September 2014

September 2014

Volume XXII, Issue I

The Fenwick Review

The Independent Journal of Opinion at the College of the Holy Cross http://college.holycross.edu/studentorgs/fenwickreview/index.html

@FenwickReview

The Logo and the Logos

By Steven Merola ’16 Staff Writer

This summer, I spent time studying anti-Christian treatises (and admittedly more time studying their Christian responses). In particular, I have devoted myself to polemics: the On the True Doctrine of Celsus and The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. The former is an informed second-century critique of the Christian conception of God by a Platonist philosopher, the latter a (rather less informed) twenty-first century “rebuttal of religious belief” by the Cambridge zoologist. These two polemicists work from different perspectives. Celsus believes in the transcendent One, while Dawkins is a professed atheist and naturalist. As such, their attacks tend to take different forms and take up different arguments. Despite the gap between era and viewpoint, the two works address nearly the same issue: mockery of the

cross. Compare what the two have to say on Christianity’s symbol:

And everywhere they speak in their writings of the tree of life and of resurrection of the flesh by the tree – I imagine because their master was nailed to a cross and was a carpenter by trade. So that if he had happened to be thrown off a cliff, or pushed into a pit, or suffocated by strangling, or if he had been a cobbler or stonemason or blacksmith, there would have been a cliff of life above the heavens, or a pit of resurrection, or a rope of immortality, or a blessed stone, or an iron of love, or a holy hide of leather. Would not an old woman who sings a story to lull a little child to sleep have been ashamed to whisper tales such as these? (CC 6.34) New Testament theology adds a new injustice, topped off by a new sadomasochism whose viciousness even the Old Testament barely exceeds. It is, when you think about it, remarkable that a religion should adopt an instrument of torture and execution as its sacred symbol, often worn around the neck. Lenny Bruce rightly quipped that ‘If Jesus had been killed twenty years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses.’ (Dawkins 285)

The Rifleman and the Chocolatier: Things are Getting Better (and Worse) in Ukraine ..........Page 5

It should strike us that these two bookends of anti-Christian sentiment make such a similar observation, and use such similar language, about the cross.

Moreover, this should prompt us to consider what is so scandalous about Christianity’s symbol and our College’s namesake. Such a reflection seems especially appropriate at a time when the College has elected to leave the image of the cross out of its new logo.

Truth be told, Dawkins’s critique of the cross is largely limited to a disdain for the idea of atonement.

Celsus, on the other hand, makes a far more provocative critique: the image of Christ on the cross shows not just a man suffering, but shows God and man, unconfusedly united, suffering.

Thus, the cross depicts the almighty God being tortured and executed by His own creatures.

Continued on page 7

Marketing Our Alma Mater.......Page 6

The Fenwick Review

2

Mission Statement As the College of the Holy Cross’s independent journal of opinion, The Fenwick Review strives to promote intellectual freedom and progress on campus. The staff of The Fenwick Review takes pride in defending traditional Catholic principles and conservative ideas, and does its best to articulate thoughtful alternatives to the dominant campus ethos. Our staff values Holy Cross very much, and desires to help make it the best it can be by strengthening and renewing the College’s Catholic identity, as well as working with the College to encourage constructive dialogue and an open forum to foster new ideas.

To The Benefactors In this issue, as in every issue, we must reserve space to offer a heartfelt thank you to our benefactors, without whom The Fenwick Review would not exist. We extend our profound gratitude to The Collegiate Network and the generous individual and alumni donors to The Fenwick Review, for their ongoing enthusiasm and support of our mission. You are always in our prayers, and with each issue we publish, our first goal is to justify the incredible faith you have shown in us.

Mr. Guy C. Bosetti Dr. and Mrs. Paul Braunstein Mr. and Mrs. Michael Dailey Mr. J. O’Neill Duffy Mr. and Mrs. Richard Fisher Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Gorman Mr. Robert W. Graham III Dr. and Mrs. Thomas W. Greene Mr. Paul M. Guyet Mr. Robert R. Henzler Mr. William Horan Mr. Joseph Kilmartin Mr. Robert J. Leary ‘49 Mr. Francis Marshall ‘48 Mr. J. O’Neill Duffy Mr Kevin O’Scannlain Fr Paul Scalia Dr Ronald Safko Mr. Sean F. Sullivan Jr.

September 2014

Contents September 2014

Volume XXII, Issue I

The Logo and the Logos (1,7) Steven Merola ’16

Favreau’s Foibles? (4) Joseph Murphy ’16

The Rifleman and the Chocolatier: Things are Getting Better (and Worse) in Ukraine (5)

J. Alex Cicchitti ’15

Marketing Our Alma Mater (6)

Eric Kuhn ’16

Transparency for Our Students (7) Nikolas Churik ’15 Chase J. Padusniak ’15

The Fenwick Review

3

September 2014

The Fenwick Review 2014-2015 Staff

Letter from the editors

Co-Editors-in-Chief Nikolas Churik ’15

Dear readers, Welcome back to another promising year!

This issue of the Fenwick Review contains a medley of topics, but it focuses mainly on the new logo. The articles present, by and large, opposition to and critiques of the new marketing symbol. The pieces are admittedly one sided, but that is not entirely because of unbridled opposition to change. The polarity, rather, comes, in part, from the manner in which the change took place.

The article by the editors presents just that critique: the lack of transparency and the lack of defense for the change leave individuals wondering why this is the direction chosen for innovation. If the goal is to make Holy Cross distinctive among institutions of higher learning, and especially among liberal arts colleges, how does this new logo reach that goal? The articles by Messrs. Kuhn and Merola both raise the objection that if Holy Cross does wish to be distinct, why is the singular point of distinction, namely the Jesuit identity, diminished.

In the remaining articles, Mr. Murphy takes a thoughtful look at the misplaced opposition to Jon Favreau’s commencement address, and Mr. Cicchitti analyzes the crisis in the Ukraine as it stood at the time of printing.

It is our hope that this year the Fenwick Review will look more at issues related to the campus and perhaps even Worcester as a whole.

We look forward to another year on the Hill and do hope that our readers will enjoy our writings, or at least be provoked to thought by them.

Sincerely, Nikolas Churik Chase J. Padusniak

Chase J. Padusniak ’15

Executive Layout Editor Claire Mahoney ’15

Staff Writers Amber Alley ’16 Eric Kuhn ’16 J. Alex Cicchitti ’15 Joseph Murphy ’16 Marian Blawie ’16 Micala Smith ’16 Steven Merola ’16,

Faculty Adviser

Interested in Layout Development and Ditigal activation?

We have a position for you!

Professor David Lewis Schaefer Political Science

Disclaimers This journal is published by students of the College of the Holy Cross and is produced two or three times per semester. The College of the Holy Cross is not responsible for its content.

Articles do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board.

Donation Policy

APPLY for the following LEADERSHIP positions:

- Assistant Layout Editor - Social Media Co-ordinator - Webmaster APPLY via email (resume and desired position) to Claire Mahoney at csmaho15@g.holycross.edu

The Fenwick Review is funded through a generous grant from the Collegiate Network as well as individual donations. The Fenwick Review is an organization incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. We welcome any donation you might be able to give to support our cause! To do so, please write a check to: The Fenwick Review and mail to: Chase Padusniak and Nikolas Churik P.O. Box 4A 1 College Street Worcester, MA 01610

Letter Policy We at The Fenwick Review encourage feedback.

All comments, criticisms, compliments, and opinions are welcome. As we are striving to promote intellectual freedom and progress here at Holy Cross, opposing viewpoints to anything we print are especially appreciated.

Finally, we reserve the rights to print and edit any letters for clarity and length that we receive.

The Fenwick Review

September 2014

4

Favreau’s Foibles?

Joseph Murphy ’16 Staff Writer

The start of the new semester will offer us all new opportunities, but before we all get too involved with our academics and extra-curriculars, we should take a few moments to reflect on the final events of last year. Holy Cross’s class of 2014 was sent off with a speech from honored alumnus Jon Favreau. Last year’s Fenwick Review editors, however, took issue with this choice of speaker. They were “lukewarm on the choice” because in June 2010, Mr. Favreau was photographed playing beer-pong shirtless with friends at a Georgetown bar. Last year’s editors thought “the speechwriter to, and effective representative of, the President of the United States ought to act in a way commensurate to his title” and that “this country is not short on intellectually gifted leaders, but it is severely lacking in mature ones.” I agree that Favreau’s behavior was ill-advised by almost anyone’s standards, but I must disagree that this incident would have been grounds for excluding him. Favreau’s career path has been unique, and he has a story worthy of sharing to newly graduated college students.

Excluding an individual on the basis

of an isolated incident elicits questions about how fully a single act defines a person. It also forces us to think about how long a person must suffer for an indiscretion.

If these are questions that sound complicated, that is exactly the point. College is a time to educate students on the complexities of life and to teach them that there is no simple way to define the world around us. If

How long must a person suffer for an indiscretion?

academic institutions started to exclude speakers for any incident deemed embarrassing, we would have very few speakers from which to choose.

Whether we want to admit it or not,

we all have embarrassing incidents in our lives that we would prefer to keep secret, and I am sure very few of these instances properly define our character.

We need to take the good with the bad; if our graduates cannot distinguish the good from the bad after four years of higher education, then Holy Cross has failed to prepare them for a life of independent thinking and critical analysis. Thomas Jefferson once said to his daughter:

Every human being, my dear, must thus be viewed according to what it is good for, for none of us, no not one, is perfect; and were we to love none who had imperfections this world would be a desert for our love.

All we can do is to make the best of our friends: love and cherish what is good in them, and keep out of the way of what is bad; but no more think of rejecting them for it than of throwing away a piece of music for a flat passage or two.

Despite this sentiment, there has been widespread discontent with commencement speakers at many colleges over the past few years. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has found that since 1987 there have been 148 instances in which

students protested against potential commencement speakers; of those 148 cases, 100 took place in the past five years, resulting in 39 cancellations. It is difficult to decide when an individual is unworthy of the honor of giving a commencement address. I believe it is worth thinking about during this new school year. We are all going to hear opinions from people at college that we disagree with, and we need to make the conscious choice whether it is better to listen patiently or to shut out completely people whom we deem ‘unworthy’ of our time.

Editors’ Picks: 2014/15 Commencement Speakers

1

3

5

7

2

4

6

8

The Fenwick Review

5

September 2014

The Rifleman and the Chocolatier: Things are Getting Better (and Worse) in Ukraine J. Alex Cicchitti ’15 Staff Writer

On May 25, Ukraine elected Petro Poroshenko to the Presidency with 54% of the vote. Poroshenko, a former executive of a chocolate company, may have single-handedly plugged the leak of Russian aggression in Ukraine that threatened to explode into a flood with world-wide ramifications.

Within a month of taking office, Poroshenko outmaneuvered and outfoxed Putin and Pro-Russian rebels in Eastern Ukraine. Immediately following a June ceasefire, Ukrainian forcesled by the new president launched an offensive that surprised the separatists and seized control of most of the territory that was previously in a state of rebellion. Putin and his agents in Donetsk were caught completely by surprise by the daring shown by the “Chocolate King.” Ukrainian forces routed the separatists and have chased them into small pockets of resistance that are only preserved by Russian aid.

The success of Poroshenko’s administration has had both positive and neg-

Petro Poroshenko

ative consequences for the localized conflict in Ukraine. First, the success of a democratically-elected government in Kiev shows that even a country that was once Putin’s closest ally in Europe is now rejecting Russian-style autocracy in favor of western-style democracy. People all across Ukraine are beginning to believe in liberal democracy and the virtues of liberty.

The other positive coming from Poroshenko’s victories is the knowledge that Putin’s foreign policy is failing; this, however, carries with it a number of negative consequences. By succeeding, Poroshenko has pushed Putin into an impossible position, and like a cornered animal, the Russian government is lashing out in a violent manner, turning to alleged war criminals to do their bidding. While the triumph of the Poroshenko government bodes well for Ukraine’s long-term future, it has resulted in more bloodshed in the short term. The hard fact is that things in Ukraine were always going to get worse before they could get better. And things have certainly gotten worse. The most notable example of this deterioration is the shooting-down

of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17. The consensus on this catastrophe points to Russian surface-to-air missiles fired by separatists. Additional Russian military forces are amassing on the border with Ukraine, and reports abound of heavy weaponry slipping through the border and finding its way into the hands of separatists.

In his desperation, Putin has turned to a man named Igor Strelkov to run his war in Eastern Ukraine.

Strelkov, a “former” Russian intelligence agent, is absolutely bloodthirsty and tops the list of terrorists in Ukraine.

First off, his name, “Strelkov,” is not his real name, but a nom de guerre he took which translates to “The Rifleman” or “The Shooter.”. Strelkov is widely considered to be responsible for the shooting-down of flight MH17. At the very least, he tweeted, gloating about perpetrating this act. According to the International Business Times, Strelkov was directly involved in the massacre of 3,000 Bosnian civilians during the Yugoslav Wars. To put this in perspective, Osama bin Laden and company murdered 3,000 civilians in one day and in return America answered their savagery with a savagery of our own, invading two countries and wiping those responsible off the face of the Earth. Igor Strelkov murdered 3,000 people and the world ignored him and his victims. Meanwhile Russia promoted him and expanded his opportunities for more bloodshed. His presence and power remain a threat to any lasting peace in Ukraine

More broadly speaking, Poroshenko’s advance against pro-Russian forces will have positive global consequences that could preserve the United States’ liberal international order. Estonia, a NATO member, retains a large ethnic Russian population and shares a border with Russia. If Putin succeeds

Igor Strelkov in partitioning Ukraine using the justification of protecting ethnic Russians, he could attempt to do the same in other countries in Eastern Europe. Military aggression against Estonia would activate Article V of the NATO charter, which considers an attack on one member an attack on all and requires military action by all to defend the besieged state. Would the United States really intervene and risk war with the world’s second-largest nuclear power just to save Estonia? This author certainly hopes so, but the American public may disagree due to weariness from recent foreign entanglements.

In the event of a Russian attack, the NATO alliance could fall apart due to a failure of member states to act. On the other hand if Putin’s invasion of Ukraine ultimately ends in failure and humiliation, future military adventures into other Eastern European countries will be discouraged, and NATO military commitments will remain unchallenged.

“Anybody who visits extreme eastern and western Ukraine ... inevitably feels the profound differences between the two regions, as if in reality they belonged to two different countries, two different worlds, two different civilisations.”

Mykola Riabchuk, Institute of Political and Nationalities Studies, Academy of Sciences, Kiev

Courtesy of ABC.net and The New York Times

The Fenwick Review

September 2014

6

Marketing Our Alma Mater Eric Kuhn ’16 Staff Writer

Students and professors returning to Holy Cross will no doubt notice a glaring and unwelcome change as the new academic year starts. The college seal, a dignified symbol of our institution has been displaced by an intruderthe product of our “rebranding.” I am as open as anyone to new ideas to attract the smartest and most ambitious students in the country. However, I do not believe in sacrificing our tradition and identity to do so. It is an important goal for the college to increase its name recognition across the country: the college must change its marketing strategy to do that. Despite this fact, the administration should have done so more tastefully; they should build upon our heritage rather than brushing it into the corner.

For those unfamiliar with the college seal’s history I take this excerpt from the Holy Cross website:

The inner shield contains an open book (symbol of learning) and a cross of gold (symbol of Christian faith). The Latin motto “In Hoc Signo Vinces” (in this sign thou shall conquer) has been attributed to Emperor Constantine the Great, Roman emperor noted for his tolerance of Christians. According to some historians, Emperor Constantine had a dream or vision of a flaming cross in the sky with this inscription, on the day preceding his decisive victory over Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge (Oct. 28, 312). This victory led to his capturing Rome and convinced him of the importance of Christianity. The cross divides the lower part of the shield into quarters, which are alternately red and

sable, the colors on the ancient shield of Worcester, England. The upper part of the shield has in its center the emblem of the Society of Jesus, a blazing sun with the letters IHS, the first three letters of Jesus’ name in Greek. On either side is a martlet, reminiscent of those on the ancestral crest of Bishop Fenwick.”

As questionable as the process was that led to the adoption of the new logo, more mind-boggling is the logo itself. The idea of a new symbol is not so misguided in itself, but, as they say, the devil is in the details. Taken from

Perhaps tradition should be discarded in favor of statistics to better botton line.

the College of the Holy Cross Identity Standards and Guidelines manual:

“To create a more distinctive image among liberal arts colleges, the College of the Holy Cross has an updated logo with more distinctive font, and a refreshed design with a new shield drawn from the formal seal of the College. The new shield incorporates a strong graphic element alluding to the ‘sunburst’ that is found in the seal of the Society of Jesus.”

Stripped of any deeper symbolism and meaning, the new logo provides us with an identity worthy of a lesser institution. The justification, at least according to Fr. Boroughs at the belated town hall, was that the previous seal held little meaning for prospective students outside of New England. I don’t know how much meaning an asterisk in a box will have for high school students in California and Oregon, but I expect not much. I fear, however, that the marketing team has only made Holy Cross appear more generic, whitewashing any reference to its Christian mission and the history of the College itself. Even the cross, from which our alma mater takes her name, is conspicuously absent from any major representation of the College. It may be that the administration believes that Jesuit identity and symbolism has an exclusive connotation, although the College has more religious and ethnic diversity than at any point in her history. I will proudly attest that Jesuit identity was the deciding factor in my own decision to attend here.

Fr. Boroughs pointed out to the overwhelmingly hostile crowd at the town hall meeting that Harvard and other universities have multiple logos.

After a brief survey of these logos, I was plainly able to see that none of them represented such a radical departure from their formal seals as our new one does from ours. Then, looking at the websites of Amherst and Williams, I saw that they use their formal seals as the visual representation of their institutions. These seals even include Latin!

I would expect that our much loved Holy Cross would model her aesthetic on those of more revered universities.

The way the administration character-

ized the campaign made it seem very limited in scope. In this vein, Fr. Boroughs cited the information that would be sent to students and a commercial to be shown during sports events. The administration implied that the student body’s exposure to the new logo would be minimal. My hopes were dashed when I lost my Holy Cross card over the summer. After buying a new one I discovered, to my chagrin, that even my wallet is unsafe from the tasteless redesign. The shield and asterisk now adorn all new ID cards. We have been assured, however, that the formal seal will be present on our diplomas when we graduate. It is a small comfort to know that I shall see it at least one last time before I die.

Perhaps I am old-fashioned.

Perhaps college pride and traditions are outmoded in the modern age. Perhaps tradition, real sentiment, and love for our alma mater are to be discarded in favor of statistics and a better bottom line. Such are to be relegated, along with other provincial and quaintly anachronistic ideas like the varsity sweater, the football fight song, and the classic college prank, to the dustbin of history. Still, I hope that others who cherish our school’s story, who think fondly of her many ivied towers, her lush and green playing fields, and indeed, her artistic heritage, will lovingly tend the vestal fire of her memory. Let it be known, as Daniel Webster attested and as our administration may even now come to learn, “It is, as I have said, a small college. And yet there are those who love it!”

The Fenwick Review

7

September 2014

Transparency for Our Students Nikolas Churik ’15 Chase J. Padusniak ’15 Co-Editors-in-Chief

The new homepage of the College’s website states that, “we needed to know what messages about Holy Cross resonate the strongest with our various audiences, “ and then after several questions are asked, highlights of the answers are promised. When one looks, one has to wonder if these are really the highlights. In “Developing a Refreshed Look for Holy Cross: Summary of Research Findings,” one finds a summa minima that reveals less than its title might suggest. Following a presentation of a timeline and what could be considered a “methodology,” the overlapping emphases are given. These emphases, “based on fact, not misunderstanding”; “authentic”; “different”; and “bold” very well may be true, but elucidate nearly nothing about what was found. The four talking points are generic and broadly uninformative about what of Holy Cross is considered within those points, e.g., what are the facts and what does it mean to be “authentic.” All of these, throughout the new page, remain largely unsubstantiated.

As the report continues and presents more of its findings, nearly nothing surprising comes to light.

Knowledge of Holy Cross predominates in the Northeast and among

alumni elsewhere, and the admissions staff does a laudable job of informing prospective students about the school.

Next some colorful graphs depict statistics to bolster what has been said. Finally, “proof points” about the school are given. Throughout the summary, the obvious is presented with lovely graphics; the medium has become the message.

Amid the statistics, artfully presented as they are, one wonders what point, really, do they make. The obvious receives confirmation, and the intuitive receives reassurance. Those on campus or with a connection to campus know what is going and those who are not on campus do not. Prospective students know more about the College (and perhaps most colleges) than their parents. Within all of the information in the report precious little emerges about the changes, and the information on the proposals and progress of the investigations remain without comment.

While the breadth of those consulted about the re-branding of Holy Cross is admirable, one demographic is strikingly absence. The constituency is current students; it is necessary to note that current parents were, at some point, consulted. Of course current students are in some way the least important group because they are already in the system and, barring any major offense, are staying. Yet, it

is precisely this group that would have been most worth consulting in order to find what the most recent cohorts of those who did decide to attend found most attractive. Although a possible

The obvious recieves confirmation, and the intuitive recieves reassurace. reason for the changes in logo is given, the facts, as they are, ultimately present little explanation of why this logo was selected and why this one was so appealing.

And current students were not the only ones neglected. Recent alumni with whom the editors have been in contact have expressed dissatisfaction with how they were not actively made aware of such momentous changes.

Only the hard work of the SGA made a town hall possible. Although this event showcased widespread student discontent, the plans proceeded uninhibited, leaving past and current students alike wondering why they have been left with a logo without a logos. One can find many issues with the College’s decision to change the logo and the mot-

to, but the most important is the lack of transparency. Students, alumni, and those closest to the college must come first.

On that note, those currently on campus should have more of a say in the future of the logo itself. Our Visual Arts Department is filled with students and professors whose input is valuable and who could transform the very future of our college’s image. If we can hold panels on issues from diversity to dining options, then we owe it to ourselves to let students’ voices be heard on this particular issue. Our artists’ talent and dedication could produce something of which those currently on the Hill could be proud while broadening our appeal. Such input would best reflect the benefits of a Holy Cross education, fusing a love of institution with transparency and ambition; one could say a rebellious optimism.

We cannot simply accept that the new logo and slogan are for marketing only. They are currently plastered all over the school, the website, and over many correspondences. For all intents and purposes, they have visually replaced the crest and the motto, and we know relatively little about why that is. If we are truly optimistic, if we are truly transparent and progressive, then we owe it to ourselves to understand how and why this change happened.

The Logo and the Logos Continued from page 1 Thus, the cross depicts the almighty God being tortured and executed by His own creatures. The Incarnation was, indeed, already a problem for Celsus, for he saw it as violating every aspect of the divine nature (immutability, simplicity, blessedness, and so on). The crucifixion takes these issues to a new extreme: God is enduring the most ungodly treatment imaginable and looks powerless to stop it. For

Celsus, the crucifixion represents the utter reprehensibility of Christianity’s God.

In truth, the Incarnation is a supremely paradoxical notion. When we speak of the Logos, the Word of God, we speak of a perfect union of divinity and humanity (and this is our humanity, perfected and completed).

The two natures are preserved and lose nothing of themselves, yet Jesus is one person. He is not a mix of the two natures, but true man and true

God. Moreover, every action we see Christ do in the Gospels is an action of this single God-man. It is not that the divine nature performs miracles, while the human nature walks and talks.

Rather, Christ walking is both God and man walking; Christ performing a miracle is both God and man performing a miracle. And Christ suffering on the cross is the image of both God and man crucified.

The paradoxical person of Christ has been a subject of debate for centuries, and my brief survey here cannot hope to do it any justice. Still, the sheer immensity of this belief is self-evident. It is little wonder that it scandalized the pagan world of Celsus.

And this why I am so puzzled about the College’s new marketing strategy.

They have chosen the tagline “Ask More” but have removed the image of the cross, the image that is the greatest source of mystery, contemplation, and reality-shaping belief ever known.

As the founder of this journal has observed, the asking of a question presupposes that there is an answer, a Truth to be pursued. The contemplation of the cross undertakes this journey in a way beyond mere empirical

investigation. To behold the cross is, rather, to see the ineffable, incomprehensible God made into a comprehensible and visible reality. Moreover, it is to see the Transcendent as a human, one of us, but no less transcendent for it. There is no greater truth to be sought than the Truth made searchable. And the cross takes this even further, for in seeing the God-man suffering we can then see God in the face of every suffering person. The suffering Logos invites a contemplation of the Truth both infinitely beyond and intimately near.

We have “Ask More” but no Logos about which to ask. Instead of the image of the Son, we instead have an image of a sun. This is proffered as an allusion to the Jesuit seal. Yet, when I look at the source of this allusion, I see the initials of the Logos inscribed upon it, with a cross rising up from the middle, and the three nails with which the Son of God was pierced arranged at the bottom. The object alluded to is filled with images of the Logos and the instrument of salvation. Yet, lacking these elements, the sun seems sadly empty, as though asking for the fulfillment of its being.

September 2014

The Fenwick Review

8

In Gratitude to Our Sponsors and Partners Want to advertise in the Fenwick Review? email Chase Padusniak cjpadu15@g.holycross. edu