As a 'cradle' Episcopalian, I believe deeply in the significance of holy communion. Take away the debate over transubstantiation (which is not a part of Episcopal doctrine in the Catholic sense) and you have a communion, a communication, with a direct line of practice that takes you to the Last Supper, and the Christ's request, if you will, that when two or more are gathered, that we observe the custom of sharing bread and wine and think of him, that he is a part of us.

That's it, really, at once simple and easy to fall into a rote, numb participation; but deeply profound and moving if done mindfully.

For Ms. Quinn to describe it as nauseating shows a depth of ignorance that communion taking Christians are quite used to. When you try to explain the practice to non Christians, it does sound pretty strange, revolting, even, to those not trained to understand it. It's perhaps one of those "you had to be there" things.

The divide between Anglican/Episcopal and Catholic practice is divided and divisive. Catholics deny communion to non Catholics. American Episcopalian priests (and perhaps all) offer it every Sunday to "all baptized Christians". We confess our sins first, quietly and privately in the privacy of our pew and heart. Then we go to the rail in all our imperfection and share in a custom ordained by a teacher we love. If you understand it, it is a beautiful moment, and a communal moment.

When I referred to non Christians not understanding Communion, I did not mean to imply that Ms. Quinn, or any other Christian who don't practice Communion are not "real" Christians. I should have started a new paragraph. I was thinking of the time I tried to explain it to an atheist friend of mine, who was of Jewish descent. Talk about a tough audience! :-)

You wrote: "Catholics deny communion to non Catholics." Yes, and you could choose to look at that as Catholics offer communion only to Catholics.

Rather than seeing oneself as someone who is DENIED something, it is possible to view the same interaction as an event to which one is not prepared to participate yet.

It is a matter of perception as to yourself - not as to the event.

The Catholic Church does have a particular point of view regarding the Sacrament of the Eucharist. And while it may look similar to rituals in other churches, it is not the same thing.

Why it is so "offensive" to others is more a statement of maturity on a person's part than some qualified criticism of The Catholic Church.

There are many instances in our lives in which preparation is required before participation. No need to take offense if you cannot star in a Broadway show, fly the 747 across the Atlantic, or teach a class in Mandarin. Yet, because you have not prepared for a Catholic Sacrament it seems okay to be offended that you should not participate. I"m not sure why.

Your assessment of the Episcopal communion experience suggests that Sally Quinn would have been welcomed at "the rail" by virtue of her Baptism as a Christian. I have a question as I am not Episcopalian -- so is her reflection on her friend, Tim, sufficient soul preparation for reception of the bread? You suggested that a communicant should "confess our sins first, quietly and privately in the privacy of our pew and heart. Then we go to the rail in all our imperfection and share in a custom ordained by a teacher we love."
What about taking communion in the name of a human friend? In order, as she stated: "to be close to" Tim. Is that truly preparation in the heart that Episcopal communion is about?

It seems to me that when we view outer events and interpret them with our own very insular and primary experience we get a lot of confusion added into the mix.

I for one am not comfortable figuring out if someone else's "heart" is sufficient for reception of a sacrament or even if someone is being honest or whatever. I try to take people at face value as much as possible, leaving the inner stuff to them and their Higher Power.

However, once someone makes public statements - as did Ms. Quinn - then I do feel somewhat compelled to draw attention to the discrepancy between her interpretation and another possible viewpoint.

It seems to me that respecting the Catholic Church's autonomy and right to declare their own teachings about Communion is a basic tenet of American freedom of religion. To try to compare it to other practices and find it wanting (by calling it exclusionary or divisive or stupid or whatever) doesn't seem, to me, to be helpful or mature.

I can participate fully in my Catholic faith while also have a deep respect for the practices of others -- including Episcopalians, Hindus, Buddhists, Baptists and Muslims. A strong spiritual life is about a deeper connection and relationship to God, for me. Spirituality is not about me judging myself based on others' behavior.

Nor is it about me judging others' based on my own beliefs and behaviors.

A certain level of acceptance is required and I find this to be a very spirit and faith filled practice.

And as another Episcopalian, I'd like to make the separation of experiences clear. I also do not approve completely of Ms. Quinn taking the sacrament solely to be closer to Tim -- but I do not wholly disapprove either, as by joining closer to Tim she draws closer to God. However, it's a terribly roundabout way to do so. If you were planning to drive from Chicago to Baltimore by way of Nashville, I'd take approximately the same attitude. Sure, you're not headed in the wrong direction, but there's a much better way to do it. However, I much prefer going to Nashville first to driving due west, or staying home. The Catholic attitude, in contrast, seems to be that if you don't take I-80 to Cleveland, then I-76 to Pittsburgh, then I-70 -- in that order and no stops -- then you'd best stay home and study the map some more.

artandsoul, you wrote: "It is possible to view [no Episcopals at Catholic altar rails] as an event to which one is not prepared to participate yet." That would be possible if you were willing to concede one of the two following principles:

1) That Catholic Communion is fundamentally different from Episcopal Communion, or,

2) That one or more of the Episcopal sacraments I have been consecrated by (baptism, confirmation, confession) are fundamentally inadequate.

I am not prepared to make those statements, myself. Perhaps you are. If the Catholic Church were honest about this exclusivity, I might not mind so much; but it also makes constant calls for ecumenism and greater Christian unity, while its actions all imply "we mean you should do exactly as we do and nothing else."

You wrote also: "Spirituality... [is not] about me judging others based on my own beliefs and behaviors." But can you not see that this is exactly what the Catholic priesthood does? They judge me according to their beliefs about the ordination of a priest they've never met. Can you not see why this is wrong?

If I were to attend Episcopal services, I suppose that I should refrain from partaking in communion, as I am not Christian, although I was baptised as one as a very young adolescent.

If you do not wish communion at an Episcopal service, that's fine. You're welcome to come up for a blessing if you want... or just sit in the pew.

catfishncod -

First of all, please know that I don't in any way think I am speaking FOR the Catholic Church and certainly not for PRIESTS!! Trust me, I have my own struggles in many regards and no need to go into all those!

I was just writing as one individual who is attempting to live her life, right now, as a Catholic.

That said - I believe that one can accept differences among faiths as differences without ranking them as "inadequate."

Evidently the Catholic Church and the Episcopalian Church DO see their respective communion services as fundamentally different. That's not an opinion. They may look similar, but they are different. There is nothing inherently good, better, bad or worse in that statement. Not to me. But they are different.

I don't believe that The Catholic Church says "do exactly as we do or nothing else" -- I think the Catholic Church (as I understand it today) says something more like: "This is what we do and what it means." Period. Choose to believe and practice. Or don't.

There is nothing in The Catholic Church Catechism that suggests that others are going to hell or whatever else most people think that the Church thinks. It is really about its own members. Not others.

AGain, that is MY understanding and my belief. I'm really not trying to argue.

I've been a Catholic all my life. I took about 20 years off for MANY reasons that were too important at the time to consider anything other than total rejection. I am now trying (not always successfully) to find a place to practice my faith in community.

It's not perfect and I certainly am no expert.

Ah ha, but sometimes the shortest, quickest route from point A to point B is not what is desired, and I might well chose to travel from Chicago to Baltimore via Nashville, for very good reasons. Perhaps I have friends in Nashville, perhaps I prefer a leisurely drive on the secondary roads through the Appalachian Mountains to the mind-numbing interstate highways. If I were to travel by motorcycle, I almost certainly would do that.

The same is true of lots of our metaphorical journeys as well.

Thanks, artandsoul, for the best letter so far on this from a Catholic.

I haven't been a believer since my mid 20s and still the Catholic-kid-in-me's blood boils when thinking about non-Catholics participating in Eucharist. If you didn't participate in the resquisite amount of Catechism in order to understand its meaning, then you haven't earned the right. If you haven't participated in the sacrament of Confession (something I know ALL Protestants would find harrowing, at best), then you haven't earned the right to take Communion. Its a process, and you don't get to skip parts.

I equate it to going to a Boy Scout (another childhood pastime) meeting and, in order to feel like you belong, telling everyone you're an Eagle Scout. No, you aren't! And those of us who did the volumes of work to become an Eagle Scout don't appreciate you taking it so lightly, even if I'm not into scouting anymore. You don't go around claiming to be something you aren't - and if you take Eucharist in a Catholic Church you are telling everyone present that you are a Catholic who's done the work. You are lying even though you haven't said a word.

There is no Protestant equivalent of the Sacrament of Eucharist (and I've spent some time in various Protestant denominations)! Or Confession, for that matter. It doesn't make Catholics "better". It just means that if you believe that you can confess your sins silently, in private, and have the judgement to issue penance on yourself (how would our justice system work if this was true) and you think that's all you need to do in order to have a clean slate, I'm sorry, but you can't take communion!

I agree that non-Catholics shouldn't participate in Catholic sacraments.

That said, some unqualified people obviously do participate. So my question is: What do you want to have done about it?

It does no good to complain if there is no remedy for the situation. Should Ms. Quinn be punished for her actions? What should the punishment consist of?

Nightswimmer -

I know you didn't direct this to me, but I'm going to give you my opinion anyway! :)

I don't think anything should be done. I don't think there is any punishment and other than some official (say the Bishop in the Diocese of Washington) saying a simple statement about the catechism and not mentioning her by name should be the end of it.

Of course, what with the free speech we still have access to in America I imagine many people will keep yakking it up, but that's okay. I'm sure in the journalism biz any buzz is good buzz.

I think the thing to remember is that all the people calling down fire and brimstone on Ms. Quinn are lay people with their own axes to grind - you don't see "The Church" moving toward any kind of retributive action. And that is good.

A&S

"I think the thing to remember is that all the people calling down fire and brimstone on Ms. Quinn are lay people with their own axes to grind - you don't see "The Church" moving toward any kind of retributive action. And that is good."

That seems to be the case. The Church Elders are certainly active when it comes to the Eucharist and certain politicians. Why do they choose one position over which to battle and ignore all other sinful behavior or ideology? Shouldn't they also refuse Communion to politicians that support the Iraq War?

wherein lies the essential Catholic difference from Protestatism. Soli gratia.

"There is no Protestant equivalent of the Sacrament of Eucharist (and I've spent some time in various Protestant denominations)! Or Confession, for that matter. It doesn't make Catholics "better". It just means that if you believe that you can confess your sins silently, in private, and have the judgement to issue penance on yourself (how would our justice system work if this was true) and you think that's all you need to do in order to have a clean slate, I'm sorry, but you can't take communion!"

Yes if only those damn Protestant heathens would just see the light then we wouldn't have to pretend to do all that stupid ecumenical hoo-hah. I love how you said it doesn't make Catholics better, and then went on to say just that.

NIghtswimmer -

I don't want to pick nits with you, honest!

The Sacrament of the Eucharist is a pretty personal moment in the spiritual life of a Catholic person. Who am I to say who should and shouldn't get it?

I think most priests feel similarly. To be honest it is not The Catholic Church that is making the big stink about who should and shouldn't get the Eucharist.

It is people, individuals, who like to make it sound like they are speaking for "The Church" when, in fact, they are not.

As an aside - all 501(c)(3) religious organizations in the US are prohibited from participating in politics, as a group. So actually you won't see The Catholic Church - or any other church that wants to maintain its non-profit status- make ANY official political statement about abortion, war, parties etc.

When and if someone does (I'm thinking of the yahoo in Chicago) he is immediately reprimanded by the Bishop, the Church issues its official statement, and it does its best to keep that silence.

People can say whatever they want. And, they can make it sound (especially on the internet) like they are "official" and all. But that is the fact of the matter -- and if you parse it carefully enough you'll find that in America anyway, there is no official political stand by The Catholic Church.

There are moral stands. But not political ones.

Parse away.

:)