Discussion about this post

User's avatar
patodrisk@gmail.com's avatar

This may be apropos of nothing (or maybe something), but your words on the NYT's face-reddening feather-duster of a feature -- the kind that, I must admit with a groan, was everyday froth in my days at USA TODAY, but I digress -- did get me thinking about my Roman Catholic upbringing.

I remember firm inculcation in the notion that our one-and-only-true-church wasn't focused on the cross itself (the proud protest symbolism of early Christian history notwithstanding) but, rather, on the CRUCIFIX:

Cross + Corpus of Jesus.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but THAT difference, as much as the "one-and-only-true-church" mantra drummed into our little heads, supposedly set us apart.

Walk into any other Christian church back then (not that we did so until after Vatican II, such a visit being likened to leaving our faith for another, an absolute anathema!), and it was all crosses, but not crucifixes. We OWNED the sculptural expression of dead Jesus!

Weird notion? Underlying truth?

I dunno. I vaguely recall back then being jokingly taunted by "outsiders" that crucifixes were ghastly and morbid, just like all that eating-and-drinking-his-body-and-blood stuff in our ancient ritual and liturgy. Were we covens, not congregations? Heavens!

Anyway, Terry, it all comes tumbling back in conversations like this. To what end, I haven't the foggiest. But thanks for pricking our collective finger here and calling out predictable meangirl/fanboy tendencies among some people in your and my former secular occupation in all its messy, ink-stained glory.

Or is it vainglory?!

Peace . . .

Expand full comment

No posts