In All Things
Sally Quinn Takes Communion
Above: Tim Russert pictured with Catholic school children (CNS photo)
In one of the strangest religious stories of the month, Sally Quinn, the longtime Washington Post reporter and co-editor of the Post-Newsweek blog "On Faith" wrote about her decision to receive Communion at her close friend Tim Russert’s funeral. Ms. Quinn is not a Catholic. The whole story is here on The New Republic’s blog here.
First, Ms. Quinn’s comment from the original "On Faith" blog:
"Last Wednesday at Tim’s funeral mass at Trinity Church in Georgetown... communion was offered. I had only taken communion once in my life, at an evangelical church. It was soon after I had started "On Faith" and I wanted to see what it was like. Oddly I had a slightly nauseated sensation after I took it, knowing that in some way it represented the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Last Wednesday I was determined to take it for Tim, transubstantiation notwithstanding. I’m so glad I did. It made me feel closer to him. And it was worth it just to imagine how he would have loved it. After I began "On Faith," Tim started calling me "Sister Sal" instead of "Miss Sal."
Not surprisingly, the Catholic League issued a response.
"Just reading what Sally Quinn said is enough to give any Christian, especially Catholics, more than a ’slightly nauseating sensation.’ In her privileged world, life is all about experiences and feelings.
"Moreover, Quinn’s statement not only reeks of narcissism, it shows a profound disrespect for Catholics and the beliefs they hold dear. If she really wanted to get close to Tim Russert, she should have found a way to do so without trampling on Catholic sensibilities. Like praying for him--that’s what Catholics do."
What’s going on here?
On the one hand...
One of the key messages of Jesus of Nazareth was inclusion and welcome. During his earthly ministry, Jesus constantly welcomed people from the margins of society into the community, through both word and deed. This is shown over and over in his meals with persons of little social standing; his interactions with beggars, lepers and prostitutes; and in his conversations even with the hated Roman soldiers. His healings, too, were not only ways of freeing people from their ailments but also restoring them to the larger community. Jesus’s deeds gave meaning to his words, and his words to his deeds. And frequently both pointed to the message of inclusion and welcome.
It is therefore always difficult to argue for exclusion, at least by the example of Jesus of Nazareth.
This seemed to have been part of Ms. Quinn’s motivation. When reached for comment by The New Republic in light of the Catholic League’s response, she said:
"Any religious people who purport to be Christians, or whatever faith you might be, would do everything they could to welcome others--in the case of Catholics, to welcome others the way Christ would welcome others. This is a perfect example of WWJD. Would Jesus have said, "No you don’t, Sally Quinn. You’re not going to get away with this one!"
So Ms. Quinn is quite correct in asking, "What would Jesus do?" It is an important question for all churches to ask themselves.
On the other hand...
Catholics believe in the "real presence," the actual presence of Christ in the elements of the Eucharist: the bread and the wine. It is a central element of our faith, and reception of Communion is something that a Catholic does not do lightly. Which is something of an understatement. "First Holy Communion" is an important passage to adulthood; and even afterwards adults are asked to approach Communion reverently and without being conscious of any grave sin. Catholics also know that the very word "Communion" means that you are in "communion" with the rest of the Catholic church, and accept its beliefs.
Therefore, it is probably not too much to expect that the co-founder of a prestigious online blog about religion run by two of the nation’s premier journals, would understand something about the most basic practices of the Catholic church. Most intelligent people know a few facts about the Catholic church: this is one of them. And even if one doesn’t know this, one would know to act with great care when in the midst of a worshiping community not your own. (For example, I am always exceedingly careful not to offend anyone’s sensibilities when in a synagogue, a mosque or a Christian church or meeting place not affiliated with the Catholic church.) An essential element of respect for another religious tradition is approaching their holy places, people and ceremonies with sense of reverence, even awe.
That’s why the words "transubstantiation notwithstanding" are difficult to hear. If one knows enough about Catholicism to mention "transubstantiation" then one should also know that the word "notwithstanding" makes little sense in that context.
At the same time, the Catholic League need not attack Ms. Quinn ad hominem. Ms. Quinn, whatever her personal beliefs, seems to have approached the altar rail out of love for her Catholic friend, not hatred for the Catholic church. The League also has no idea whether Ms. Quinn’s life is "all about experiences and feelings." What is essentially a discussion about ecumenical concerns (i.e. Who can receive Communion?) is not advanced by ad hominem arguments.
In short, may I offer some friendly advice to both parties?
To Ms. Quinn: Giving tribute to a friend may also mean respecting his religious traditions.
To the Catholic League: Giving people the benefit of the doubt is a good way to show respect, too.
James Martin, SJ
Comments (22) |
5115 Views
Add Comments (registration required)
Comments
Here is an analogy that I hope will not come across as an ad hominem attack. Let's say monogamy became something that only very few people believed in. And I was one of those who thought it was a quaint old tradition with no real meaning behind it, but I found it interesting that Sally should hold her monogamous relationship with her husband in such high regard.
Even though I find her commitment to monogamy to be somewhat backward and constraining, I am somewhat fascinated by the discipline and commitment it entails. So I decide to try to experience what her relationship with her husband is by impersonating Sally and going to bed with her husband. I don't do it out of disrespect for Sally, in fact I do it because I want to feel closer to her as a friend and to appreciate more fully her perspective. But by doing so, I destroy in some measure the very thing that Sally and her husband valued so highly.
I don't think it could be said that Sally is 'unwelcoming' if she were to object to my intrusion into her marital bed.
I admit that this is not a perfect analogy (indeed, I would welcome Sally to fully embrace Catholicism and to receive Jesus frequently and worthily).
But the analogy does capture a bit of the feeling I have as a Catholic when I hear of Sally's decision to enter into a false communion with a saviour and a Church that I love dearly. It hurts to have that relationship that I value so highly to be so high-handedly violated in this way.
I think this incident is worth downplaying. A person stumbled in wanting to connect with a friend, dead or alive. Like any of us hasn't done that. We shake our heads, say she shouldn't have received, then move on.
The best reparation, if any is called for, is to bring someone into the Catholic Church: an inactive believer or someone unchurched. That way, everyone is edified and God glorified.
Perhaps we might hope that Ms. Quinn's act may have more positive consequences for her than the judgments that have so far befallen her.
Quinn is not as bad as that, but seems surprisingly ignorant. The sacrament is there for people who have had some preparation, learning catechism and prayers, which she has not done.
This would be similar to declaring yourself to be bah mitzvahed, without having done any of the study or learning of prayers for that.
Her act is a great example of how the creeping secularism makes people think they can do whatever they want. I don't hate her for it, I just feel that she is mistaken and that she should try to understand why.
Fr. Martin put it perfectly: respect for persons includes respect for their beliefs. And yes, it is in order to play down the incident while giving good advice to both parties.
Regards and God Bless
I hope you can take these words in the charity they are intended. Blunt certainly, but charitable: You are wrong to criticize the Catholic League on this issue.
'To the Catholic League: Giving people the benefit of the doubt is a good way to show respect, too.'
'Benefit of the doubt.' A weak contention, considering you had conceded earlier that you expected Ms Quinn (a religion editor) '…would understand something about the most basic practices of the Catholic church.' She did understand. And she deliberately, with full premeditation, flaunted her beliefs (i.e. feelings) over those of Mr Russert, his family, and the Church.
'Show respect.' Really? Is that Christ’s calling for us--to respect Sin? To love the sinner, certainly. To pray for them. But we are to admonish them, as Paul wrote (2 Thess 3): 'And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.' Perhaps you consider admonishment unsavory, as it might seem 'ad hominem,' and may make some feel 'ashamed.'
Being judgmental is--contrary to Scripture--the one unforgivable sin these days. True, I fear judging another’s soul, lest I be judged. But in order to admonish others, you must have enough conviction in your faith to be able to state 'what you did was wrong.' Truly that is more charitable than a wishy-washy (let’s just say 'lukewarm'
) 'Giving tribute to a friend may also mean respecting his religious traditions.' How about stating 'What you did disrespected his faith, and was wrong”.
Ah, but that would be judgmental, now. The shame is on me. Sans Judgment. Father, is that what the 'SJ'after your name stands for? Or does it stand for something more?
Bill Donohue is a one-man operation, claiming to represent Catholics but I find his vitriol embarrassing and do not see Donohue as an effective spokesperson for the faith. Please place Fr. Martin's name and number in your rolodex. He defends the faith with charity and lucidity and doesn't shame me as a Catholic with name calling and personal attacks.
Sure, it would have been better if she had consulted someone about the propriety of taking Communion without being in communion. But she did not, and that's water under the bridge; faced with this fait accompli, one ought to implore her to take that under consideration for the next time.
But all these attacks in this comment thread, the ad hominems buttresses with cherry-picked quotations - they're a complete disgrace. We must be charitable towards those who intend well, even if their execution stumbles. To withhold charity is to turn away from true Catholicism.
That the Washington Post chose a woman who publicly proclaims she knew ''practically nothing about religion or the internet'' at the beginning of her ''On Faith'' assignment reveals a great deal about WaPo's assessment of faith, too. It seems unlikely that Leonard Downie would assign the White House beat to someone ignorant of American electoral politics. So Ms. Quinn ought to be cut some slack. She's was chosen by her editors to report on matters she seems proud to be ignorant of.
Has anyone had a conversation with her and told her how much God loves her and explained to her that Jesus died for her sin so she could experience reconciliation with God?
Has anyone spoken gently and lovingly and kindly with her to help her understand her need for a Savior?
Just wondering if (as the expression goes) we're interested in 'walking the walk' as much as we are in 'talking the talk'?
Add Comments (registration required)
* The opinions expressed here are those of our contributors, and do not necessarily reflect the editorial opinion of America magazine.