And this attitude is one of the MANY things about organized religion -- in particular my own -- that makes my blood boil.
Dear 'Chemist',
You sound like a spoiled child who throws a tantrum because another child gets a popsicle on the playground when s/he (and his/her little group of pre-approved 'friends') doesn't. If you want to keep the quality of your argument in the playground, or, to use your own analogy, in the Boy Scout camp, that's your business, but I think many Christians (of whatever stamp) would take offense at this childishness when it comes to other members of the faith. (As an aside, in the Gospels, Jesus recommends being 'child-like', not 'childish', if you remember.)
First, I'd like to point out that you are factually incorrect when you say that "There is no Protestant equivalent to the Sacrament of the Eucharist". Now, as you probably do know, Roman Catholics are not the only Christians who administer Communion. The many branches of the Orthodox church, for example, shares in that liturgical rite. Note that, in addition, the Episcopal/Anglican Church also administers the sacraments of Baptism, Communion, Confirmation, Marriage, Ordination, and Last Rites. I believe, as a lapsed Catholic, you would probably have been taught in your catechism lessons to consider these invalid sacraments since the RCC does not recognize apostolic succession in the case of the Anglican Church, but that's an argument for another day. I suppose, however, that we can agree that the Anglican Church is Protestant, and that it considers itself to administer communion. I speak only of this denomination because as a member I know it best.
Now, I'd like to share an anecdote. Three months ago my grandmother, a faithful Catholic and devoted wife and mother, passed away after a long battle with cancer. My father was with her when she died, praying the rosary by her side, and when he noticed she had passed he continued to the end of the rosary because he knew that's what she would have wanted. My father and mother are both committed Christians, and though raised Roman Catholic, turned to the Episcopal Church precisely because of the narrow-minded childishness displayed above.
A week later, at my grandmother's funeral, in the church where my father had been baptized and had served as an altar boy for years when he was growing up, the priest made a point of denying communion to anyone who was not a practicing Roman Catholic. After this little speech, my father, who has been a practicing and committed Christian longer than that priest had been, and had been praying with his mother when she died, did not receive communion at her funeral -- and the pain on his face during the 'sacrament' was so palpable I think God would have been horribly disappointed in the failings of the very human institution that is the Church.
I share this, not because I agree with what Ms.Quinn wrote (although I would never presume to judge what she did -- that is for her and for God, not for other people to tear apart and analyse), but because I want to show how damaging attitudes like this one can be. 'Chemist', whoever you are, I too went to Catholic school, I too took as many years of catechism and apologetics as you did (if not more). I am still a practicing Christian (I practice in the Anglican Church, but quite frankly I don't see what difference it makes). As a result we could argue this until the cows come home. But, if you really had the training you claim to have had then you also had to read the New Testament, and I'm afraid ideas like the ones you expressed above miss the boat on some of the central messages Jesus expresses in the Gospel accounts. What does he have to say about the Scribes and the Pharisees? Why does he fundamentally come into conflict with them? And with whom does he choose to associate? How many years of catechism lessons had Peter (who's, by the way, always getting it wrong)? And this nonsense about "only the 12" being "historically" present at the Last Supper -- in the Greek of the Gospels it's 'the disciples' who are present, and this term refers, not only to the 12, but to various people who followed Christ (including, big shocker here, women! [gasp! moan!])
Whatever problems may be unique to the Anglican Church (trust me, every church has its problems), I'm comforted and proud that in every Episcopal/Anglican church I've attended the priest has made a point of saying before communion "this is God's table, not mine" and has invited all guests to share in this part of the liturgy. I also stand by my decision to go and take communion at my grandmother's funeral despite the fact that my father would not, and though I have never considered myself a Roman Catholic. I did this precisely because it is God's gift, not the gift of the priest who dispenses it, and because I believe it is an individual's decision to make. Ms. Quinn made a decision to receive communion, and then to write publicly about that decision. While it should have been obvious that she would have to deal with the commensurate public outcry, the ramifications of her _action_ are known only to herself. And in the end I doubt very seriously that they could be anything but good.
To close this rant (for the length of which I apologize), dear 'Chemist' please remember that people and relationships are complex -- and what could be more complex than a person's relationship with his/her religion and with God? Let God, if he's really out there, be concerned about his own relationships. And, if issues like who does and does not receive communion bother you this much, perhaps you should be there on Sunday receiving it yourself. Otherwise, I find it very difficult to understand why you think you have the right to pronounce on everybody else who is at the altar rail.
