For Ms. Quinn to 'take' communion as if it were some kind of social snack demonstrates a broad disrespect for religious ritual. Religious rites, for the people who practice them, are imbued with religious and spiritual meaning. Even if we do not practice the rites in question, it seems like basic cultural courtesy to acknowledge that religious/spiritual rites have meaning for some.

I was raised Catholic, indoctrinated thoroughly, attending Catholic schools K-12. I am pretty sure I understand the Catholic rite of communion.

It is a RITE. If you take a communion wafer and chomp it down in the middle of a religious service but you are not practicing the religious rite, then you aren't taking communion. Ms. Quinn was practicing disrespect when she took that wafer at Mr. Russert's funeral. . . and then, gosh, for her to report on it as if reporting on a restaurant review, way creepy. Way, way pathetic.

In order to receive communion, I had to study -- and memorize -- a lot of doctrine. I received a lot of instruction in the meaning of the ritual. I was guided to understand how this ritual sustained my direct relationship with God, with Deity.

I haven't considered myself a Catholic for over thirty years. I happen to believe that for most Catholics in this country, their religion is little more than an empty adherence to empty ritual (the ritual, if approached with reverence and an inner relationship with Deity, is not empty but, imho, few Catholics do approach religious ritual with meaningful reverence for Spirit). . . . I kinda hate the Catholic Church.

But I respect the beliefs that actually do underly all Catholic rituals. They aren't just social events. They have deep, important meaning to practitioners of that Faith. For someone else to come along and partake of communion like some kind of snack at church, well, it's pathetic.

People don't just grab a communion wafer. It is a ritual with meaning.

It hardly sounded to me as though Ms Quinn was treating the communion like a snack.

Since you appear to be a 'true blue' Catholic and I assume you don't use birth control, had sex before marriage (well as a standard practice), divorced, voted for those that support gay or abortion rights, etc..), how do you feel about phoney so call Catholics taking communion?

Isn't someone that has been divorced (unless the RCC OKed the divorced which isn't true 99.9% of the time) NOT take communion also?

I just wonder because if only the 'true blue' Catholics could take communion there would be a lot of stale wafers!

The great thing about Catholicism is that you can be forgiven for doing so. Communion should only be denied to those who deny extramarital sex, abortion, contraeption, etc. aren't wrong.

AFAIK, civilly remarried (not previously annulled) Catholics are still excommunicated. I'm just glad some organization still believes that marriage is forever.

As a Orthodox Catholic, it does bother me that there are so many who don't "walk the walk". I feel concern and pity for them.

I do agree there's no reason to pretend respect for a phony religion.

Talk about being really phoney! One can have extramarital sex, aboriton and use birth control as long as one believes what they are doing is wrong!!!

That sounds like someone that is INSANE!!!! Only a moron does things they feel are wrong on a consistant basis. Or maybe that is only a Catholic!

With regards to being excommunicated, YEA, what percent of divorced American so called Catholic have been excommunicated. The number is less than 100 I would guess!

In my book the only Catholics are Orthodox ones. The rest are phonies that are just too afraid to fact the fact that they don't agree with the RCC and need to move on.

Lovely how we have you to judge the religious veracity of millions of people with such righteousness.

You have any more stomes you would like to throw?

Would say the same if the matter wasn't a Catholic church, but a Muslim mosque, or Hindu temple or Wiccan Beltane fest?

Nice to see that a lack of manners really doesn't discriminate to color, creed, or faith.

Nice to see being self righteous and judgmental isn't the providence of pulpits and pews anymore.

TreeFitz:

For Ms. Quinn to 'take' communion as if it were some kind of social snack demonstrates a broad disrespect for religious ritual. Religious rites, for the people who practice them, are imbued with religious and spiritual meaning.

How is she being any more disrespectful than "most Catholics in this country" according to you? Since you stated:

TreeFitz:

I happen to believe that for most Catholics in this country, their religion is little more than an empty adherence to empty ritual (the ritual, if approached with reverence and an inner relationship with Deity, is not empty but, imho, few Catholics do approach religious ritual with meaningful reverence for Spirit). . . . I kinda hate the Catholic Church.

So it would seem that in your view that people, including most Catholics in fact, do just grab a communion wafer.

TreeFitz:

People don't just grab a communion wafer. It is a ritual with meaning.

Unless empty adherance to an empty ritual is what it means to be religious now?

First, I want to say that I'm ambivalent about this whole thing.

What is somewhat bothersome though (and yes, I was raised catholic, private schools, catholic college...) is that most non-catholics don't know the 'importance' of communion to a Catholic. That Quinn took communion doesn't bother me, as it bothers others, and by doctrine it can. Technically, she should not have, out of respect for Catholic tradition. There is absolutely no way for a priest or deacon to know if someone is a catholic in good standing, 99% of the time. All they can do is ask that people observe the guidelines laid out. If someone chooses to flout them, there is no way of knowing, at the time.

That she blogged about it somewhat snarkily, and for someone who is a 'religion' blogger she probably should have known better. Have had a better than ordinary person's knowledge of the situation. This reflects badly on her. It's 'bad form' and inconsiderate.

I actually am of the opinion that she did it, as others have mentioned here, for the publicity.

With regard to doing something one believes is wrong and the comments above, jazz, in context what is meant, it seems to me, is that one can ask forgiveness in confession; however, part of confession is that one has decided not to do the action/inaction being confessed again, and does not plan to do so. One is fallible, one may make the same mistake again, but one shouldn't be planning on making it again, as a general proposition. As it relates to communion issues, one would then be free to receive.

However, the person who is confessing and still planning on the doing the same thing is in a different situation. For example, my mother-in-law (jazz, you would love her, as far as saying one thing and doing another) was divorced and remarried outside the RCC (she also lived with him prior to marriage, and got pregnant - - he was catholic too) for years, and went to confession at our local parish, only the regular priest wasn't there. Apparently, she confessed all this, and the priest would not give her absolution, allegedly because she wasn't doing anything to change her situation (of course, I have only her account to go on). She railed and railed against this priest - - how dare he, etc. Bottom line is that as a result of that, she began the annulment process, which was eventually granted.

As I understand divorce within RCC, divorce is permitted civilly if it is necessary to protect property and/or custodial rights. It does not end a sacramental marriage, and that's why the remarriage part is the problem. An annulment is a statement that a marriage as the RCC understands it never existed, not a blessing of divorce. Whether there is abuse of that is whole 'nother topic.

I know it's all silly rules and fairy tales to you, but I thought it went along well with your theme that if you want to belong to a group, you should actually believe and act as the group does. By the way, although we certainly don't agree on much, I almost always enjoy your posts.

Yes, no matter the religion, there's no reason to pay respect. Religions are not people. Religions are not reified things that comprehend manners one way or the other.

Good point regarding respecting the people who hold religious beliefs (or any other beliefs, for that matter) rather than respecting the beliefs themselves.

I am a strong believer in the idea that we should show others at least as much respect as they deserve, and if in doubt, a little extra -- cannot say that I always manage to do that, however.