I know, I know. I have said what I have to say already about the mini-firestorm over Sally Quinn of the Washington Post electing to receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion at the funeral Mass for the late Tim Russert. I really don’t want to have readers start clicking “comment” again to talk about the theology of this or the state of Catholic canon law.
For me, the key is journalism. Why, at the “On Faith” site, is this a subject that is defined in terms of feelings instead of facts. As I said in my last post on the topic:
There are facts that matter here. Facts about history, doctrine and courtesy. Facts matter when you are covering religion news and trends. Facts matter when you are interviewing religious people — left and right, members of major world religions and members of lesser known bodies that some would be tempted to call “fringe.” Facts and doctrine matter to religious people. …
This isn’t about emotions and feelings. It’s about getting the facts right and showing respect for the people for whom those facts, doctrines and rituals are a matter of eternal life and death. Facts matter in journalism, religion and journalism about religion
I bring this up, heading once again into the fog bank defined in my first post, because of an email blurb that the “On Faith” team sent out to promote one of its religious questions that are posted for debate. The question:
What do you think about Sally Quinn, a non-Catholic, going to Communion at Tim Russert’s Catholic funeral? What are some do’s and don’ts for observing the religious rituals of others?
This was, of course, posted to the weblog’s 100-plus-member panel of religious thinkers and leaders. Thus, we are told:
With backgrounds and beliefs spanning a wide range, panelists include Rock musician Salman Ahmad, Arun Gandhi, grandson of “Mahatma” Gandhi, best-selling author Sam Harris, Bishop T.D. Jakes, His Excellency Mohammad Khatami of Iran, Reverend Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu, Reverend Rick Warren, author of “The Purpose Driven Life,” Nobel Peace Prize Winner Elie Wiesel, Anglican Bishop Nicholas Thomas Wright among others.
The assumption is that all of these people have something to say about this issue. I can see that many would, about the question about the “do’s and don’ts for observing the religious rituals of others.” In a general sense, they can talk about their various traditions. But that isn’t the issue here, is it? The question concerns Quinn’s decision to knowingly violate Catholic tradition and law. If she didn’t know that she was violating Catholic tradition and law, then that raises another set of journalistic questions.
What do all of these panelists have to do with the question at the heart of the controversy?
If Quinn had chosen to visit a synagogue and break Jewish traditions, the relevant discussion would involve Jews in various traditions.
If she had decided to visit a mosque and do something totally contrary to Islamic law and custom, the relevant discussion would be among Muslims.
The goal would be to explore the facts of that tradition and the differing ways — perhaps — that these facts are interpreted by experts and believers in that tradition. Rest assured that there would be a debate between American Catholics on the left and right on the Communion issue at hand, between progressives and the pro-Vatican traditionalists.
Meanwhile, we get all kinds of views on Quinn’s act from all kinds of people, including some Catholics. But the emphasis is on the people outside the Catholic fold, with Quinn. It is not surprising that many take her side.
For example, here is the trailblazing postmodern evangelical “emergent” thinker Brian D. McLaren, who even manages to jump inside the mind of Russert as he argues that traditional Catholics are bad Christian evangelists, because they want to maintain centuries of law and tradition:
Tim Russert, it was clear, lived in this dynamic tension, and created this kind of space for his friends. He was a deeply committed Catholic who welcomed into his circle of friendship people who did not share — or even begin to understand — his commitment. My guess is that Tim would not have joined with those who took offense, interpreted her choice with a “hermeneutic of suspicion,” and who blasted Sally for taking part in communion.
Instead, I think that Tim would have interpreted her choice with a “hermeneutic of grace,” seeing in her action — which strictly speaking, did violate Catholic protocols — as a step of faith, and not as an act of disrespect for his religion. All priests and pastors and parishioners, it seems to me, face similar situations, and we all have four options:
A. To show this “hermeneutic of grace” in neither our personal lives nor in our church lives.
B. To show it in our personal lives but not our communal lives.
C. To show it in our communal but not our personal lives.
D. To show it in both.
Protocols? In other words, if a Catholic pope, bishop or priest does not offer nonbelievers Holy Communion, then they are not gracefully taking part in their search for God, truth, etc. They are turning seekers away and, well, bad on them for doing that. Forget centuries of converts, martyrs and everyone else. But I am straying from the subject.
The bottom line: What does this have to do with the journalistic questions being raised? McLaren is a Protestant’s Protestant, although that statement will anger many Protestants. He is free to do whatever he wants in his church. The question is whether he would want, let’s say, some hardshell fundamentalists coming into his services and taking actions that directly oppose the teachings of his church.
In other words, McLaren makes the rules or anti-rules in his own church, correct? If you are writing about his church, the important thing is to know and understand the teachings and traditions in the context of his flock. You would want to show his congregation respect, by “getting things right” when covering them. That’s journalism.
What do feelings and emotions have to do with this, in the context of a journalistic enterprise? There are facts linked to this discussion. Right? Or, is the question of whether there are facts or truth claims about Catholic sacraments what is actually in dispute? Is it a newspaper’s job to tell the Catholic Church what is and what is not good Catholicism? Is it the newspaper’s duty to call for doctrinal change? Would Quinn do that for other world religions? Questions and more questions.
More fog, instead of information. What we need here is journalism.
 | Posted at 3:34 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (31) |
July 10, 2008, at 3:39 pm
McLaren is dangerous. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
July 10, 2008, at 4:06 pm
Catholic sacraments are at the core of the RCC, particularly the Eucharist. Not complying with our understanding of under what conditions we can receive the Eucharist is seen as a way of weakening the identity of the RCC by some. The worse offenders are members of the RCC who unworthly receive. Sadly, all who receive the Eucharist unworthly are putting their very souls in danger. That is the real thrust of our “rules”
July 10, 2008, at 4:14 pm
I wonder if McLaren would extend such a “hermeneutic of grace”, for example, to a criminal psychopath who deceived and seduced his daughter. After all, couldn’t it possibly be just a “step of faith” for him?
McLaren’s been a vocal advocate for greater sensitivity on the part of Protestant Christians for other faith traditions, an honorable proposal on its face. Yet his stance here runs offensively opposite that sentiment (where’s the sensivitity to Catholics?). He should consider a healthy dose of his own prescription.
No anger from this one, just confusion and disagreement. The whole premise of the Reformation was belief in the absolute truth of revealed doctrine, and our Divinely-given ability to clearly apprehend it. That’s almost antithetical to a pseudo-universalist like McLaren.
July 10, 2008, at 4:41 pm
Question for Susan regarding “unworthily receiving Communion”.
My understanding is that in order to receive Communion, a Catholic must be in a state of grace. In order for that to be achieved, one must have gone to confession.
Suppose one emerges from the confessional, having made a sound and sincere one, then remains in church until Mass starts. Mass commences and proceeds with Communion. On the way up to receive, the newly-graced and penitent Catholic has an impure thought about a fellow parishoner.
This is a venial sin at worst - impure thoughts are hard to control, and let’s also say that he puts his focus back where it belongs as soon as he can. But it is a sin nonetheless. Is his taking Communion putting his soul in danger. Is he unworthily receiving by your definition?
Back to coverage of Sally Quinn. I think whether or not she knew she was violating Catholic rules is relevant, as is her intent. It’s pretty clear from her own writings that she didn’t know and her intent was clumsy at worst.
Is the real issue here that a writer of a column on religion didn’t bother to study the details of a faith before participating in its most sacred ritual? Because that can be construed as highly offensive.
July 10, 2008, at 5:00 pm
This is a bit of a strawman. In order to receive Communion one must be a Catholic in good standing, who has observed the Eucharistic fast and is not in a state of MORTAL sin. As what you have described is a venial sin a Catholic in those circumstances would be able to go to communion without endangering their soul. In fact, the act of receiveing Communion will cleanse one of venial sin. It is only mortal sin that requires sacramental confession to be cleansed.
I think that the members of other faiths should have made an attempt to consider how it would be received if someone did something comparable in their religion. Would McLaren be as sanguine if a non-Christian came to his church and went skinny dipping in his baptismal pool?
In the end it isn’t about other people’s opinions of our Catholic practices. It’s about the fact that if you don’t like them they feel free not to be Catholic.
What I dislike about the ‘On Faith’ project is that in the end it is a celebration of indifferentialism (which Catholics view as a heresy). The only acceptable answer to anything there is “Everybody is welcome and everybody really believes the same.”
July 10, 2008, at 5:23 pm
Liberty and Verily,
Liberty did a good job explaining the Catholic requirements to receive the Eucharist worthily.
One more note: in Catholic theology, the reception of the Eucharist removes the venial sins as if they were sacramentally confessed.
July 10, 2008, at 5:30 pm
PS:An impure thought is not a sin per se. We do not have absolute control over our thoughts. If we accept the impure thoughts and dwell on it then it can be a sin.
BTW Ladies and gentleman: please dress appropriately in church to lessen the chance of promoting impure thoughts. Scanty clothing, showing undergarments or lack thereof, and tight fitting clothing is not appropriate for church.
July 10, 2008, at 5:50 pm
One can take the sentiment too far, however, that no outside perspectives are valid in the coverage of a religion. I can appreciate comparative critiques of Islam, for instance, coming from adherents of other faiths.
July 10, 2008, at 6:22 pm
I agree, but is “On Faith” journalism? Isn’t the general consensus that the site is a glorified editorial page?
July 10, 2008, at 6:24 pm
I’m a basketball coach and a competitive tennis player. Using the logic of those who run the Newsweek “On Faith” site, that makes me an expert on all sports. I’m hoping to get on a panel similar to the “On Faith” panel so I can throw in my two cents about the Indians’ recent trade of C.C. Sabathia and America’s chances to win gold in the decathlon next month.
July 10, 2008, at 7:09 pm
Well, that’s easy. No one has to respect Catholic tradition and law except for Catholics. Sally Quinn only has to respect civil laws and the laws of organizations to which she belongs.
July 10, 2008, at 7:19 pm
benjdm:
No one is talking about legality here. We are discussing journalism issues.
July 10, 2008, at 10:39 pm
Hey, everybody, all over to benjdm’s house for the party!
Drink all his liquor, get sick in the sink, eat the fridge bare, and if you see any knick-knacks that you like, take ‘me home!
After all, it’s not like the ‘laws’ of civility are *real* legal-type on the book laws that we have to obey or else be in danger of going to court.
And if there are no dangers of being arrested and imprisoned, then you can do what you like where you like how you like.
See how easy it is?
July 11, 2008, at 12:36 am
I don’t see the problem with having a lot of panelists weigh in. To be sure, Roman Catholics are the go-to people for finding out what’s what in Roman Catholicism. But once those questions are settled, there’s still the question as to what attitude to have towards Quinn’s behavior. It’s not like it’s impossible to think that the exclusionary character of Roman Catholic rituals is pernicious, and that non-Catholics should feel free to go ahead and participate anyway. Such thoughts aren’t forbidden.
To take an extreme and therefore clear example, if a white person tried to participate in a religious ritual of the deeply racist Nation of Islam, there would be (i) the questions about what’s what in the Nation of Islam, which is settled by the Black Muslims themselves, and (ii) the questions about what attitude to have towards the white person’s behavior. Since the Nation of Islam is so abhorrent, there’s obviously a big gap between (i) and (ii). And though this gap might not be so glaringly obvious in the case of Quinn taking Communion, it’s still there.
July 11, 2008, at 2:20 am
Breaking and entering? Theft? Though if you’re drinking liquor, you must have brought it…
How easy what is?
July 11, 2008, at 5:21 am
One of the interesting things that would have been helpful was if someone had done the reporting to find out that Quinn had taken communion at a Protestant church before - after all, that’s when she felt that “slightly nauseous” sensation. The interesting thing is that she felt this way because she had a Catholic understanding of communion, which in most Protestant churches is not held to. Someone should ask which Protestant church she took this at, so we have a better idea of how they view the Elements here.
July 11, 2008, at 6:55 am
Two comments:
* Again, we are not talking about breaking and entering. That’s not the point.
Quinn did nothing wrong in a LEGAL sense, as opposed to, let’s say, the Act Up activists who once disturbed the Mass, knocked the sanctified elements to the floor, pushed the priest around, etc.
* And there is nothing, per se, wrong with this kind of panel being done. The issue is why the On Faith site — speaking for the WPost — treats religion as a subject that is UNIQUE, in terms of a major area of life being framed as emotion and feeling and opinion and in which facts seem to be irrelevant as seen in this Quinn episode.
July 11, 2008, at 7:48 am
Except that it is somewhat insulting to many readers to:
* Treat certain people as experts on religion rather than experts on certain types of religion
* Generalize a specific event in one Christian denomination as a “religious ritual”
If a newspaper were to treat certain people as experts on all sports and use a specific event in one sport as a general example for all sports, that newspaper would be laughed right out of the market. “On Faith” is an exercise in dumbing down religion.
July 11, 2008, at 8:34 am
Of course! Just as most editorial pages are exercises is dumbing down politics and social issues.
The whole point of an editorial page is to give a pulpit to a variety of “public intellectuals” to opine, cajole, harangue, and persuade their readership. Often for issues that aren’t in their specific area of expertise.
“On Faith” certainly shouldn’t be confused with an academic journal, or a seminary. It is a place to read what your favorite public religious figure thinks about the issue de jour, not a substitute for real journalism, real scholarship, or real debate.
July 11, 2008, at 8:50 am
I’ll pass. And, until newspapers start treating religion as seriously as they treat sports, I’ll pass on just about all other “coverage” of religion in newspapers, in print and online.
July 11, 2008, at 9:33 am
Wow. Who knew that seriously religious people were so snarky?
Ok. I wasn’t setting up a straw man, I was merely asking a question. Thank you for explaining.
However, on the subject of straw men:
Oh, brother. For the record, Episcopalian theology expressly and clearly states that any baptized Christian of any denomination may receive Communion in an Episcopal church. In fact, my own church prints this on the cover of the weekly mass guide so that visitors feel welcome. Likewise, an analysis of Sally Quinn’s own statements (absent here except for superficial references - why?) shows that this was exactly her thought process on the subject. Conflating it with skinny dipping or a John Hughes movie out of control party is really rather much.
Jason has it right in comment 9. Despite being run by journalists, GetReligion is an editorial page as well, and therefore cannot be held to journalistic standards.
July 11, 2008, at 9:41 am
One more thing: Father Martin, a Jesuit priest, takes precisely the right tone here: http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=C5FB0988-5056-8960-32106C4D2B7CE3D5
His take on the matter is exactly right - standing firm on Catholic theology in a manner that can only be described as Christlike.
We need a lot more Father Martins.
July 11, 2008, at 10:13 am
VERILY:
Amen on Father Martin. I quoted him at length and cited him in the original post.
However, your description of Quinn’s views on the Episcopal theology is accurate. She seems to want the Catholic Church to obey the rules of the Episcopal Church, instead of its own theology. Many journalists do.
I once saw an Episcopal priest at a cathedral altar give Communion to a parishioner’s dog during a St. Francis service. Different churches have different rules.
July 11, 2008, at 10:23 am
TMatt, with all due respect, you are guilty of the very ad hominem that Father Martin chastises The Catholic League about in his post! How do you know what Sally Quinn wants the Catholic Church to do? You are imputing a motivation to her that you cannot know anything about.
Likewise for other journalists - you have no idea what they want regarding Catholic theology. And, even assuming that you are correct about their wants, wanting does not make it so.
You may have read Father Martin’s post, but it seems as though you missed his central point, which is this: The Catholic Church need not alter its rules for outsiders, but it should welcome people as Christ did.
I’m more inclined to think of mistakes like Sally’s as teachable moments than attacks. Sounds like Father Martin is too. Some of his commenters, however…
July 11, 2008, at 11:29 am
Sometimes I wonder just how to discuss the journalism aspect here, journalism on a particular subject being the purpose of this site, when what I am more inclined to discuss — as seems to be the case with many of the commenters as well — is the theological aspect.
July 11, 2008, at 12:48 pm
Sometimes we can learn that what someone says is their motive is not their true motive but we can also go overboard to question everyone’s motive. As I said the last time, I would have made the same mistake she did out of ignorance. It is incumbent on the Church to make known what they consider critical. So I have to ask if the “misalettes” referenced below were actually present and referenced in the Church?
http://www.catholic.com/library/who_can_receive_communion.asp Has there been news stories exploring the the responsibility of the Catholic Churth to make its position known?
July 11, 2008, at 12:52 pm
To get to the content of On Faith, I suppose the question posed is generally okay, but it could have included an explanation of Roman Catholic belief/policy of communion reception by non-Catholics. The answer provided by McClaren is horrible, horrible. No respect, no ability to ponder what the Church believes or why. I guess that’s why he’s not an R.C.
July 11, 2008, at 1:06 pm
Wow! I just scanned a few more responses at “on Faith”. The Catholic academics are using such fuzzy, emotive feeling to cover Sally Quinn’s butt. One law and theology prof at ND, actually suggests that canon law would permit her to receive communion….? I saw on one post that the recessional “hymn” was a tear-inducing “Somewhere over the Rainbow”. That’s weird in and of itself, though I am sure a heartfelt rendition of that song would make any one cry. What that has to do with Jesus and respect for RC faith, I have no idea.
If Sally had posted, “I got carried away and know I should not have received communion. I am sorry, etc…” I’d see this much differently. She wanted to be closer to Tim. The Eucharist is to take us closer to Jesus. Sigh!
The STL PD launched a similar multi-faith forum, with adherents of various faiths. I’ve found some similar, we all have good stuff to offer, views and fog on that blog as well. These endeavors only seem to blur religious differences in a way that lacks utter regard for each person’s faith. Ugh.
July 11, 2008, at 2:10 pm
VERILY:
Please read Quinn’s original “What Would Jesus Do?” essay and you will, I hope, see my point. I think she is saying that Jesus disagrees with the Catholic Church.
That sounds like a call for the Church to change, too me.
July 12, 2008, at 1:57 am
Father Martin wrote, “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.”
Tmatt wrote, “And there is nothing, per se, wrong with this kind of panel being done. The issue is why the On Faith site — speaking for the WPost — treats religion as a subject that is UNIQUE, in terms of a major area of life being framed as emotion and feeling and opinion and in which facts seem to be irrelevant as seen in this Quinn episode.”
I’m not sure how to adjudicate this dispute over “feelings”, but there does seem to be a dispute.
July 12, 2008, at 10:37 pm
Let’s hope Quinn doesn’t go to Tony Snow’s funeral Mass; or if she does, that she finds a way to restrain herself.