Skip to main content
I'm sitting here on Ash Wednesday. I'm not going to be able to go to Mass, but I am refraining from meat today. I wonder how serious No Meat Fridays are in Lent? Is it more important than other Fridays? I don't usually keep that custom/discipline. Quite frankly, I'll probably need some sort of edict from the Archbishop to start, because not eating meat is so unnatural to me. One time, I went an entire meal without eating meat, because it all was suffused with cheese/onions/something gross, but that was not a willing choice. Anyway, I didn't come here to tell you that. I should probably piously comment on this, but I didn't come here to tell you that, either. Oh, fine. I don't think Catholic apologists and other leaders should tease Catholics about the penances they impose on themselves. Sure, they might seem weak from the outside, but not to the person who chose it. The good I have chosen to lay aside has been a gateway to anger and frustration at times, and because that itself is a gateway to worse things, there you go. Lent is a season of repentance and turning from sin, but the disciplines in it are also to lay aside attachments and strengthen spiritual muscles of self-denial. I can remember last year, as a candidate for entry into the Church*, I wanted that denial to help me focus on the urgency of my decision. [Just think, Tim: All we had to do to keep him was force him to drink a soda.--ed.] Fat chance. Anyway, I don't sense the solemnity of the season quite yet, because I'm excited and hopeful for all the catechumens and candidates, here and everywhere.
I wanted to talk about Jeremy Lin. I may not have the right to just adopt myself into the culture simply because I spent nearly 2 years at an American Chinese Protestant church, or because my two of my best friends (and many others) share that ethnic background. Still, by observation, there are things I should say. I want to hear Jeremy talk about race. I want him to be blunt with us about the discrimination he's faced. I want his own prejudices and racism (if there is any) to be talked about as well. It needs to be. On the one hand, we are not going to homogenize Jeremy into our monolithic "American" culture, at least not completely. And we need to be OK with that. On the other hand, there is a pernicious tendency to absolutize and lionize those ethnic markers, and juxtapose them in complete opposition to that American culture and its political system (and people). Dr. Anthony Bradley, I may be looking in your direction. There is nothing more debilitating to any dialogue about "race" than, "You wouldn't understand, and you can't, because you're white." Even if it is true that the first response to all the Marxist garbage about the issue in politics is "colorblindness," which denies that distinctiveness, that "otherness" that longs to be expressed. Even if that impulse to homogenize is a "White" impulse. (Let me add that there is nothing worse, possibly, than a Christian, who, having imbibed some bad ideas uncritically, repeats them as "gospel imperatives.") We can say that the pressure to conform is coming too fast, or doesn't leave room. But especially if one is a Christian, we ought never to say, "You wouldn't understand..." Because it's arising directly from the Marxist "divide and conquer" playbook. Jeremy Lin has East Asian (Chinese) heritage, but he's an American. More importantly, he's a Christian. Let's let him explore and express all of those things (in order of importance, God-willing) and realize that as he does this--and as we allow each other to do this--we are enriching our shared experience together.
*Note: My starring of the word "Church" above itentionally and exclusively refers to the Catholic Church; that is, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome. If you are Orthodox, I'm sorry about Constantinople, and perhaps the imperious manner various holders of that venerable Chair may have had. Even so, they do hold it. Ahem. If you are Protestant and this offends you, be advised that your various individual mental phantasms of what constitutes the Church are not an ecclesiology. Thank you; come again.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p...