Softball brings home first 4A state championship for Holy Family

Moira Cullings

Drawing inspiration from Mother Teresa’s example of doing small things with great love, the Holy Family softball team carried an unwavering passion in their efforts this season.

“No matter what we do, we’re going to do it with great love,” said junior Noelle Gardon.

Head Coach Mitchell Martinez motivated his team before games using the saint’s famous motto.

“We would go into the huddle and Mitch would be like, ‘What kind of love?’ We’d all go, ‘Great love!’” said senior Erin Winters.

The Holy Family softball girls, who won state this past season, huddle up during a game.

That love for their sport led the team to the state championship game this past season, where they defeated Mountain View High School 10-3.

“It was so surreal,” said Winters. “It still doesn’t feel real.”

The team made history for Holy Family, bringing home the first 4A state title since the school moved up to the division a few years ago.

“Our goal was never to win state,” said senior Sara Rode. “Our goal every year is just to get to state. We took it a game at a time, and soon enough we were in the championship game.”

The team’s vision for their season was simple, said junior Anna Martinez.

“No one ever really thought about losing,” she said. “It was one game at a time. We were just playing.”

Junior Anna Martinez bats for the Tigers.

The team prayed before games and after practices and attended Mass together during their season. That foundation of faith helped them realize “the bigger picture,” said Gardon. “We know that there’s more [to life] than this one game or this one season.”

Gardon added that sometimes faith plays a subtler role in a season.

“It’s definitely something you can look back on after and think about where it helped you or where you needed more of it in a game,” she said.

Gardon, Martinez, Rode and Winters all attended Catholic grade schools, and although they sometimes played on opposing teams growing up, they’ve enjoyed coming together to represent Holy Family.

“It’s better because we know that we’re not playing for ourselves,” said Rode. “We’re playing for everyone around us.”

Gardon agreed.

“Having a bond with everyone — you believe in everyone,” she said. “There’s trust everywhere. If someone’s having a bad day, you know that you have other people behind you and someone’s going to pick you up.”

Senior Sara Rode plays second base for the Tigers.

Looking back at their season, it’s the memories both on and off the field the girls will cherish moving forward.

“If I could go back and replay this season, 100 times out of 100 times I would,” said Winters.

The team remembers the state final like they remember much of their regular season games — a tough battle until the end.

“We were up 3-0, and they came and hit two home runs and tied it,” said Rode. “None of us broke. We came back and scored seven runs.”

The girls are proud of what they accomplished for their school.

“Everything just fell into place and it felt right,” said Gardon. “It felt like we had all the tools, and we worked so hard and did everything in our capability.

“We knew our goal and we did what we knew we needed to do to achieve it,” she said.

COMING UP: Why 42 had to be impeached twenty years ago

Sign up for a digital subscription to Denver Catholic!

Twenty years ago this month, I found myself seriously double-booked, so to speak.

The editing of the first volume of my John Paul II biography, Witness to Hope, was entering the ninth inning, and I was furiously engaged in exchanging edited and re-edited copy with my editors in New York. At the same time, the Clinton impeachment drama was cresting. And as I had long done speechwriting for Congressman Henry Hyde, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, I spent week after week of split time, working on John Paul II from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., then switching to impeachment for a couple of hours before returning to Witness to Hope in the evening.

It was not the optimal way to work but it had to be done, even if it seemed likely that the president would be acquitted in a Senate trial. On December 19, 1998, the House of Representatives voted two articles of impeachment and senior House members, including Mr. Hyde, solemnly walked the two articles across the Capitol and presented them to the Senate’s leaders. On toward midnight, Henry Hyde called me and, referring to Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, said, “We’re not going to make it. Trent won’t fight; I saw it in his eyes.” After a long moment I replied that, if we were going to lose, we had a duty to lay down a record with which history would have to reckon.

Which is what the great Henry Hyde did during the January 1999 Senate trial, where he bent every effort to prevent the proceedings from descending into farce.

For Hyde, the impeachment of President Bill Clinton was an unavoidable piece of nasty business. It was not a matter of partisan score-settling, nor was it a matter of punishing a president for gross behavior with an intern in the White House. It was a matter of defending the rule of law. As Henry put it to me when it seemed clear that the president had perjured himself and obstructed justice, “There are over a hundred people in federal prisons for these crimes. How can the chief law enforcement officer of the United States be guilty of them and stay in office?”

Impeachment is a political process and it was clear by mid-fall of 1998 that the politics were not breaking toward removing the president from office. They had been pointed that way over the summer, though. And as the pressures built, it seemed as if the Clinton presidency might end as Richard Nixon’s had: Party elders, in this case Democrats, would go to the White House, explain that it was over, and ask the president to resign for the sake of the country. Then around Labor Day that year, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times and other columnists began suggesting that, if Clinton were impeached and convicted, the sexual revolution would be over, the yahoos of reaction would have won, and we’d be back to something resembling Salem, Massachusetts, during the witchcraft insanity.

That was preposterous. It was also effective. And within days, at least in Washington, you could fill the templates shifting: This wasn’t about the rule of law, it was about sex and the yahoos couldn’t be allowed to win. (That Henry Hyde was the leader of the pro-life forces in Congress neatly fit this storyline, of course, abortion being a major plank in the platform of the sexual revolution.)

So once the game was redefined — Are you for or against the puritanical yahoos? — there was little chance to wrench the political process back to what it was really about: the rule of law. In his opening speech during the president’s trial, Henry Hyde tried valiantly to refocus the argument, insisting that high office did not absolve a man from obeying his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the laws of the United States and his oath swearing to tell the truth to a federal grand jury. To suggest that it did was to “break the covenant of trust” between president and people, dissolving “the mortar that binds the foundation stones of our freedom into a secure and solid edifice.”

It wasn’t a winning argument. But it was the right argument. And on this 20th anniversary, the nation should remember with gratitude those like Henry Hyde who, under fierce assault, stood for the rule of law.

Featured image by Gage Skidmore | Flickr