Many have (correctly) spoken about the error here being a profound lack of understanding of Catholic belief coupled with a disregard of how to behave in a community of faith not your own.

But not many have really addressed why that care in such a community ought to be respected and how refraining from the reception of the Eucharist (Catholics call it the Eucharist) would conform to that.

In the Roman Catholic faith the Eucharist occupies a unique central place in the faith and among the sacraments. It is not a representation—it is the actual embodied presence—the actual trans-substantiated flesh and blood. Most of Catholicism revolves around this central understanding. The Church has a unique duty to avoid schism because of it, the apostolic succession (the valid ordination of Bishops) figures into that central role of that sacrament and schisms have occurred over it.

So, what’s the big deal for Sally? Why not do it to blend in or be one ‘with Tim’?

The guidelines for reception in any Catholic Church in any liturgy of the Eucharist in any missalette in any pew it will stipulate the conditions for reception of the Eucharist.

Many people from other denominations see those as exclusionary but the key difference is the conception of the sacrament as representative of the bloody and blood of Christ as opposed to the actual body and blood of Christ.

Participating in a sacrament that revolves around the actual presence of the body and blood of Christ when you don’t believe that (as the guidelines note) implies a degree of unity devoutly to be hoped and prayed for but that does not exist today. In short—participating without believing that is a direct—not symbolic—and powerful refutation of Catholic’s most central beliefs. It implies (falsely) a degree of unity not present and in doing so asserts the guests representational belief as more important than the community of faith’s central belief.

It would be difficult to imagine a more disrespectful (or offensive) act; continuing to defend it after this has been pointed out would be (in that tradition) a morphing to “vincible ignorance’” from “invincible Ignorance” (ignorance is said to be invincible when one is unable to rid oneself of it despite moral diligence that ought to be reasonably applied—it’s one thing not to know—it’s another to have it pointed out and continue to defend the action despite available diligence proportional to the action).

It’s unlikely that someone who entered a temple and placed a torah scroll on the ground or upside down or placed something on top of it handled it casually (all protocol violations) would be likewise defended because they did not share the belief in its sacredness.

Demosthenes2 -

As usual, beautifully stated.

I think there is some assumption among people that if we can recognize a thing then it must be what we think it is.

While the acts of Episcopal Communion and Catholic Eucharist may look similar - even with using the same words in the respective rituals - they are different.

As a Catholic, I don't see one as better or worse than the other. Different is not a pejorative term.

Respecting differences is not about exclusion or inclusion or any other self-esteem issue. It is about respect.

Thanks for the great post.

a&s

So do you respect that gays are different and therefore should be allowed to marry? Your Church sure doesn't.

jazzGman-

As I think I've stated numerous times I have a lot of differences with the Catholic church.

The issue of gay marriage is one of the many.

However it is not The Catholic Church that is putting all the laws on the books against gay marriage - it is my governmental bodies. I find this highly offensive.

You know, I don't hold myself up to be some kind of example of how best to practice the Catholic faith. Again, I struggle with it all the time. I try to find a place to belong to a faith community but at the same time I have strong and often contrary opinions and thoughts about how things could be done differently.

What I'm coming to understand is that this doubt, this struggle, is part of MY faith journey. It is part of my spiritual life.

It is not a failure on my part to be perfectly in harmony with a religious body - it is simply my path.

There are many contradictories and paradoxes that evolve and that sit stably on my path. Being okay with those is a kind of spiritual practice in itself.

a&s

Thanks A&S

I appreciate your reply–it just seemed odd to me that a direct refutation of a communities belief, a positioning of one’s own interpretation as superior, could be so embraced. How odd.

I’ll answer that.

I’m on record as supporting gay marriage as a civil ceremony for the hundreds of rights it bestows upon people that the government has no right to discriminate upon the bestowal of.

However, similarly it seems to be patently unconstitutional to dictate to a Church what it may or may not believe. This is a clear infraction of that communities’ belief.

The state should allow all such partnerships and permit the same civil liberties and rights attached thereto. In turn, the state may not dictate what religious unions a faith must countenance. I would not support any faith bestowing or denying civil liberties. I would not countenance the state approving or denying religious sacraments. I don’t want the Church deciding whether or not gay people can file a joint return or visit a dying partner in the hospital and I don’t want the government telling a Rabi or Priest how they must conduct their faith.

Let the rights of marriage attach to the state certificate. Let the religious sacrament be determined by each faith.

Render unto Caesar.

jazzguitarman:

So do you respect that gays are different and therefore should be allowed to marry? Your Church sure doesn't.

Should an alcholic be given society's encouragement to keep drinking? After all, there seems to be a genetic component to alcholism. Or should someone who's schizophrenic be encouraged to NOT take medication, and live with the voices in their head?

Most people would say no, some things that affect the mind SHOULD be corrected, regardless of what the patient feels is their native state. Therefore, people with homosexual orientations are to try and remain celibate, and definitely should not "marry" each other.

Oh my well, there you go. Let’s discuss 21st Century American Christianity’s peculiar relationship with those of us with mental illness. It is interesting. In fact, it’s troublesome. Why won’t evangelicals come into the wards and cast out demons? Have you less faith? Have you less power? Will you stand before Jesus one day and assert, “Lord, we left the mentally ill to drugs because we knew you couldn’t handle it.” Ask you yourself, if we can medicate to sanity, then what do we need Christ for; the light work? It has always amazed me how evangelicals will kick Darwin all around the school yard like bullies, when he is harmless, yet, you will bow down before Sigmund Freud who you appear to be afraid of and who has done more damage to the prestige of the church than Darwin ever wanted to do. To give Christianity its due, with drug addiction, alcoholism, sexual addiction, failing marriages, your religion is tops, excellent; replete with endless proven cases of success. With full blown organic schizophrenia? No luck; not even an effort until, and only until, the drugs come in. Why is this so? Laugh this off if you want, but I assure you, people see this failure, read the New Testament, and ponder. You will say, “The world has changed.” Really? How much as it changed? Who told you to stop casting out demons? Who gave you permission to champion drugs over spiritual warfare? Jesus; or Freud, or Jung? So here is the question: what do you do with the mentally ill? We await an answer. Would Jesus abandon us as too hard to handle? Behold the inconvenient truth of the mentally ill amongst you.

That makes no sense at all! If someone is POSSESSED by a demon, one can try casting it out. If someone is NOT possessed by a demon, why would one go into a hospital and try to cast out a non-existent demon?

Your examples of Torah-handling would all be signs of obvious disrespect for the venerated object. They would therefore be properly reproved. No one argues that members of a particular religious community ought to be subjected to the scandal of witnessing, in their own sanctuary, open disrespect for their beliefs and traditions.

But that is not what happens when a non-Catholic receives communion in a Catholic church. The recipient not only intends no disrespect but looks and acts like everyone else present--at least in my limited experience. If not--if the recipient behaves inappropriately--then it becomes analogous to mishandling a Torah and some kind of intervention is justified.


The scandal arises, in the Catholic case, not from how the recipient acts but from who the recipient is. Of course, most of the time there is no scandal at all, because few if any people are even aware that a particular communion recipient is not a Catholic, and those who know, usually his/her relatives, either don't care or feel favorably toward the action.

So it is the person's identity and spiritual status, not his attitude or behavior, that the church feels difficulty with. The problem, for me, is that there really is no determinable dividing line here. Catholic/non-Catholic is a very artificial and uncertain distinction. Catholic churches are full of communion-going Catholics who very consciously do not accept or practice various church doctrines or disciplines, contraception and abortion being the most obvious. Why--apart from mere ethnic, familial and cultural labels--should such people be viewed as across the line into the Communion Zone, while, say, an evangelical Protestant who fully agrees with the Roman church about most essentials plus contraception and abortion, is not?

Or "fallen-away" Catholics? I personally know of instances of people (one in my family) who haven't believed or practiced the religion for years, but who on appropriate occasions take communion simply to keep peace in the family.

Even apart from such doctrinal and affiliational issues, why is it that the church doesn't (as it actually once did, at times and in places) make a visible effort to screen mortal sinners from communion? Surely they receive as "unworthily" as the baptized and perhaps very devout and morally upright members of a different denomination would. If the church is so zealous to protect The Body & Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ® from profanation, surely even Catholic communicants ought to be checked out for some level of compliance with Catholic moral norms.

And, in fact, that was once done . . . but it broke down very quickly where it was tried because it proved totally impracticable. For many reasons, but not least that the favor of the most powerful in the land was indispensable to Holy Mother Church, and they lived as they damn well pleased. So the church got very, very used to the scandal of men with mistresses practically falling from their pockets as they approached the communion rail. Indeed, you might say that's part of Catholic tradition. Certainly, the Protestants said it.

So if the Catholic church can't really protect the Eucharist from being profaned by former Catholics, doubtful Catholics, Catholics with mental reservations, and just plain sinnin-an-lovin-it Catholics, why should it worry so much about the occasional non-Catholics who approaches the altar rail, either in ignorance, or in the belief that his faith and good intentions (and maybe his relationship to the deceased, or whatever) override the Catholic church's party line?

Because that's what's really at issue here: not the sacrament, but keeping denominational boundaries sharp. The Catholic church wants to maintain its brand, and making an occasional stink about who is and is not invited into the Real Presence® is one way to do it. If Quinn had never written about her little jaunt no one would have said squat, no matter how many recognized her. It was only when she thrust the issue out in public than wind machines like Donohue got cranked up, and a few prelates had to wag their heads gravely to appease the Morlocks.

Somehow, I think the Jesus of Emmaus wouldn't have been too concerned about whether the others were carrying their membership cards.

Of course it makes no sense. Remember what James Dobson teaches us: “The heart cannot rejoice at what the mind cannot follow.” Vulcan Christianity rises triumphant in 2008; believe in the resurrection, because 100 eye witnesses make it...logical. Christ was the Jewish Messiah because Isaiah 53 becomes refreshingly comprehensible. You might find the work of Father Malachi Martin interesting, the Vatican’s leading exert on exorcism. He said in an interview with Art Bell that there is no exorcism for the willingly possessed. None. There has to be at least a sub-conscious desire to be free of the demon, otherwise any demon can drink holy water, handle a cross, and laugh at the name of Christ. The point is this: there are “Vulcan wannabes” all over the United States right now; humans are five hundred years away from obtaining Surok’s dream. Mystery will, until then, always trump logic in the minds of men...the path is paved with Tao...the branches in your face are Zen-Sufi. Is there a place for Christ in the mystery? Absotively boss...read Alan Watt’s early work, “Behold the Spirit.” Live long and prosper. “I shall do neither; for I have killed my captain, and my friend.” They just don’t write ‘em like that anymore!

A few weeks after Katrina, a wealthy land developer on the Gulf Coast was overheard to say: “We’ve been trying to clear out those slums for decades. God just did it for us in one day.”

“Logical; flawlessly logical.” Spock.

“I am honored.” : T’Pring. from “Amok Time.”

While in the main I agree with you I think this religious columnist’s position (to the point of defending it after the fact and after it’s been pointed out) is a little different. It’s one thing to receive the sacrament (and unlike you I do think this is about the sacrament) when not certain of specific doctrines (perhaps one doubts). But it strikes me as quite another to do so while purposefully and knowingly rejecting the meaning of and context of the sacrament. As this writer stipulates, doing it to be closer to Tim is not really the reason one receives the Eucharist. I don’t think I would go take the sacrament were I consciously rejecting its meaning. I mean, it’s the Eucharist that occupies a unique place in Catholic doctrine (and most know this—surely a religious columnist has an obligation to know that fundamental piece?). I don’t think it’s an offense to the community since (as you point out) they mostly don’t know though I’ve winced to watch a non-religious person I know go and receive communion, pocket the Eucharist and take it back to his pew to study in private. I think the key difference here is that the writer does in fact intent an offense. Not to offend Catholics by receiving—that would largely be unknown but the offense of dismissing the core beliefs of that community. What I find surprising here is the actor knowing that this is something that holds a unique place in this tradition and the subsequent repudiation of that communities’ core belief as unimportant and trivial, and indeed the supposition that this guest’s belief ought to supersede that. I don’t think it’s at all about protecting denomination lines. And most Catholics (like me) would say take it if you are unsure and pray about it—but to be sure and no otherwise and reject your host’s belief as you silently toss it off and substitute your own judgment seems a little disrespectful to me. The public writing about it afterwards and defense of that seems to me an unnecessary provocation. I don’t think Jesus much cares for membership cards either (I know I don’t) but I do care about respect and compassion. That seems to be a pretty low standard to request respect for in that one not publicly provoke with a written defense of one’s repudiation of another’s belief under those circumstances. It’s one thing to disagree. Another to knowingly reject and show disrespect for a community (whether they themselves know it or feel that)—still another to gloat over doing so. You’re right that frequently under such circumstances many of us don’t really care about such things at a funeral or even view such events approvingly but that might change were someone to spend the reception after the funeral relaying why Catholics are wrong about that and detailing why they were wrong and why someone was glad they violated the communities’ belief.

The issue is not the degree to which the recipient does or does not follow all aspects of Catholicism... but whether or not the recipient believes in and accepts transubstantiation. During the sacrament, the Eucharistic minister says, "The body of Christ", to which the recipient says "Amen". Not "Do you whole-heartedly accept all Catholic doctrine and do you hate all pro-life candidates and do you believe that the government should be run according to our faith."

First, whether or not the recipient is in a so-called "state of grace"--and therefore whether he can receive communion "worthily"--depends not merely on what he says at communion, but on the condition of his faith (sincere? submissive to the Magsiterium?) and morals (has he, e.g., committed a mortal sin such as using a condom?).

Second, a formula like "The Body of Christ" can mean many things. "This is the Body of Christ"? "This represents the Body of Christ"? "Be joined to the Body of Christ"? Even the word "transubstantiation," which supposedly defines it, is limited by its reliance on hylomorphic metaphysics, which is where it gets its definition of "substance" and the distinction between "substance" and "accidents." In Western philosophy, such metaphysics was retired to the status of curiosity around the seventeenth century. Hylomorphism as a philosophy is not doctrinally binding on Roman Catholics.

While Catholics may be doctrinally required to believe that the Eucharist is "really" and not merely representationally the Body of Christ, they can, do, and always have understood it in their own ways. There is no reason that a non-Catholic Christian could not do the same--and therefore receive Catholic communion as "worthily" as an illiterate (or retarded) Roman Catholic who has never even heard of "transubstantiation."