|
Post by Tom on Nov 29, 2017 12:31:50 GMT -5
This is exactly the point. It is the principles and concept of what the Crusades and Crusaders stood for that counts . . . . the defense of Christianity, not the excesses and abuse done by some. Many older alums feel, and some have explicitly stated, that the Crusader is not just a mascot or symbol, they feel that they are Crusaders and removing the Crusader will be an attempt to remove part of their identity. There will be financial hell to pay if the Crusader is tossed overboard. Break this emotional and financial bond among older alums and Holy Cross will become just another college or university with jubilation when alumni donor participation hits 25%-30%. The BoT is full of practical businessmen that are well aware of this, and that is why the Crusader isn't going anywhere. I don't think you'll see participation drop as low as you think it will. Participation would probably be good, but no longer one of the tops in the country. The school cares a lot about participation. It is one of the evaluation factors used in school rankings by groups like USN&R. Once up on a time I was told there are grants available to schools that hit certain participation criteria. That is why those alumni phonathons are always pushing for a gift of any size. Percentage of alumni donating to the school is a BIG deal. It is way too precious a commodity to be risked because a small minority choose to be offended. Practical people will weigh the pluses and minuses. In my opinion, this one is a no-brainer
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Nov 29, 2017 12:44:06 GMT -5
Be careful of a broad brush over all Crusades and Crusaders. Would you judge all clergy by what Jim Jones did to his followers with that purple Kool-aid? If someone goes to church six days a week and murders on Wednesdays, does the church-going exculpate the homicides? The Middle Ages were a violent, brutal, and harsh period, of which the crusades were a small part. The crusader behavior was typical of warfare at the time. (The Harrying appears to have been over the top, even for that period.) Its unfair to judge much of the behavior back then by today's standards. But interpolating Fr. B's comments, is it appropriate to have the standards of yesteryear be the ones we should emulate and follow today? Again interpolating Fr. B., what he was saying was that Holy Cross doesn't need the medieval crusader mascot to affirm its Catholic identity. There probably are some who disagree with that, and see the mascot as the sine qua non of Holy Cross as a Catholic college.. If one Catholic murders, are all Catholics to blame? A weak analogy. BTW, if one has a lifetime of sins and makes a good confession, are all sins forgiven? I believe the Church says yes they are. Crusaders were granted plenary indulgences by virtue of their service. Is there a parallel there? How many centuries are needed before we can ignore someone who was in no way impacted by something saying “I am offended?” Or, can we ignore someone who assigns a meaning to a symboll and insists they are now offended...the Cross for example? Must Holy Cross have its Catholic identity affirmed by the Crusader? I don,t think so. But what college has a mascot chosen to affirm its identity? I would say few, if any make such a connection.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Nov 29, 2017 12:52:16 GMT -5
The crusades were not about defending Christianity. These were expeditions to the Holy Land to secure religious sites, and obtain safe passage to the Holy Land for pilgrims.
To that end, the one truly successful crusade was led by an excommunicated emperor against the wishes of the Pope.
The Moors conquest and occupation of most of the Iberian peninsula lasted for over 700 years, until ending in 1492. All of Sicily from 902 until 1091, when the last of the Muslims were expelled by the Normans. There was no crusader defense of Sicily or the Iberian peninsula, and no crusader participation in the re-conquests.
If your criterion is defense of Christianity, the nickname should be The Hammers. :-) . or alternatively, the Don Juans, after Don Juan of Austria, victor at Lepanto.
__________________________ The crusaders were also granted general absolution, which is even better than a plenary indulgence.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Nov 29, 2017 13:01:28 GMT -5
if one has a lifetime of sins and makes a good confession, are all sins forgiven? I believe the Church says yes they are According to Dismas, Yes
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Nov 29, 2017 13:25:03 GMT -5
According to Dismas, Yes Which question were you answering?
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Nov 29, 2017 13:51:19 GMT -5
According to Dismas, Yes Which question were you answering? I believe the general absolution question, given by the Lord himself before the epoch of indulgences.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Nov 29, 2017 16:51:47 GMT -5
Well, we were invited to the Lasalle reception but we cannot attend since it conflicts with the Holy Cross game. They said they would join us at the HC reception, but sadly there is none. We did not even get a list of HC attendees. Our hotel is nice, but modest (a Radisson). Lasalle and Manhattan attendees are at a far better hotel with all the amenities. I might be jealous if it were not for the fact that the Europa has been bombed more than any other single hotel in Europe. Oh well, perhaps a win or two will make the Park Inn Belfast a more festive place for HC grads and fans.
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Nov 30, 2017 7:02:19 GMT -5
The crusades were not about defending Christianity. These were expeditions to the Holy Land to secure religious sites, and obtain safe passage to the Holy Land for pilgrims. To that end, the one truly successful crusade was led by an excommunicated emperor against the wishes of the Pope. The Moors conquest and occupation of most of the Iberian peninsula lasted for over 700 years, until ending in 1492. All of Sicily from 902 until 1091, when the last of the Muslims were expelled by the Normans. There was no crusader defense of Sicily or the Iberian peninsula, and no crusader participation in the re-conquests. If your criterion is defense of Christianity, the nickname should be The Hammers. :-) . or alternatively, the Don Juans, after Don Juan of Austria, victor at Lepanto. __________________________ The crusaders were also granted general absolution, which is even better than a plenary indulgence. The Church and popes loosed the dogs of war during the Crusades. Thus the Church is responsible and should be removed from HC along with the abhorrent Cross which the Crusaders took up. The Crusades include Spain where indulgences were granted with the suggestion to take care of business on the Iberian Peninsula. Should we take down the American flag for My Lai or Abu Ghraib? If the Crusader is taken down so should the Cross and the Jesuits.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Nov 30, 2017 7:33:54 GMT -5
The crusades were not about defending Christianity. These were expeditions to the Holy Land to secure religious sites, and obtain safe passage to the Holy Land for pilgrims. To that end, the one truly successful crusade was led by an excommunicated emperor against the wishes of the Pope. The Moors conquest and occupation of most of the Iberian peninsula lasted for over 700 years, until ending in 1492. All of Sicily from 902 until 1091, when the last of the Muslims were expelled by the Normans. There was no crusader defense of Sicily or the Iberian peninsula, and no crusader participation in the re-conquests. If your criterion is defense of Christianity, the nickname should be The Hammers. :-) . or alternatively, the Don Juans, after Don Juan of Austria, victor at Lepanto. __________________________ The crusaders were also granted general absolution, which is even better than a plenary indulgence. The Church and popes loosed the dogs of war during the Crusades. Thus the Church is responsible and should be removed from HC along with the abhorrent Cross which the Crusaders took up. The Crusades include Spain where indulgences were granted with the suggestion to take care of business on the Iberian Peninsula. Should we take down the American flag for My Lai or Abu Ghraib? If the Crusader is taken down so should the Cross and the Jesuits. Back in the day, didn't they make you guys take Logic? If so, you learned about reductio ad absurdum and you know that it is a lousy way to make an argument.
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Nov 30, 2017 8:03:05 GMT -5
The Church and popes loosed the dogs of war during the Crusades. Thus the Church is responsible and should be removed from HC along with the abhorrent Cross which the Crusaders took up. The Crusades include Spain where indulgences were granted with the suggestion to take care of business on the Iberian Peninsula. Should we take down the American flag for My Lai or Abu Ghraib? If the Crusader is taken down so should the Cross and the Jesuits. Back in the day, didn't they make you guys take Logic? If so, you learned about reductio ad absurdum and you know that it is a lousy way to make an argument. The only r a d is taking down the mascot. What could be more “othering” than the Cross?
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Nov 30, 2017 8:03:06 GMT -5
The Church and popes loosed the dogs of war during the Crusades. Thus the Church is responsible and should be removed from HC along with the abhorrent Cross which the Crusaders took up. The Crusades include Spain where indulgences were granted with the suggestion to take care of business on the Iberian Peninsula. Should we take down the American flag for My Lai or Abu Ghraib? If the Crusader is taken down so should the Cross and the Jesuits. Back in the day, didn't they make you guys take Logic? If so, you learned about reductio ad absurdum and you know that it is a lousy way to make an argument. I have 12 credit hours in philosophy from HC (including logic). I look back at those courses as being the best when it came to developing an occupational skill set. .
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Nov 30, 2017 9:43:04 GMT -5
I have previously posted that a 1970 Class survey showed that while over 60% of my Classmates would not change their giving to Holy Cross if the Crusader mascot was changed, 28% said they would decrease/eliminate their donations and only 7% said they would increase their donations if a change were made. I have also heard that the mood on campus among the current students is mostly one of apathy - they don't care one way or the other though it was posted that something like 85% +/- that were polled wanted to keep the name of the newspaper, "The Crusader." It seems that the older alums are the ones who care the most for retaining the Crusader whether it is Tommy Heinsohn, Earle Markey or George Ford (or RGS ) or even "young alums" like myself. My hypothesis is that generally speaking, exceptions of course, the older the alum the more he (always a "he" for the older ones) wants to keep the Crusader and willing to protest any change by hitting the College in the pocketbook. I am willing to bet the rent money that the 7% of my Classmates who claim they would increase their donations if the Crusader is changed will not become immediate members of the Cornerstone Society ($1 million donors) and their 7% gain will easily be offset by the 28% who stop or reduce their giving. Below is a chart showing the current year goals for the Holy Cross Fund. If it wasn't obvious already, it will show you how much the College depends on those older, more conservative alums for financial support and the risk the College incurs by alienating them with a Crusader change. Classes | Base Members # | Goal | Average per member | 1900 to 1950 | 262 | $95,400 | $364.12 | 1951 to 1960 | 1,883 | $1,480,000 | $785.98 | 1961 to 1970 | 3,457 | $2,415,000 | $698.58 | 1971 to 1980 | 5,020 | $2,420,000 | $482.07 | 1981 to 1990 | 5,726 | $2,440,000 | $426.13 | 1991 to 2000 | 6,074 | $1,045,000 | $172.04 | 2001 to 2010 | 6,494 | $344,000 | $52.97 | 2011 to 2018 | 5,529 | $74,000 | $13.38 | Totals | 34,445 | $10,313,400 | $299.42 |
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Nov 30, 2017 10:59:54 GMT -5
HC can, and most likely has, construct(ed) a database of the comments by class year and by gender. The college can also readily sort by whether the commenter annually donates to HC, and the amount level. When Fr. B. gave his interview to WGBH, it seemed to me he had an early read on the comments and where they were coming from. When colleges have ended the Greek system, which was far more integral to the college experience than a nickname and mascot, I can't think of a school that subsequently suffered financially. www.newsweek.com/inside-colleges-killed-frats-good-231346
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Nov 30, 2017 11:17:44 GMT -5
The "Greek System" is moronic-- The Crusader is good and a part of the college's tapestry
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Nov 30, 2017 14:15:19 GMT -5
The "Greek System" is moronic-- The Crusader is good and a part of the college's tapestry I agree with you (no Greek life was one of the biggest reasons I chose HC), but most of those who take part in it absolutely love it. I'm with Phreek on this one -- frats and sororities have a much greater effect on campus life, and eliminating them from a school that has long had them seems much more likely to cause alumni backlash than a mascot change would.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Nov 30, 2017 14:49:19 GMT -5
I think you and Phreek are going to be in for a big surprise about the extent of the alumni backlash if and when the College changes the Crusader because as I and others have posted and acknowledged by Fr. Boroughs, the Crusader is more than just a mascot. Believe Phreek is old enough that he should understand that, you get a bye perhaps.
I am sure that HC is slicing and dicing the results of the survey and my post was simply to show on a very macro level where I think the fallout would hit.
All that said, I hope that Holy Cross will make the right decision based on more than a potential financial impact. But the financial impact should, and I am sure will, be a consideration. Anyone who thinks there will be no or minimal adverse financial impact truly doesn't understand the multi-generational culture and values at Holy Cross.
|
|
|
Post by matunuck on Dec 1, 2017 12:01:24 GMT -5
I will double down: Crusader has as much chance of staying as is as Trump (on his present course) has getting reelected.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Dec 1, 2017 12:38:29 GMT -5
I will double down: Crusader has as much chance of staying as is as Trump (on his present course) has getting reelected. That is good to hear.
|
|
|
Post by nhteamer on Dec 1, 2017 14:04:41 GMT -5
Awesome
|
|
|
Post by alum on Dec 1, 2017 14:33:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Dec 1, 2017 15:02:37 GMT -5
I will double down: Crusader has as much chance of staying as is as Trump (on his present course) has getting reelected. Of course, I would say that as of today, the odds of Trump on his present course getting reelected are better than the odds were in December of 2013 (3 years before the election) of Trump getting elected in the first place
|
|
|
Post by deep Purple on Dec 2, 2017 6:43:57 GMT -5
“Stands for something good and decent” Wouldn’t you agree that saving the Christian world from the Muslim conquests was good and decent? Wouldn’t you agree that saving eastern Christians in Constantinople was good and decent? With respect to saving eastern Christians at Constantinople, I'll let this assessment speak to that. Pope Innocent III As my direct line ancestor was Charles Martel, I'll give him the credit for saving the Christian world from Muslim conquests. I've previously narrated how 'my' cousins organized, paid for, and led three of the crusader armies on the First Crusade. One of the three was Robert Curthose, oldest son of William the Conqueror. I had wondered why my immediate family didn't join up with Robert Curthose. I found an explanation for this in the siege of the family castle in Normandy circa 1090, several tears before the start of the First Crusade. The castle was besieged initially by Robert de Bellene, and then Robert Curthose, my cousin, joined in. Robert de Bellene is described thusly: "Grasping and cruel, an implacable persecutor of the Church of God and the poor... unequaled for his iniquity in the whole Christian era." After a siege of some weeks, the castle was about to fall, when, like the proverbial cavalry, arrives William Rufus, King of England with his army, and scatters the besiegers. William Rufus was a younger brother of Robert Curthose. (William Rufus would finance Curthose's First Crusade in exchange for all of Curthose's very considerable property in Normandy.) As to why those members of my family then in England did not intervene, they were 'holding down the fort' in the north of England, --in York, Durham, and Lincolnshire. They were tasked with this by William the Conqueror, as they had participated in the Harrying of the North campaign of 1069-1070. I had never heard of the Harrying of the North, but now know it to have been a scorched earth campaign. ^^^^ A short summary from Wiki. Current day historians question the death toll, given the total population of that part of England at the time, but it was clearly a genocide on a great scale against the indigenous English by the Normans, Catholics both And it took only several decades to recover from what the Domesday book records as the wasteland of the north. That's why 'good and decent' don't exactly come to mind when describing crusaders. . I thought it was your great uncle Urban II that called for the crusades. What was the reason?
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Dec 2, 2017 13:20:47 GMT -5
Deep Purple, Nah.
No popes. But the family is good with the church. My great, great.... great grandfather vanquished the Lombards, created the Papal States, and gave the land to the Pope. See Donation of Pepin [the Short].
Some will argue that giving the Pope temporal authority and power was not a good thing, given that the Pope got to wear two hats, a helmet and a zucchetto.
But I have to believe the Papacy is/was eternally grateful.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Dec 2, 2017 13:34:54 GMT -5
General absolution for the whole family? That would be "eternal."
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Dec 2, 2017 18:42:17 GMT -5
General absolution for the whole family? That would be "eternal." I think more than a few have acted as if they had general absolution. Not moi, of course. Chloderic the Patricide lived about 250 years before Pepin the Short, so too early for absolution for him. Don't know any other ruler with patricide as his informal title, but he's a great, great.... great grandfather too. Chloderic killed Sigobert the Lame. According to St. Gregory of Tours, Chloderic killed his father on the orders of of Clovis I, Chloderic then offered Clovis the treasures of the kingdom that was now his.. In a script from Game of Thrones, Clovis sent messengers to assess the treasure. The messengers asked Chlodoric to plunge his hand as deeply into his gold coins as possible. With his arm buried, the envoys of Clovis then killed him..
|
|