First, let me stipulate that Bill Donahue is a total ass and only represents himself and his organization.

But, if she is the editor of On Faith she really ought to know that to take communion at a Catholic mass you have to be in "communion" with the Church. That means you shouldn't have any mortal sins, as defined by the Church, on your conscience and you should agree with a minimun set of the Church's tenants.  Frankly, I find this really naive and mushy: "I'm very pluralistic about religion, and I feel that everyone should respect everyone else's." If you want to "respect" the Church's religion then you shouldn't do something it finds highly unacceptable. I am a lapsed Catholic and if I go to mass for some reason I never go to communion.

First, let me stipulate that Bill Donahue is a total ass and only represents himself and his organization.

But, if she is the editor of On Faith she really ought to know that to take communion at a Catholic mass you have to be in "communion" with the Church. That means you shouldn't have any mortal sins, as defined by the Church, on your conscience and you should agree with a minimun set of the Church's tenants.  Frankly, I find this really naive and mushy: "I'm very pluralistic about religion, and I feel that everyone should respect everyone else's." If you want to "respect" the Church's religion then you shouldn't do something it finds highly unacceptable. I am a lapsed Catholic and if I go to mass for some reason I never go to communion.

I am first in line when it comes to criticizing priests and bishops who want to use communion as a political weapon, denying it to Kmiec or Kerry or anybody else who doesn't support the anti-abortionists' political agenda.  And I am no fan of Donahue.  But Quinn does come across as narcissistic, and no, I don't think Russert would have been charmed.  As far as I can tell, he was a serious Catholic.  So, instead, I think he might have said something like, "Sally, do you understand that when you are being offered communion at a Catholic mass you are being asked to affirm that you believe that the host does not merely represent, but actually is, the body of Christ?"  (That's why the priest says "this is the body of Christ" and the communicant says "amen.")  If you don't believe that (a perfectly reasonable position, embraced by millions of Protestants), then you really should decline.

Quinn thinks religion is about observable practice rather than devotional content.  Which makes me wonder when she's thinking about taking that trip to Mecca . . .

yes, I agree with the top two posters. To be honest I wouldn't be offended if I were there and knew she weren't Catholic. It is her choice to do so and I would not judge her negatively, especially if it were done out of ignorance and what she says in remembrance, but there was absolutely no reason for her to write about it, especially as was noted above she is supposedly an expert on faith. She wrote it as though Catholics were engaged in some prehistoric pagan ritual and she were some enlightened being curious as to how the cavemen lived. I think Narcissitic does sum up her actions. When I lived in China and ever went into a Buddhist Temple I tried to behave with as much reverence and respect as I could (as did most foreigners there) though I don't share the faith. And if I knew that some action was meant to be done only by Buddhists I would never have done it. It is pathetic this woman has less respect than a simple tourist.

As a devout and practicing Greek Orthodox Christian, I'm puzzled that someone who's not Catholic would be administered communion.  In the Orthodox faith, you must be a baptized and chrismated Orthodox to receive communion.  The priest usually announces this before administering communion.

I thought the same applies to the Catholic Church.  If Quinn knew a thing about Catholicism and had any respect for it she would not have taken communion.  I was at a Catholic funeral a few months ago and when communion was offered I knew better than to accept it even though the priest didn't say anything like they do in the Orthodox Church.  Apparently Quinn is a dolt and doesn't care.

She deserves all the derision and abuse she's getting.  If she doesn't "get it", then she needs to quit writing about religion.  Then again she might have been 'turned off' by the way we Orthodox receive communion: from a communal chalice containing the consecrated body (bread) and blood (wine) of Christ.  No wafers, no small cups.  Everyone receives the communion from a single spoon  from the chalice administered by the priest.

I'm a Presbyterian, but once I put on a tallit at a Yom Kippur service. I, however, didn't realize what I was doing (until informed by an amused/worried Jewish friend subsequently). All the other men were putting one on so I grabbed one too.

I'm an ex-Catholic. When I lost my faith I knew that I could never take communion again. To do so would not only be a lie, it would be an insult to the believers who were partaking in communion. Instead of getting huffy and telling others what she thinks Jesus would do, Quinn should ask a Catholic why it was wrong for her to take communion, listen carefully to the answer, and learn from the experience.

A sign of progress: Five centuries ago, a perceived breach of communion protocol would have justified the slaughter of thousands and the laying to waste of entire countries. Today, it merely justifies public humiliation of an individual.

Some errors in thinking on the part of Quinn's critics, who by the way sound exactly like all the armchair blogger "experts" who told us that a tank couldn't possibly run down a dog last year:

(1) Assuming that a journalist who covers a topic is an "expert" in that topic. Rarely true. Knowledgeable about the topic, sure, but just as we don't expect the health reporter to be able to diagnose illnesses or perform surgeries, it's foolish to expect a religion reporter to be able to expound on the theological intricacies of denominational dogma.

(2) Finding too much fault in Quinn's navel-gazing. Narcissism? Perhaps. But condemning a writer as a narcissist is a bit like calling a candidate for office arrogant. To be a journalist is to brand oneself as more than usually self-regarding. Normal people do not go through their workday assuming that an audience of hundreds of thousands of strangers are interested in what they have to say; journalists do, and God bless 'em for it.

(3) Assuming ill motives on Quinn's part. Where is the Christian generosity of spirit here? The woman says she took the communion in good faith, intending only respect. Was she wrong? Perhaps. But if a person joins in a Christian sacrament in a time of spiritual crisis, how spiteful does one have to be to condemn her and call her names and attempt to humiliate and shame her for it?

I'm pretty sure I once read advice to the effect that in a situation like this, one should attend to the twig in one's one eye before pointing out the splinter in another's eye. If only I could remember who said that ...

Anyway, I was once in a similar situation as a very young man. I was asked to do a scripture reading -- Psalm 91 -- at a friend's funeral at a Catholic church. Because my mother was a member of the congregation, I think it was just assumed that I would take communion. Anyway, there came a time in the service where the few of us who did readings were called to take communion. I was surprised, but given that attention was on us, and because between the stagefright and being in the "exhausted shellshocked zombie wreck" stage of early grief I probably wasn't thinking straight, it seemed to me at the time that the least disruptive thing to do, the thing that would draw the least amount of unwarranted attention to myself, would be to take the wafer but not eat it. I palmed it discretely instead. After the service, I approached Father Tim to apologize and gave him the wafer back and he thanked me and said he could take care of it and complimented me on my reading and asked about my family and how was I holding up and, well, did all the things a good priest does instead of lecturing grief-stricken non-Catholics about their shocking breaches of church etiquette.

What an absolute twit.

The part that gets me is that in reacting to criticism, a supposed expert on religious matters says "I wasn't thinking politically at all." She doesn't even realize what the nature of her blunder is, that people are upset because she's trampled all over our theology, not our politics.

Ugh!

And sorry, Rhubarbs, but this is not about "etiquette".

This is about one of the central - arguably THE central - aspect of catholic theology.

Taking communion is THE most important spiritual act a catholic can undertake, the moment of actual union between a believer and the divinity.

Sally Quinn took to a very public stage to announce she thought it was a neat chance for a moment of union with...Tim Russert!

I know everyone was real fond of Russert but lets retrace our sanity here.

What dsimpson said, exactly.

I took my time as a Catholic seriously, and I take my current status as an ex-Catholic and agnostic just as seriously. I love and respect my devout Catholic friends too much to disrespect their practices by feigning participation when I do not qualify to do so.

Had Quinn even a cursory understanding of or interest in Catholic liturgy, she would have known that she was similarly disqualified. That she either failed to know, was incurious, failed to exercise self-discipline, or somehow felt herself qualified to trump Roman Catholicism's methods of worship reflects quite badly on both someone who is paid to know better, and on the newspaper doing the paying, in my opinion.

If Sally Quinn is going to practice other people's religions and participate in their ceremonies, she ought to take the trouble to learn what she can and cannot properly do.

It figures that a media elite like S.Q. would be this clueless.

Christ!

Rhubarbs, you wrote:

"...condemning a writer as a narcissist is a bit like calling a candidate for office arrogant. To be a journalist is to brand oneself as more than usually self-regarding. Normal people do not go through their workday assuming that an audience of hundreds of thousands of strangers are interested in what they have to say; journalists do, and God bless 'em for it."

I'm not so cynical, perhaps because I make a distinction between rank and file journalists and the MSM elites whose mugs and bylines are smeared across electronic and print channels like shit stains on an old man's briefs. Stunts like Quinn's, and her clueless reaction to the complaints, go a long way to explain why Americans are sick of the media, why the media are in large degree a failure.

You also wrote "...it's foolish to expect a religion reporter to be able to expound on the theological intricacies of denominational dogma."  The rules about the Eucharist are far from intricate, and are routinely and easily taught to children. A Post columnist doing her job should grasp them in about 5 minutes. I hate to differ with you on this one, buddy, 'cause you're one of the more level-headed commenters on this or any site but, as I follow your reasoning, a sports reporter covering the World Series shouldn't have to know what a double switch is, or why on-base percentage is important. How can that work? (Correct me if I'm wrong!)

The sad thing is that there is so much in the liturgy that is open to all people, Catholics or not. One can have a moving, soulful experience at Mass while following the rules and leaving the few esoteric Catholic-only parts to the Catholics. I have wept often at Mass when I was not a Catholic.

Quinn should have known better.

I just love the "I've become a champion of pluralism and a spirit of inclusiveness" - that's just dandy, but the Catholics absolutely have not. I guess she doesn't see that as relevant. Because it's all about her, hence the narcissism charge.

It reminds me of this hippie chick I knew who had decided at some point, that the smaller "bubbles of personal space" that people had in other countries, these were not as uptight as the American standard bubble of personal space, so she was just going to stand right up next to you because she wasn't hung up on that personal space thing. And, like Quinn, she did this first, and explained only later. Of course!

Also, Rhubarbs, doesn't it strike you as telling that you, as a kid, grieving, with tons of grown-ups staring at you, had the presence of mind to realize you shouldn't actually take communion, but Quinn, as a grown up who specializes in writing about faith, didn't?

Actually, scripture gives us a pretty good idea of what Jesus would do. He had no patience with the corrupt, inbred, self-serving hierarchy of the religious establishment of His time and place. There's no reason to think He would have much use for today's religious establishment(s).

That said, if Quinn attended this service as a journalist - which she was, at least after the fact, by choosing to write about it for publication - then she should have limited herself to observing the ritual, whether or not she was a member of the church.

Why do I find it odd that the writer of a column entitled "On Religion" is so clueless about one of the central tenets of a major world religion? Was it really Hussert who said, "this do in remembrance of me"?

As for Jesus, he breeched religious laws regularly, I'm sure he wouldn't have minded. The self-serving bewilderment at the offense given may have struck him as hypocritical though.

Sally Quinn is infamously narcissistic, petty and mean. Her hilarious behavior doesn't surprise me at all: "here's how I got *my* needs met at Russerts funeral.'  You know Russert wouldn't be remotely surprised.

Now she can add "ignorant religion columnist" to her many virtues.  I'm no Catholic and rather a failure in the God department, but even I know that taking communion as a non-believer is deeply offensive to Catholics.  

I did it once out of utter ignorance myself, at the wedding of the sister of an Irish-Catholic college boyfriend - without even thinking, I just waltzed down the aisle next to him when called by the priest.  

His dear old granny in her white lace headscarf smiled at me warmly as I knelt next to her, she was so pleased to see that I was a Catholic (gulp).  The poor college boyfriend almost  had a heart attack and wouldn't dream of setting old granny straight.  It would have shocked and hurt her too much that I'd been so disrespectful.

cbustard. Yep. Yep and yep.

Room is made for our Doubting Thomas at the sup as a saving grace to all. For if not, then no one should dare. Even if fleeting and phantom cracks. But that is often how light gets in.

Sally's transgression is but that she is a shallow swimmer in deep waters. She might be better suited to bread and cracker recipes.

One of the most insipid writers in Washington, Quinn has always needed some off-color or irreverent or snarky detail to garner attention. Without it, her powers of observation and writing ability are of Kristol-quality, virtually worthless. The postings have captured it: she's a vain, rude, and coarse individual who commands far too much attention, another self-made feminist...made by her more famous husband.

I'm actually with Rhubarbs on this one.

So she took communion. And what happened? Did anyone keel over? Did a bolt of lightning strike her as she returned to her pew? Did the earth stop spinning on its axis? Certainly if this was an offense to God and his flock, wouldn't this have been the perfect opportunity to make an example of Sally Quinn?

What she did I might not have done, but then I don't have a journalist's passion to dig for the truth. To borrow from Freud, sometimes a wafer is nothing more than a wafer. This is a quaint ritual that has been handed down through centuries, but it's really nothing more than that. Until Bill Donohue or the Pope or any other true believer can actually prove that the wafer has powers beyond mere nourishment, I say she's under no obligation to respect their shared delusion. If she thought that this might bring her closer to her old friend Tim Russert or have delighted him, then so be it. Funerals are for the living anyway.

Quinn was clearly pretty thoughtless about this.  Anyone with a passing knowledge of the Catholic church would have known better, and anyone with a minimum of respect for Russert would in this situation probably should have passed on the Eucharist.

But, I have no sympathy whatesoever for any outraged Catholic, Donahue included, on this.

You've got this bizarre ritual involving symbolic cannabilism that you make out as the centerpiece of your religion, which you dare to call Catholic (universal), and then you have a kinniption when one of the 4+ billion people who don't see matters of faith your way show up at a friends funeral and interpret it's importance and meaning differently than you do?   Get a life folks: your 20 centuries old mystical ritual means, like every other human ritual, exactly what it's celebrants put into it, and when you open the doors of your universal church to non-Catholics, you get them whole cloth, on their terms, not yours.  Quinn clearly intimates that she does not believe in transubstantiation, so she did not partake of the "body and blood", but rather downed a chunk of bread-like wafer in honor of her friend, in the designated place for honoring him.   And what happened: well, what BHLaye said.

BHL, if one doesn't agree with Catholics regarding the nature of Communion, one shouldn't participate in their ritual.  You and she and anyone else who views the theology and practice of the Catholic (or any other) church as delusional are free to mock those of us who don't.  But let's not affect wounded, "blind-sided" victomhood in the aftermath of a disrespectful and self-centered action like Quinn's, and her publication thereof.

Chan, the only thing more off-putting than Quinn's cluelessness is your attempt to shoehorn the term "elite" (and used ungrammatically too -- I guess anythng goes!) into the thread.  Give it a rest already!

It appears that the other "elite" members of her profession present had enough basic sense to avoid committing the same egregious error, so the basis for a group accusation seems slim, to say the least.

How about we leave it at the level of Quinn's personal responsibility?

I wish someone would explain to me why religious beliefs, unlike other beliefs, deserve "respect".  Tolerance, yes.  Respect, no.  This exaggerated respect for something that has no right to this special respect is why we are in the situation where people with nothing but ancient myths and writings think they have a special claim on legislation, ethics, and morality.  If you believe in transubstantiation, you are stupid.  That belief deserves no more respect than any non-religious empirical claim that is demonstrably absurd.  Bill Donahue is a huge hypocrite as he certainly would accord this exaggerated respect to lack of religious belief (or to non-catholic religious beliefs).  We live in a secular society with secular laws and if yo harbor religious foolishness, thgat is fine - you can't be fired from a job or discriminated against, but we don't have to pretend your beliefs have any merit.  And just because these beliefs are important to you doesn't mean we owe them special deference.  The good religious folks sure don't seem to feel they owe their secular countrymen any respect.

"but even I know that taking communion as a non-believer is deeply offensive to Catholics. "

So what? Catholics and other Christians are free to rant about secularists from their pulpits and on their church signs, to get on talk shows and accuse us of being so evil we deserve to burn in hell, accuse us of having no moral sense.  Why do they get respect that we don't.  Can I not visit my family on Christmas?   Catholics just took some pagan ritual and co-opted it for their mythology, so why can't we give it our own meaning.  I am sick to death of religious people getting all bent out of shape about offense.  We don't have a constitutional right to not be offended.

"...and then you have a kinniption when one of the 4+ billion people who don't see matters of faith your way show up at a friends funeral and interpret it's importance and meaning differently than you do?"

She is free to intepret the funeral however she likes. But just because the Catholic Church welcomes everyone to Mass doesn't mean it has to let everyone participate in every part of the rite. It is a pretty clear distinction and while she is free to go up and take communion, the Church and others--even the loathsome Donahue--are free, and to my mind right, to condemn her for it.  

jerb:

It's fine to disagree with other beliefs--and personally I don't think you have to "respect" them as such either. I think mormonism is the biggest load of hogwash imaginable (though not worse than scientology), but I would never go to a Mormon Temple and pretend to participate as a full member. That is simply decent. And if I did do it I would go and write about it and then proclaim that because i was tolerant Mormons had to let me participate in all of their rituals. Are you really that dense?

P.S. I guess the biggest distinction is that you don't have to "respect" the belief per se, tolerate yes, respect, no. But you ought to at a minimun respect the people who hold that belief simply because all people deserve respect. And insofar as religious people don't do that, well, shame on them, and  insofar as geeky militant athiests don't, well, shame on them too.

I think we're rather missing the point here. Her action were pretty bad, but not necessarily conniption worthy. Her description of her action (corpus russert...amen) and her subsequent blathering in response to the predictable outcry it provoked is what's truly vile. Screwing up on an unfamiliar religion's ritual is one thing...bragging about it in a very public setting is something else altogether.

There's a reason the proverb is, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."  Regardless of whether you believe in God or not, or the transubstantiation of the bread and wine or not, basic courtesy requires that when you are in someone else's house, you follow *their* rules.  If you are not a Catholic communicant, accepting the wafer at a Catholic mass is no different than going to an acquaintances house, taking off your shoes, and putting your sock feet up on the host's coffee table.  (I except Rhubarbs, who figured out how to thread a camel through the eye of a needle.)  I say all of this as a communicating Episcopalian - and we generally regard the Catholics' insistence on Catholic-ness in communion as a little *provinicial* (but, y'know, it's their church...).

Also, in most Christian churches that do communion at the rail, you can go to the communion rail, cross your arms over your chest, and accept a blessing from the clergy instead of the communion elements.  This has the virtue of letting you participate in the rite without breaking the rules.

tnmats: members of any Orthodox church is permitted to receive Communion, no one in any Protestant sect is allowed to for Catholics. The great schism preceding the Reformation by hundreds of years and the essential unity of the Sacrament has a lot to do with it.

dabeffert: thanks. you stopped me from saying something far more nasty in return to Jerb. Let me just add, would he go to Japan, say the idea of not wearing shoes in a house is offensive and stupid, claim his shoes are clean, and then proceed to walk around the Japanese persons home. Honestly Jerb, could you be anymore classless?

I sure could go for a saltine and some grape juice about now.

Well obviously the Pope's mini-me, Donohue, does.  But, Jesus, not so much for as he was wont to say:

"Do this in remembrance of me."  So, Sally's first mistake was that she was taking the eucharist in remembrance of Mr. Russert, whose death received much too much airtime and spilled ink.  After all he, like SQ, was a media god, so her second mistake was  participating in idolatry.  

I commend a book to SQ and all who visit others' houses of worship:  "How to Be a Perfect Stranger," a sort of Emily Post-like take on how one should act when in "Rome" whether that be a Buddhist temple or a Jewish synagogue.  

Finally, Jesus did not establish the Lord's Supper as a test of religiosity, the Catholic Church did.  As I remember it, even Christ's "betrayer" was present at Jesus' last meal.  And maybe even a whore, Mary Magdelene, dropped by.  

But Sally do remember that when in "Rome" or in any exclusive club, always follow the rules of initiation lest one offend the membership.

Blackton: Sorry, but your attempt to equate the taking of the wafer with the Japanese custom for bare-footed visitors simply doesn't hold water. There are legitimate and RATIONAL reasons for a host to ask that their visitors' shoes be removed. This is because the floors are covered with straw mats which need to be kept clean. There is no equivalent rationale for a non-believer to excuse themselves from the wafer ritual if they're inclined to take it, because its consumption is only rooted in mythology and fantasy, not reason.

BHLnyc:

I hear there is some nice real estate opening up on the planet Vulcan. You should consider buying.

Where angels fear to tread ...

I grew up as a Baha'i.  You're supposed to learn about other religions, and even experience them (to fully understand them), before you make a decision about your own faith.  And Baha'i temples are open - the one in India has no walls or doors and open to all to visit and be at communion with God.  I don't know SQ and have not read her writings, and could not imagine what was going through her head when she took Communion, but I can see myself doing it, our of respect in fact, and our of a desire to understand.  I've been to mosques, I've even done the Muslim prayer (once, trying to understand Islam at the age of 14, I spent an entire night prayer.  My forehead was sore from all the kneeling and prostration ... and was no closer to Allah in the morning than I had been at the begining of the evening.).

I'm not Christian, and my affection for the Catholic Church is limited to the Vatican Museum, the Sistine Chapel and Popes Alexander VI and Julius II.  I think, though, if someone took the Communion in order to get a sense of what it means to be a believer, and what it means to be at communion with God/the Son, it is not done out of disrespect for the Faith.  Again, I don't mean this to commend or to support what Quinn did, but that it can be done without any insult intended.

And, of course, if if the Church is insulted, there is always the Interdiction, the Excommunication and the Stake.   The Fatwa is, by the way, also available for insults to Eissa bin Youssef of Beit-ol-lahm, a Koranic Prophet.

I travel a lot, and I do agree that one is best served by observing the rituals and rules of one's host in all circumstances where that does not involve a violation of one's own conscience (and opt out gracefully when it does).  I thus think Quinn was wrong, and I certainly agree that having done the deed, broadcasting about it was in incredibly poor taste.

But that is an entirely different question from asking whether the host (or it's adherents) is right in taking umbrage when their rituals have not been observed.  I don't think they do, for the simple reason that tolerance is a two way street.  If the funeral were explicitly understood to be for Catholics only, then they have a right to enforce their rules.  It wasn't.  Russerts friends were invited, confession notwithstanding.  Just as good manners dictate that Quinn not take communion, good manners dictates that in an event to which non-adherents are welcomed, the host not take umbrage at their participate.

To put this more succinctly, tolerance is mostly about not taking YOURSELF and your own silly rules and selfish instincts too seriously.  Both Quinn and Donahue flunk this basic test.

Quinn can't be excommunicated...she wasn't communicated to begin with!

BHL, it's a matter of basic decency.  When I go to a synagogue, I don't wear a tallis because I am not a practicing Jew, but I do wear a yarmulke because that is the standard to which those present are held.  When I was in India, I didn't go into the parts of the temple that were marked for Hindus only, because I am not a Hindu and respect the right of those who are to have their worship unaffected by outsiders; that I do not believe in the divinity of the gods in question was beside the point.  Not unrelatedly, when I am in the home of people who have different political beliefs than I do, I make a point of not making fun of them, no matter how ill-informed I happen to think them.

Further, why would a person such as yourself or Ms. Quinn be inclined to take communion in the first place?  If you have such obvious contempt for the beliefs of Catholics, why involve yourself in their sacrament?  You needn't "respect" the belief, and can (and apparently do) hold it in open scorn.  Fine.  But to defy the beliefs of Catholics by disregarding the precepts of their worship DURING A WORSHIP SERVICE shows a marked lack of class.

boxofrox:

Well-thought, and well-put.

It seems to me that Quinn's reasoning for taking communion was entirely sane, but she misunderstood the boundry between what is a private spiritual act, almost a meditation, that gives one spiritual meaning, and what is a public act of community that represents community with a creed or belief, that gives one spiritual meaning.  If, instead of being a devout Catholic, Russert instead went to a community gym on Saturday nights and shot freethrows for an hour by himself (something that I can personally attest to having an almost restorative and meditative quality), I don't doubt that Quinn would have gone to the gym instead, shot basketballs for an hour, and felt, in some way, closer to Russert.  The problem with that reasoning is that many Catholics don't see Communion as a private act akin to prayer or shooting free throws.  It is a public affirmation of belief and a collective communion with God.  Quinn distorts this by making Russert's public declaration of faith a private meditation.

dabeffert: well played. I love when people claim they are the ultimate arbiters of what is reason and what is fantasy, the arrogance is truly astounding. A little humility is all that is asked. Confucius once said, not understanding life, how can I claim to understand death. Religion confronts mankinds mortality, no one knows what happens afterwards, that is why it is called faith.

sdemuth, also great line: "I travel a lot, and I do agree that one is best served by observing the rituals and rules of one's host in all circumstances where that does not involve a violation of one's own conscience (and opt out gracefully when it does)."

I don't take umbrage at her participating, I take umbrage at her writing about it without the slightest hint of understanding or dignity, and then acting the victim when questioned. Her writing about her action constituted a mockery of the faith and the faithful, as do many people here do in the defense of her. Really, what the hell is so hard about showing a little sensitivity to the religion of others?

When I was a child camping in the poconos me and my friends used to mock the Hasidic children who attended some camps there. It was only as an adult that I came to respect their traditions, and came to realize how much of the mockery was tied into anti-Semitism (we didn't mock Amish people).

If Sally Quinn never wrote about it, and someone else said, hey she ain't Catholic, then whoever pointed it out is the idiot. 99% of Catholics would chalk it up to simple misunderstanding and leave it at that. So please, please, please stop saying it was her act that was the issue, it was expressed motivations which she saw fit to proclaim to the world that is.

In China it is also the custom to take off ones shoes before entering homes, there are no straw mats there.

It's also custom to take ones shoes off before entering the house in Minnesota, but that has a lot to do with snowy dirtiness during the winter.  It has happened at numerous parties when, about three hours into the revelry, I realize that I, the native Texan, am the only one in the room with shoes on.

drdannyu: As I said in my original post, I wouldn't have been inclined to do it, but at the same time, I can't get all fire and brimestony on Sally Quinn for her willingness to. She wanted to somehow make a cosmic connection with her dear departed friend and she thought that she could do so by taking the wafer. That doesn't seem any crazier to me than a believer thinking that they're making a connection with Jesus Christ by doing the exact same thing. If the church's beliefs are so brittle and archaic that this simple effort to blunt a little of her grief was a violation of epic proportions (as judged by the tone of Donohue's scathing press release), it speaks volumes about the relevance of religion today.

drdanny, I agree completely. This seems a no brainer to me. But I think there are a few people here who are simply playing the devils advocate. I can see excusing a lack of class or attempting to understand it, but why bother to defend it? Everyone mocked Britney when she did her 12 hour marriage for kicks, gays, straight people, single, and married, pretty much everyone was offended by her action. She, at least as we now know, can be excused because she is a sadly troubled young woman. I am an advocate for gay marriage because I do take marriage seriously. It is a profound (and some say sacred) thing, not to be done lightly or mockingly. The same is true with communion, if you want to take communion, simply have faith and become a Catholic. It is open to everyone. (And, for that matter, Orthodox believers can partake of the sacrament as well.) In both cases I simply expect people to take the actions (marriage, communion) seriously and with respect.

To look at it another way, with another sacrament, what would have happened if Quinn had gotten baptized to feel closer to Russert?  I'm not saying that The Catholic League isn't blowing this out of proportion, but to them, baptism without belief is probably analogous to communion without belief.

The difference, of course, is that the church sets itself up as a quasi-public institution (able to make lawas about marriage, put a priest or preacher in any public setting they can weasle into, etc.) - it wants to be public when it suits it and wants to be private when it suits it.  The religous want a seat for religion at every public table where they don't belong, but then want to complain when we secularize there observances.   I won't buy any of the "offended" arguments unless they respect that our society is secular.

geeky militant atheist.  Yeah, whatever.  Secularism is the DEFAULT posiiton and the law of the land.  Militant atheism is an oxymoron.  That is like being a militant a-UFOist or a militant a-ghostist.

Of course, all you practicing Catholics also know that a Protestant can't take communion in a Catholic Church either witthout violating protocol.  But if Quinn were a Protestant, you'd all be defending her in the name of "religious tolerance" and accusing the Catholic of bigotry.

Doesn't anyone find it funny that in McCain's whole flap with the nut preachers he  has hung out with lately, nobody at all objects to their demonization of secularists and their insistance that the secular are damned, evil and worthy of hell.  But some preacher says something nasty about Catholics and then the Bill Donahue's come out and talk about being offended and call it bigotry.   If a nut preacher can say I am going to hell (and deserve it) and that is ok, why can't he say the same about a Catholic?  This, in a nutshell, is the crux of my argument - that religion gets exaggerated respect in ways that other beliefs, or lack of belief, cannot expect to get.  

"The same is true with communion, if you want to take communion, simply have faith and become a Catholic. "

Yeah, that is how "faith" works.  You just choose it.  So tomorrow I'll choose to have faith in UFO's.

It should be obvious why marriage is serious and communion is not.  The fact that the church equates one (a relationship between two people that involves a whole host of emotions and obligations to an actual person) with the other (a ritual co-opted from mystery cults that is simple sybolism of a mythological story and mythological drama) shows the problem with Chtistian morality (and why it isn't moral at all), because it can't see what moral virtues are important and which ones aren't.  What else do you expect from a moral worldview that apparently thinks, based on the equivalent punitary reactions of their prickly God, that masturbation, homosexuality, and unbelief are as bad as serial murder and rape.   And I thought it was atheists who allegedly have no moral compass.

I'm a little bit with Rhubarbs on this. I think there are a few Catholics getting a bit twisted that she took Communion. What I find surprising is that Sally is a Religious column writer and doesn't have the forethought to understand the sensitivity of the religions she's writing about? I went to the Easter Mass at National Cathedral this year with my girlfriend and some of her family. They're all practicing Catholics. I am not Catholic but having studied under them and Jesuits I knew that I would be remiss if I had taken Communion having not been baptized or taken Catechism. Nor would I partake in any other religious ritual with which I wasn't familiar. I'll observe the service but that's all and when I do go to services it's usually to check out the space of worship (if it's architecturally relevant).

I think Sally's bigger mistake and other's noted it as well, was taking the Communion as a non-Catholic and publicizing that she did so and then made it worse by couching it under the guise of being religiously pluralistic. That she thought Russett would transmute inside her says more about her line of thinking as well.

I'm really a little surprised by a few of the contributions above.  The issue is and was not about the scientific validity or evidentiary robustness of Catholic theological beliefs, but about understanding the difference between attending a service open to all and engaging in a particular ritual within the context of that service for which a given set of beliefs is a precondition.

Speaking as a thoroughly lapsed Catholic, I find it peculiar that Quinn didn't seem to get it, and paraded her failure to get it in her blog.  People sort of know these things, right?  We know that there's a point at which "do as the Romans do" takes second place to the courtesy that recognizes certain things as belonging to a particular community of which one is not a member.  She reminds me of those tourists who go to some place which is not entirely open to them and get all riled up because "they've paid good money" for whatever restricted entry/event they wanted to enjoy.

Which doesn't make Donohue any the less an unpleasant blowhard.

I'm having trouble understand this post:

"Of course, all you practicing Catholics also know that a Protestant can't take communion in a Catholic Church either witthout violating protocol. [Yes, I understand that as a non-practicing Catholic] But if Quinn were a Protestant, you'd all be defending her in the name of "religious tolerance" and accusing the Catholic of bigotry. [What? I think she is probably some flavor of Prostestant if she is at all religious. Still, I don't get the point.]

Bigfish you said "It has happened at numerous parties when, about three hours into the revelry, I realize that I, the native Texan, am the only one in the room with shoes on." Isn't that because Texans would rather be caught dead than not be without their shit-kickers on? And I'm betting, despite the trail of dirt you  left, your party hosts were glad to not have had the pleasure of seeing those sweat-stained tube socks instead!

Which reminds me...my snake skin Lama's need a resole.

jerb, hah, funny. you don't have to take Communion seriously, you also don't have to take marriage seriously, I don't give a rats ass in either case. But you obviously haven't the slightest clue what communion means, or even the word Catholic. To be Catholic is to be part of a larger family than ones own. Yes, it is steeped in faith that Jesus is the savior, but you act as though that is a horror that we are all supposed to follow Christ's command to love and respect each other. The fact that people don't is proof to you that love and respect are for fools, that a life with do it yourself rules made up based soley on ones own experience is sufficient for everyone.

Of course faith works that way, if you don't choose it you can't have it. I mean, really, wtf? Faith is not magic, it is much more than that, it is not a light switch, but you sure as hell have to choose to have faith first. It is called free will. The contempt that you show is incredibly immature, you should realize that. You sound like a teenager pissed off at his parents for having a curfew.

"that religion gets exaggerated respect in ways that other beliefs, or lack of belief, cannot expect to get."  That is utter horseshit and you know it. Americanism is treated far more seriously, b.s. displays of patriotism is far more necessary. Nobody give a rats ass if you go to church or temple on Sunday or not, but try to stay seated at a ballpark when the National anthem is sung and see what happens. Burn a bible and most people will shrug, they are trying to make a Constitutional amendment against burning a flag. You are so far off base on this you aren't even in the ballpark anymore.

For the record, Jerb, I'm an active member of the Episcopal Church, which I love, and have been a faithful Christian since early childhood.  For a variety of reasons, every so often I have been in Catholic services, and I don't take communion when I am there.  Do I agree with Catholic theology regarding communion?  No, I don't.  But when I'm in their church, I play by their rules.  

singlespeed, Irony, completely reasonable points.

I am an agnostic, but am all for leaving people alone to worship or not as they choose. Leave church and state separate. I don't care what any candidates religion is. I only ask that they treat others people beliefs with the same respect they want their own to be treated. Leave the contempt and the vitriol behind. Nobody has any clue what the ultimate truth is and anyone who expresses absolute surety in either case for or against any belief is a liar or a fool. And I also realize I can be wrong because I also have no idea if anyone does possess the ultimate truth. If they did though I doubt they would be posting here.

The Catholic church considers Protestants outside communion just as sure as an atheist is.  But the reactions would be quite reversed if a Protestant took communion at a Catholic quasi-public ceremony.    Quinn is reportedly an atheist.

I am not arguing that what she did wasn't impolite.  I am objecting to the babyish, childish emotiveness that gets "offended" by things like this and equates not taking a person's beliefs seriously with bigotry or hate (despite the fact that these hallowed beliefs exist largely as a negation of what others believe, which is apparently fine so long as it is religious).   We atheists are told to "get over it" and "not be such whiners" when religion sticks its nose into every nook and cranny of secular life (that is, government and the public sphere) - and, incidentally, being "offended" is never my objection to these interpolations - but don't take some religious trifle seriously and you are a bigot.   For all the arguments I hear about how faith gives people strength and is somehow a marker of character, fitness for office, etc., it seems to me faith just makes people thin-skinned an paranoid.  So what if some non-Catholic took communion for reasons of her own.  Am I not going to be allowed to get married either since religious folks have insist that this to is a religious sacrament that can have its particulars dictated by religious concerns?  

"Yes, it is steeped in faith that Jesus is the savior, but you act as though that is a horror that we are all supposed to follow Christ's command to love and respect each other. The fact that people don't is proof to you that love and respect are for fools, that a life with do it yourself rules made up based soley on ones own experience is sufficient for everyone."

Who said love and respect are for fools?  My whole point is that Christianity teaches neither.  Telling me what "Jesus taught" is in the same ballpark as telling me what Hercules taught.  You must be a Catholic because you seem utterly unfamiliar with the Bible.  It isn't a coherent unified work.  

My whole point that there are sound reasons one can have to take marriage seriously that don't rely on religion, but no sound reasons to take communion seriously (just like you don't take the hajj or praying to Mecca seriously).  

"Of course faith works that way, if you don't choose it you can't have it. I mean, really, wtf?"

You don't choose what you believe.  People only talk this way about religion, not other beliefs.  If I asked you to choose to believ ein unicorns, could you choose to?  The evidence is not compelling and the coutner-evidence overwhelming for both unicorns and religion.  This is the origin of belief in anything - a measure of evidence and coutner-evidence.

"that a life with do it yourself rules made up based soley on ones own experience is sufficient for everyone."

My contempt is enflamed by half-baked thoughts like this one you hear from religious people - that either we believe in ancient revelations to ancient people (despite how easily one can see them as mythology and syncretic religious thought) or we believe in made up rules.  How hard is it to se3e that all Christians believe in made up rules too - they pick and choose what parts of the Bible are "true" and what parts are "historically contingent" based on some criteria that is surely extra-biblical.   The Bible is an incoherent mess for moral instruction (or for instruction regarding the character of Jesus).  

Irony, the media, which have unfortunately emerged as an elite in recent decades, are frequently clueless about religious matters, and since they have the power to broadcast that ignorance widely, I have a right to bring it up as an issue of annoyance.  And often an egregious one.

As to the grammar, perhaps I ought to have to have characterized Quinn as a "member of the media elite" as opposed to "a media elite".

Although I share your preference for proper English grammar over the poor and careless kind, I'm not sure this particular sin merits criticism in this forum where typos, misspellings, and some minor grammatical lapses are the fruit of fast typing and no proofreading.

There is a general unhappiness in this nation, which I share, with both academia and the media which constitute, not only elite and somewhat protected groups, but also lean inordinately and disproportionately Left, as honest members  of both groups admit, and surveys prove.

While nancy Pelos is reinstating the "Fairness Doctrine" as pertains to radio, then let's institute a "Fairness Doctrine" for newspapers, television networks, and university faculties.

My attribution of religious cluelessness, as well as other varieties, to various "elites" is perfectly well founded, Irony.  Sorry if it bothers you.

jerb, the respect that is deserved and must be observed, is for the right of believers to practice their religion in their own places of worship according to their traditions, practices, and policies.

Nobody is proscribed from criticizing another's religious practices or, if you wish, disrespecting same in speech or writing.  

But, you don't have the right to invade the sanctity of a church and violate that sanctity.  This nation is partly founded on the principle of both tolerance and respect for all religious practices and sanctuaries.

Jerb, I don't believe a Protestant would normally be allowed to take Catholic Communion.  Quinn's atheism wasn't the issue, it was the fact that she did not belong to the Catholic Church yet had the temerity to intrude upon its Communion.

You have a right to be disinterested in or hostile to religion.  So just stay the hell out of it and away from churches and other places of worship.

The Eucharist in the Roman Catholic Church is only supposed to be for ROMAN CATHOLICS who are  "in communion" with the Church. Unlike other Christian denominations, the Eucharist is not to be shared by those who are not baptized (and preferably active) Catholics. I am an EM and lector at my church. During Mass our priests invite those not receiving the Eucharist to come forward with their arms crossed over their chests, in a sign of humility among the ancient Christian peoples, to receive a blessing from one of the priests, deacons, or EMs distrubuting the body and precious blood. Quite a few people take advantage of the opportunity and we EMs feel blessed to be in a position to offer that to them. That is what Quinn should have done to "bond" with Russert. She had no business doing what she did. It's kind of creepy and offensive; and if she's gonna try and fake her way into receiving Catholic sacraments, maybe she needs to go to Reconciliation now to atone for taking the Eucharist when she shouldn't have:-)

jerb. If I'm not mistaken you are every bit as smart as those you think you accuse.

Umm. The Bible is coherent. You just may not know how to read it. Much in the way as those that you think you are accusing.  

"But, you don't have the right to invade the sanctity of a church and violate that sanctity."

And when the church stops invading the sanctity of public institutions, I will take that complaint seriously.  But when they have a double standard of who is allowed to take offense and why, I am not going to shed too many tears over harmless disrespect.  Maybe if religion were disrespected more, it wouldn't have this haughty insistance on the right to evidenceless beliefs and morality based on nonsense.

"to be Catholic is to be part of a larger family than ones own. Yes, it is steeped in faith that Jesus is the savior, but you act as though that is a horror that we are all supposed to follow Christ's command to love and respect each other."

No, being a Catholic means believing in Catholic doctrine, not some warm fuzzy "jesus as love hippie" doctrine you have compiled out of the buffet table that is the bible.  .  Do you believe in hell?  Do you believe gays, unbelievers, and other sorts will be tormented there forever and deserve that rotment?  If not, you are not a Catholic.  Do you really believe that there was a dude named Jesus and god could come up with no other way to "save" us from the inevitable necessity of killing us for eternity for sins he created us to commit than a rough parody of a pagan savior God cycle - killing himself (while he clearly prayed to himself during the process)?  If not, you aren't a Catholic.  One needn't be religious to believe in being "part of a larger family" but one must be religious to believe this stuff.  I find it funny it s the attheist accused of being shrill when it it is the Christians (and Muslims, and Jews, etc.) who get bent out of shape and offended so quickly.  The chick ate some flatbread and drank some wine.  So what.   I am sure you will give me theological reasons for why you dismiss the nasty parts and emphasize (and take out of co ntext) the lovely bits, but they all just clearly amount to the necessity of squaring modern morality with the need to believe.  

blackton....last post I agree with very much.

As an agnostic myself, I had the fortune to ask a few of my Jesuit instructors serious questions  regarding Catholic and Christian theology coupled with the fact that the Jesuit school also taught evolution was refreshing as well. I think this gave me an opportunity to fully answer questions of what faith versus myth were that I had as a young adult. I've never felt fully comfortable going to church per se. The act of group prayer is not my cup of tea. While I also take great pains to respect others beliefs I have found myself on the opposite end of questions as to why I don't believe in a God (a confusing the differences between Agnostics and Atheists that many of the religious persuasion make) or why I "believe" in evolution. I do my best to answer their questions. But I also find that for a nation in which I am the minority when it comes to faith, religious practice, or spirituality the tolerance I'm expected to give is far greater than the tolerance I'm expected to receive. I will say this though, Catholics and Episcopalians tend to be more open to agnostic positions of thought than the more religiously vigilant.

My affinity for churches and temples stems from my architectural proclivities. My curiosity about religion, mythology, theology and philosophy stems from my ongoing desire to understand why people have these beliefs and to also confirm or reaffirm my own agnosticism.

As one Jesuit priest told me "The difference between religion and mythology is that people stopped believing in the mythology."

"I am not arguing that what she did wasn't impolite." That is all you had to say, nobody here cares about Donohue. If you disrespect someones beliefs, be it about religion, culture, family, etc. in the most inflammatory way, expect to be pounded on. You admit she was rude, so why defend her rudeness based on the fact that she might be an atheist and not a protestant? (and I don't care in either case)

I think a flag burning amendment would be horrendous, but I also believe that flag burning itself is horrendous. I agree that people shouldn't overreact to her provocation, but honestly, who is? People have called her narcissistic, rude, and foolish, nobody is advocating anything be done to her.

I take it you are against the Flag burning amendment, are you thus in favor of flag burning? Will you defend someone who does it just because they want to know what it is like and who then writes about the feeling they had, and then express shock that anyone could possibly be offended at her actions?

You are twisting this whole argument into a "I get to bash religion" type thing, but that isn't what it is about as much as her rudeness, narcissism, and idiocy being flaunted in a mainstream publication.

I live in Mexico but am American. When they play the Mexican national anthem I stand up out of respect but don't put my hand over my heart. To put my hand on my heart, sing the song, doing it while believing in none of it and then write about it in a Mexican newspaper about the funny feeling it gave me would rightly piss off most Mexicans. this has nothing to do with Religion but it is the same principle.

The same is true when the Canadian National anthem is played in American ballparks, everyone stands but only the Canadians (who are there) sing it.

Now you can mock Canada, mock their anthem all you want, just don't expect many people to agree with you.

"Umm. The Bible is coherent. You just may not know how to read it. Much in the way as those that you think you are accusing. "

Not coherent at all.  Not even the Gospels.  Try reading them and tell me if they have coherent images of Jesus, what he did, and what he was for.  Should we digress into a NT seminar here?  The Gospels are clearly not reporting history.  Go get a good introductory book on the New testament by a scholar (not a preacher) and maye you'll learn something.  I recommend The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings by Bart Ehrman.  See, not only did I grow up going to church (a Protestant, albeit one of those milquetoasty liberal ones who declares the bad stuff "historically contingent" but the good stuff "divinely inspired" - convenient way of straddling the fence) but I also have a bit of formal study of the matter.  Since it takes pages of discussion to disabuse the pious of their received catechistic dogmas, it is just easier to recommend books instead.

www.amazon.com/.../0195154622  

I respect Christian belief as much as liberal Christians respect the beliefs of Hindus or UFO-cultists.  Wouldn't fire them from a job, wouldn't discriminate against them in any way, but also wouldn't lett their beliefs provide the basis for law and will readily express amazement that they can believe such foolishness.  if we can argue about politics, science and other things without incurring the lable of "bigot" why not religion?  How much respect does the Mormon belief that Joseph Smith dug up gold plates in New York deserve?  If that belief informed a legislative goal, is it legitimate to oppose it?

jerb, marriage is originally a religious institution created to formalize and sanctify the relationship for the good of the children of a coupling and protecting societies interest in having couples take responsibility for said children.

the state moved in on this authority and this institution, not vice-versa.

If you have a bitch with churches involving themselves in the public sphere, let me know if that objection includes Martin Luther King and other churchmen and their churches in the Civil Rights movement.  Which highly active involvement has always been lauded.

your resentment of churches and people with strong religious principles involving themselves in the public sphere is way over the top.

You might take note that the Declaration of Independence invokes God in the first few paragraphs and claims that our most essential rights as human beings come from God.  If you resent that, then you resent the American Revolution itself.

Further, if you read the speeches of Lincoln or listen to recordings of some Franklin Roosevelt speeches, as well as that of other presidents, many sound indistinguishable from a sermon and invoke God, His mercy, and His protection of the nation frequently.

We have no official religion-- quite the opposite.  but, the concept of God and religious concepts in general  are woven deeply into our government and its institutions.  You might want to look at your coins.

the United States is not a strictly secular nation either by law or by custom.  But, it is four-square against a particular state religion being imposed, as it was in our mother country, England and in most of the nations of Europe.

Your extreme hostility reveals an ignorance of our history, customs, and practices.

"She was a disaster at television and wrote a book about the debacle. But, failing upwards, she was about to be hired by the New York Times when Ben Bradlee, the storied executive editor of the Washington Post, lured her to his new Style section.

At the time Bradlee was married but separated; Quinn was living with journalist Warren Hoge, who would later work for the Times. Quinn and Bradlee became an item, Bradlee's marriage failed, the two were married in 1978 -- and Sally Quinn's career took off."

Surprise, surprise, she married the big boss.

"Now you can mock Canada, mock their anthem all you want, just don't expect many people to agree with you."

As far as I know, the Candian government doesn't condemn folks to hell or discriminate against gays and secularists.  Hardly the same thing for obvious reasons.  Would I respect the Iranian national anthem, or the North Korean one?  Probably not.  My argument is that the Catholic Church can make all sorts of barbaric pronouncements about gays and other sinners and that is just fine - nobody accuses the priests of narcissism and they are shown deference and respect.  Yet have a non-catholic take communion and it is the most disrespectful thing in the world. But Catholic rudeness isn't interpreted as rudeness because it is a religious belief, and thus beyond criticism for what it teaches.

"rudeness, narcissism, and idiocy being flaunted in a mainstream publication."

My argument is that it is only because she transgressed religion that it is interpreted as narcissism. If she had disrespcted someone's belief in free trade, global warming, or anything else, it wouldn't be considered as such - if I went to a gun show with an anti-gun shirt on, would I be narcissistic?   My comments come in light of religion trying to religiosize secular institutions and thinking it has the right to.  What next, can I not celebrate Christmas with my family just because I don't believe.  It is already the case that the church thinks they own marriage and can dictate who can get married based on a 2000 year old book.   They want to have it every way - they want to say religion is a private matter with personal significance, but then get bent out of shape when people define these religious things for themselves.   So if religion can keep its mitts out of civil institutions, I would feel alot worse about their precious feeling being hurt. Does anyone use the language you used above to describe religious people pontificating about marriage?  

"jerb, marriage is originally a religious institution created to formalize and sanctify the relationship for the good of the children of a coupling and protecting societies interest in having couples take responsibility for said children."

So you are saying that pre-Chrisitan societies didn't have marriage? Greeks?  Persians? Romans?   Man, Christians really think the entire moral workd just popped into existence about 2 millenia ago - that before that everyone believe in murder and didn't have any families or any other institutional hallmarks of civilization.

"But, the concept of God and religious concepts in general  are woven deeply into our government and its institutions."

Deism.  Not revealed religion.  I think you need to study up on Jefferson, Washington, and Adams and see if they believed in revealed religion.  

"You might want to look at your coins."

Uh, I do believe "In God We Trust" was put on money in the 50's as a backlash against the perceived godlessness of communism.  this argument is like saying that the Confederacy is an important part of Georgia's heritage - just look at the flag (nevermind all the black folks in Georgia).  A bunch of agenda driven ideologues altered it to make a point.

"Your extreme hostility reveals