create policy that gives to those in need, but charity by force is as bad as no charity at all. We cannot fool ourselves into thinking that just because a slight majority in Congress votes to impose higher taxes and to redistribute the revenue, that it is a free and collective act of goodwill and charity. Ask yourself what would happen if you decided you did not want to pay higher taxes. The end result would likely be your relocation to a jail cell. That is because taxation, far from benevolent charity, is basically theft. Taxes are certainly necessary in the provision of essential public goods, or goods that are able to be used equally by the entire public, but that is not what socialism provides. Socialism takes by force the earned money of some and puts it into the hands of others. Whether or not they need it is irrelevant to the case I am making here. The point is that Jesus implored us to freely give our wealth to those who need it, not to force others to give up their wealth. He also teaches that those who cherish their wealth too much on earth will pay after death, and the poor will inherit the kingdom of heaven. So if it is a matter of fairness, the greedy will receive their punishment.

““Fairness is for the government to leave the private sector so that everyone has the opportunity to provide for himself and his family.”
”

Another key element of Christianity is the teaching of selflessness. One would think that socialism encourages selflessness, for the wealthy are forced to give up what they have earned. But on the contrary, socialism encourages the worst form of selfishness. Socialism relies on the idea that it is everyone's right to possess a base level of wealth. Again, on its surface that may sound appealing, but there is a dark element to such a theory. Entitlement, far from breeding altruism, breeds selfishness and greed. Socialism encourages us to consider that we have a right to the goods of others, whether or not we have put in the work to deserve them. That, rather than being Christian, is sinful. That is not to say that people should be left to suffer. But those programs should be available only on the basis of absolute need. If one is disabled or loses a job, then help should be provided. Beyond the government, private charity provides superior help and services to those who need it. In fact, it is the increasing government intervention in everyone's lives in the form of higher taxes and regulations that stymies private charity. As taxes increase and it becomes more difficult to do business, less money is available for the private individual to use on charity. Contrary to popular belief, the wealthy are incredible providers of charity. Organizations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation do not sprout from socialist countries, and for good reason.

Finally, a Christian view of fairness is evident throughout Biblical teaching. Whether it be the poor receiving the kingdom of heaven, the evil feeling the wrath of God, or generous forgiveness, fairness is pervasive in Christian teaching. Socialism seems fair in its redistribution of excess, but it is not so simple. It is not fair to steal from the fruits of someone’s labor only to give to those who have not worked to receive it. Stealing is a sin, whether it is voted for by the majority or not. Fairness is for the government to leave the private sector so that everyone has the opportunity to provide for himself and his family.

I argue that capitalism, not socialism, provides the best quality of life for humanity. Over the past century, billions of people have been lifted from abject poverty through capitalism. Technology, of course, has greatly helped in increasing the living standards throughout the world, but that technology exists primarily because of capitalism. People develop new products because there is a financial incentive for their creation. If the expectation was that the government would take the vast majority of one’s profits, the incentive to create new products falls away. The technology that has helped the lives of millions, from medical advances to the computer, all have their success based in capitalism. Capitalism takes advantage of humanity’s innate greed, an inherent negative and obvious sin, and turns it into a positive. Everyone benefits from the production and success of a product: the employees receive higher wages, the customer makes his life better, and the producer receives the profit. Capitalism without any restrictions is certainly dangerous, but capitalism with anything but the utmost necessary restriction hurts the development of goods that make all of our lives better. How is this Christian? Because capitalism is based on voluntary interactions between individuals without coercion, it is the ultimate manifestation of free will. It encourages selflessness, for one has to work to receive. It is fair, because one receives the benefits of his work and theft is not rationalized as generosity. And finally, it unchains the gates so that private charity, the best way to provide necessary goods and services to those in need, can run free. Socialism encourages us to worship the government as the provider of life, but in reality, that quality rests with God alone.

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.

Aztecs, Sacrifice, and the Holy Mass

“The heart of Hummingbird Wizard!

The heart of Hummingbird Wizard!”

The crowd surrounding the pyramid erupts as the Aztec priest, with his hair turned black from dried blood, holds in his hand the still-beating heart of a man now lying motionless upon the stone altar.  The corpse is kicked down the side of the temple before it is eaten by bloodthirsty onlookers. A large snakeskin drum is beaten continually, booming out into the air, as another man is brought to the altar for his blood to be spilled.

The Aztecs were some of the most brutal killers to ever walk the planet.  Of all peoples to engage in the horror of human sacrifice, none were so terrible as these merciless savages.  On one account, as noted by Dr. Warren H. Carroll in Our Lady of Guadalupe and the Conquest of Darkness, 89-year-old Tlacaelel ordered the sacrifice of more than eighty thousand men over the span of just four days, for what amounts to the slaying of one victim every fifteen seconds.  Such a magnitude of evil is enough to make even a Planned Parenthood employee cringe.

Yet underlying this genocide is a strikingly profound reality.  The Aztecs offered these sacrifices to various gods who, according to custom, were glorified by such worship.  They believed that the gods might grant them favors if sacrifices were offered up in their names. This phenomenon is not exclusive to the Aztecs.  Remarkably, human sacrifice was present among nearly all prehistoric tribes as well. The Greeks and Romans offered animal sacrifice. Even the Jews, the inheritors of the true pre-Christian religion, in obedience to God, slew animals for adoration, thanksgiving, atonement, and petition.  People of cultures who never previously came in contact with each other all felt the desire to offer sacrifice. The inclination to not only reach out to the Divine, but to sacrifice something in recognition of our own dependence on Him is universal; it is inherent in man.

Aristotle said that man is the animal with reason; it can just as truthfully be said that man is the animal who worships.  Dogs do not pray for forgiveness after eating food off the table, and calves do not bow down before golden idols; only man recognizes a hole in his heart that natural pleasures cannot fill.  “The eye is not filled with seeing, neither is the ear filled with hearing” (Ecclesiastes 1:8).

Sacrifice has always been the practice at the very center of worship.  Just as we externalize the ideas in our minds with expressions on our faces and words from our lips, sacrifice is man’s outward manifestation of his desire for God from within.  

Ultimately, however, the practice of sacrifice recognizes a certain debt ingrained into the human condition.  Sacrifice can only be motivated by the sentiment that we truly owe something to the Creator.  Otherwise, there would be no reason for any such rituals.  Immolations serve as acknowledgements of God’s power over life, admitting the absolute ownership of existence to a Being beyond the constraint of death.  Man, on the other hand, is a slave to death. It is the one thing he cannot escape. He is a finite being with a longing for the infinite.

Our position could be compared to a man being chased by a hungry bear, as he comes upon the cliff of a mile-long chasm, left with the only options of jumping to his death or letting time take its course before being devoured alive.  He can leap and try to reach salvation, but unless a savior from the other side with a mile-long wingspan reaches out and grabs him, he will fall to the abyss of death.

““He is a finite being with a longing for the
infinite.””

Such is the case also with sacrifice; our attempts to reach God through the slaying of creatures cannot bridge the infinite gap between God and man.  The Aztecs were driven to offer as many sacrifices as possible in hopes to pay off this burden. They sought to cross that infinite chasm with the blood of finite men, but their “gods” were never satiated and their mortality never extinguished.

Men of all ages were imminently aware of this fallen state we find ourselves in, that by Divine Revelation we know to be the product of Original Sin.  The Sin of Adam and our own iniquities have placed us in this inescapable predicament that when left unaided leads straight to eternal damnation. Man is at fault, and only he can pay this infinite debt; yet man is finite, and such a debt can only be paid by the Infinite.  The Roman Catechism says that “the human race, having fallen from its elevated dignity, no power of men or Angels could raise it from its fallen condition and replace it in its primitive state.” If this is the whole story, then the only reasonable reaction is despair. No matter what we do or how we do it, we cannot climb out of this pit of death; “vanity of vanities, all is vanity!” (Ecc. 1:2). But this, we know, is not the full story.  

In the fullness of time, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity took on a human nature to offer the only Sacrifice that could heal this wound: Himself.  “To remedy the evil and repair the loss” that came from the Sin of Adam, the Roman Catechism says that “it became necessary that the Son of God, whose power is infinite, clothed in the weakness of our flesh, should remove the infinite weight of sin and reconcile us to God in His blood.”  True man, He bore the guilt of all humanity. True God, His Sacrifice alone had the efficacy to atone for all sins.

The privilege (and obligation) of the Roman Catholic is his or her ability to be really and truly present at that same Sacrifice that took place two-thousand years ago while at each and every Holy Mass.  The Mass is not a mere supper nor is it a community gathering for entertainment purposes; it is quite literally the unbloody unveiling of the Sacrifice of Christ that perpetually restores mankind to the Father and reorders the cosmos.  Our Lord intended to have this Sacrifice perpetuated in memory and for the application of its graces in every Church throughout the world until its consummation.

The incredible aspects of the Aztec sacrifices lay in the unlikely resemblance they had to Christian worship.  The Aztecs would paint and dress up their sacrificial victims to look like the gods to whom they were offered, so that they would have the “face of a god”.  They would even say that these victims were in the image of gods, so when they were killed it was like a god himself was offered up as a sacrifice.  As Catholics, we believe that “the Son is the image of the invisible God”, who offered Himself as a Sacrifice (Colossians 1:15).  The Aztecs believed they had to offer these finite sacrifices on a daily basis to appease the gods, whereas Catholics celebrate the One Infinite Sacrifice unveiled at Holy Mass every day.  With the guidance of brave Spaniards who risked their lives for the Glory of God, the Aztecs and other natives of Mexico ended up converting to Catholicism in rapid numbers because of these similar concepts in worship.  Instead of eating the legs or arms of the human sacrifices at the bottom of the temple each day, they could now eat the flesh of the God Who died in our place at Holy Communion.    

““True man. He bore the guilt of all humanity. True God. His Sacrifice alone had the efficacy to atone for all sins.”
”

Although it cannot be emphasized enough that the Aztec sacrifices were Satanic acts of wicked savagery, we can clearly see that their impulse - in some sort of odd way - was correct, just carried out incorrectly.  The rational faculty of man enables him to come to profound truths regarding God and His creation, as was seen with the Aztecs. Yet, in order to enter into communion with God, it is necessary that man submit to those Truths Divinely Revealed that cannot be reached by human reason alone.  The Aztecs and other natives converted to Catholicism in rapid numbers, largely because they recognized the Christian faith as the true end of some of their inclinations.

Unapologetically You

You know when you’re singing along to the radio and the words flow from your lips without a single thought? Perhaps you stop to think for a moment, then realize you just shouted an entire line of curse words with your mom sitting beside you. The same seems to go for the Mass as well: an entire group of people, standing in unison reciting the prayers, sitting, responding, maybe whispering along with the opening hymn - but are you really thinking about what you’re doing, or are you going through the motions? We repeatedly praise, worship, and direct our hearts towards our Heavenly Father; we literally speak the words “Our Father,” so why are we denying Him? As Christians, we must never be ashamed of Christ; we must never refuse the gift of faith given to us through Christ’s eternal single sacrifice.

What does that even mean? Now is when most get defensive, explaining how they go to Sunday Mass every single week (maybe except when the Super Bowl is on because… it’s the Super Bowl!) [Note: eyeroll]. They explain how they went to Catholic school for their entire lives; how they were baptized minutes after being born as if their 4-hour-old selves quoted the word of Peter: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). That’s not to be minimized, for it’s true that the blessing of the faith lies within us all. As such, this article isn’t to say that you aren’t doing enough, although that is probably true. Rather, this is to raise the question of denying Christ.

Think about your father. Would you ever deny that he is your father? No matter what your circumstance may be, each one of us has a dad. Even if you don’t know him, or if he is your very best friend in the world, human beings feel a distinct connection to their biological parents. These two people, by the grace of God, created you in His image. Even if he fails to take into account your delicate sensibilities (yes, speaking from experience here...), one does not deny his or her father. Even if you don’t like him, chances are that you somehow love him. Surely, there is a difference between those two verbs.

Now, think of the last time you were standing in Mass, or most any Christian service for that matter. Perhaps without even thinking, the words begin to flow from your mouth: “Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name…” It does not take a Bible scholar to note that we are not talking about our biological father in this instance; rather, we are talking about our Heavenly Father, the one who commonly goes by the name of God, or Dieu if you’re French, Dios if you’re Spanish, and so on. It’s like that time that you were singing in the car with your mom, not considering what the words meant but saying them nonetheless. Crazy, truly.

As someone that did not grow up in this world where we discuss the change of saying “and with your spirit” instead of  “and also with you,” I noticed everything right down to its most basic level. In other words: I questioned everything like I was a two-year-old child asking “why” about quite literally every part of the Mass. Why did that person just do a little bow there in front of that table? (Note: I soon find that we call this the altar.) Why did that one person go down on one knee before sliding into his seat? (Note: this one was hard to grasp at first because genuflection feels like a dying ritual, but one that should most certainly be preserved). Why did that girl hug me at the Sign of Peace, and how many people do I have to awkwardly look at and mouth “peace be with you” until the priest continues? Everyone was speaking English around me, but they might as well have spoken a made-up language, for I was lost.

Since I’ve come from the secular world, my first time attending a Catholic Mass freaked me out. I felt as if I entered into an entirely different world, and despite the fact that the Mass was opened with the words “all are welcome here,” I most certainly felt out of place. Why are people singing now? What was that word that everyone just said in unison? Why does that person kneel while that one doesn’t? All these questions (and, trust me, many more) raced through my mind - and not just at my first Mass, but sometimes to this day. I had this feeling that everyone around me knew was was going on… except me. I felt a vague sense of unease whenever I would go to Sunday Mass because of that feeling, but I still needed to identify why, after eighteen years of existence, I decided that now was the time to explore Catholicism. Arguably, I had gotten along just fine before (or so I thought), but in seemingly minutes’ time, I felt like I could not live; I could not breathe one more day without giving myself to this Church. Because of all this, I found myself sitting in the office of Fr. Hayes to discuss the conversion process.

Per my typical “all or nothing” attitude, I quickly found myself attending daily Mass, running (yes, physically running) from meetings to Theology by the Slice so I could listen to talks on the Old Testament or Saints and Superheroes, and having breakfast with friends to talk about the faith. I went and bought my own Bible, which turned out to be an amusing and interesting experience as I tried to find out which translation was “best”... and which color I wanted. With such a dramatic change in who I was and who it seemed like I was becoming, friends and others around me began to take notice and give their “advice” on my new lifestyle. I was taking it too far, they said. “Perhaps she’s going to become a nun?” others remarked. Those who don’t know what Holy Cross is were convinced I had been sent to Bible school. Rival voices crept in from all directions, poking at me and making me question if the decision I was being called to make through the grace of the Holy Spirit was the right one for me. These voices came from some of the people I love most, making my “choice” that much harder… but that’s the thing: this isn’t a “choice,” because if it were, I could have easily decided to step away from the Church and return to my previous life. That life, however, was far gone.

““Faith is not a one-size-fits-all, and it is therefore going to look different for each and every one of us.”
”

Not wanting to be perceived as weird or anything too far out of our idea of normal, I cut back. I sometimes skipped Mass altogether, ultimately suffering and only hurting myself through that choice. I would take my cross necklace off around certain friends for fear of judgement. I would make excuses as to where I was going at 9 P.M. on Tuesday night, because who goes to Mass on a Tuesday? The answer: a lot of amazing people. Sometimes I feared that the aforementioned breakfast conversations about age-old debates of the Catholic Church would get so loud that nearby tables could hear. Without even knowing, and certainly without desire, I began to deny Christ. It was not until I listened to a podcast by Fr. Mike Schmitz that I realized what I was doing. [Note: if you haven’t listened to Fr. Mike, get ready for some life changing material.] Simply put, Fr. Mike outlines, “to deny Jesus will always be the wrong thing to do.” As much and perhaps more, we must care for our souls to the same extent we care for our bodies. This entails nurturing your relationship with Jesus and never being afraid (or ashamed) to accept him as your Lord. It entails not only acknowledging, but responding to the voice - the Holy Spirit - that is guiding you from within.

Faith is not a one-size-fits-all, and it is therefore going to look different for each and every one of us. With that said, it is time for us to show no fear or shame in our worship of God, which will mean different things for different people. Do you feel the call to kneel at Mass at the preparation of the Eucharist even though no one else is? Kneel. Do you love celebrating the Mass by singing? Let’s even get you a microphone! Is your ideal Wednesday night characterized by some pizza and theological discussions on the faith? Go eat pizza and open up your mind. The point is this: there will always be someone who doesn’t approve of you. Unfortunately for us, there is no such thing as a “good Catholic,” for at the end of the day, sin is to the human being as sacrifice is to the Mass, as Jesus is to the highest form of love.

If I had to describe the purest form of liberation, it would be the idea of being unapologetically you, which includes a fearless, shameless, loving worship and acceptance of Jesus. We would never want to deny our fathers here on earth, so why is it okay to deny our Father in Heaven? If it is of the unpopular opinion, so be it. If it is “weird” to unapologetically accept the utter gift of faith that has been given to us, let us be weird. Let us liberate ourselves from the shackles of fear and disappointment and step into a new life of love. All we can give to the Lord is our complete will. Offer it up. Accept your faith. Embrace the gift of acceptance, liberation, and life. Witness of the Mass is not enough; rather, we are called to participate in Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross. The urge to deny Jesus will always come, but Fr. Mike gives us the only answer we may ever need: “[rival voices] can rob us of peace, joy, and Christ’s place in our heart. But to take courage, get up, Jesus is calling you.”

““As Christians, we must never be ashamed of Christ...”
”