Sally Quinn's ignorance -- or arrogance?

Or maybe I should have said "located" instead of "discovered."

Either way, it sounds like whoever suggested it was narcissism was spot on.

Being a Canuck I haven't followed this closely; that said, I have yet to hear anyone ask the obvious: How is it "honoring" one's friend -- at his funeral, no less -- by doing something to which, by all accounts, he himself would have objected?

With friends like this, who needs enemas ...

Too many reporters, editors and producers simply cannot imagine that people really believe these things, or take them all that seriously. Religion is seen as an interesting hobby, perhaps, but that's it.

Maybe if they had their own weeping icon they'd see things differently.

"Transubstantiation notwithstanding."

I think that says it all. There's ignorance, and there's arrogance. She might have been ignorant of her arrogance, but she wasn't arrogant of doctrine. But Erin is right: for all we know, she had a priest tell her it was ok.

So. Frustrating.

Sigh.

Being a Canuck I haven't followed this closely; that said, I have yet to hear anyone ask the obvious: How is it "honoring" one's friend -- at his funeral, no less -- by doing something to which, by all accounts, he himself would have objected?

But that, to me, is part of the reason she took communion. If you read my post in Erin's thread on this, in which I quoted what Quinn wrote that Russert said to her about his Catholic faith and his view of the Eucharist, I don't think he would have objected at all to her taking it. If she understood "being Catholic" and "taking the Eucharist" to be what would be agreeable to Tim Russert, her taking communion was very much in the spirit of her friendship with Russert, IMO.

Eric W:

It should not have mattered to Sally Quinn what Tim Russert's views of the Eucharist are. The only views that matter are those of Jesus Christ's who instituted this sacrament and who left it to His Church to safeguard. As a professional journalist who's "beat" is religion, she's supposed to know the Church protocols regarding the sacrament of Holy Communion.

Sally Quinn is out of her element and should quit her job as co-editor of the "On Faith" blog. Her remaining on the job, especially in light of her follow-up comments, is not only an insult to believers but also a stain on journalism. Isn't there something else her bosses at Washington Post/Newsweek can have her do?

This one is easy. I can't believe you guys don't get it. Sally Quinn took communion precisely because she is an atheist. She just wishes it wasn't so. That is undoubtably why she founded the On Faith column of The Post. She is whistling past the graveyard, and she knows it.

Here is another recent example of the phenomenon. I tracked the comments on the New York times website to George Carlin's death last week. There were over 600. And 80% of them applauded Carlin for his rants against religion and faith. I mean the stream of paradoxical hate-filled, self-congratulatory bile was absolutely phenomenal. But I bet you 80% of those 80% of Carlin's fellow travelers closed their comment with something like "George, tell it like it is in heaven." Or "I know George is looking down on us right now..."

Yep, whistling past the graveyard, only unlike Ms. Quinn, they don't know it...

SteveM

Eric W: It should not have mattered to Sally Quinn what Tim Russert's views of the Eucharist are. The only views that matter are those of Jesus Christ's who instituted this sacrament and who left it to His Church to safeguard. As a professional journalist who's "beat" is religion, she's supposed to know the Church protocols regarding the sacrament of Holy Communion.

Well, apparently Tim Russert didn't care about the Catholic Church's views of the Eucharist, since he had his own that differed from the Church's teachings. I agree that Quinn's ignorance and arrogance related to taking the Eucharist makes her not fit or worthy to be a so-called "professional" journalist in the field of religion, and I would fault her for not having what I would think should be the required knowledge, skills and abilities for the job she has. But I do not fault her for thinking that Tim would approve of her taking the Eucharist, because I think he would. And if Jesus would have a problem with Quinn, I don't think it's because she doesn't take the Catholic position on the Eucharist, but because she doesn't call Him Lord and Christ, and worship Him accordingly.

Hocus Pocus Dominocus
Let's keep Quinn's faux paux in focus

Forgive my faux pas of misspelling faux pas.

She moderates a website. She's not a reporter. Let's get a little perspective here. She isn't controlling the WP religion coverage. She moderates the views of some of the top religious thinkers in the country, she isn't reporting on it.

Well, this is how she's described:

newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sally_quinn/

Washington Post reporter

Washington Post journalist, author and Washington DC insider, Sally Quinn founded and co-moderates On Faith, a blog from the Washington Post and Newsweek. Co-moderated by Newsweek editor and bestselling author Jon Meacham and hosted by a panel of renowned religious scholars of all denominations, On Faith is the first worldwide, interactive discussion about religion and its impact on global life. While researching an article about religion in Washington prior to the 2000 presidential campaign, Quinn noticed that while religion had an enormous influence on worldwide politics, it was a taboo subject in our nation’s capital. Following 9/11, Quinn’s interest in religion grew and her passion to understand it from a personal and political perspective took on new urgency and focus. Over the past decade, Quinn has pursued a religious education with the same drive and rigor she once gave to politics. Leveraging her rolodex from 30 years as a columnist, she sought out spiritual mentorship from religious leaders and scholars such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Reverend Jim Anderson, Father Bryan Hehir and John Esposito. To gain emotional and spiritual perspective, she traveled to many of the world’s holy sites in Rome, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Tibet, Delhi, Cairo, Ethiopia and Istanbul, and began attending several religious services and ceremonies a week at churches, temples and mosques. Quinn has written four books: “We’re Going to Make You a Star,” about her short-lived experience as a co-anchor for “CBS Morning News”; “Regrets Only,” her first novel; “Happy Endings,” its sequel, and “The Party,” in which Quinn offers an insider’s look at Washington entertaining and a personal view of the value of friendship. She is currently working on a book about religion in Washington.

To gain emotional and spiritual perspective, she traveled to many of the world’s holy sites in Rome, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Tibet, Delhi, Cairo, Ethiopia and Istanbul, and began attending several religious services and ceremonies a week at churches, temples and mosques.

That explains it. She's a "tourist," like the Narrator ("Jack"?) and the Marla Singer character in Fight Club. :rolleyes:

Do you think maybe she should read some standard works on church doctrine and history before she makes her own infallible pronouncements on what Christianity is and what Christians should believe and do?

Oh, no. That would require her to think.

Speaking of the Eucharist, I have a question on taking communion in other churches. What is the rule in the other direction--for Catholics and Orthodox taking communion in churches who do not share the same understanding of it as they do (a Catholic taking communion in an ELCA Lutheran church, for example)? Should they not do it, even if invited? Would those of you here who are Catholic or Orthodox still choose not to if even if it is permitted (or, at least, if the teaching is unclear)?

Wouldn't it blow her mind to find out that even Catholics are not supposed to take Communion under certain circumstances.

Not only does it not confer any grace under those conditions (or make anyone in Purgatory or Heaven happy) but it is objectively sinful and must be specifically repented and confessed before valid reception.

The Eucharist is not an elite club - it's life-saving surgery that requires the wound to be properly cleaned beforehand.

Insane Kitten,
Catholics are not allowed to receive communion in Protestant churches (ecclesial communities?), even when those protestant bodies permit it under their own rules (like the ELCA).

Daniel,

You consider the two cases of disrespect for religious doctrine to be in "different ballparks" only because *for you* (or so it seems) the Eucharist -- as understood by most Roman Catholics -- is a matter of no great concern, a trivial detail. As an Anglo-Catholic, I accept the view that the Eucharist ought to be shared with all baptized members of the Christian faith, and that the Koran -- whatever other virtues it can claim -- is not a book with any sacred status that ought to exempt it of necessity from use as toilet tissue, a doorstop, or a wrapping for fish and chips. In that sense, there are things that *for me* would be placed in "different ballparks" from my own concerns, but which would be of more immediate importance -- "in the same ballpark" in other words -- for someone with concerns that are different from my own. Those different points of view are worthy of respect. As in with our discussion of Barack Obama in regard to social class and elitism on his part, I can't understand why you should feel that other people with different points of view from your own are are not entitled to their own self-understanding. Your argument here seems to be that you and Sally Quinn know better than certain Roman Catholics how they ought to feel about religious doctrine that neither of you share -- just as your argument elsewhere seemed to be that you and Barack Obama know better than Pennsylvanians themselves what does and does not constitute the truth about their own lives -- lives which are theirs and not your own. Each of these perspectives seems remarkably myopic to me and remarkable lacking in respect for those who are different from oneself. Perhaps I should amend what I said on the elitism thread by adding that perhaps you and I may not be able to converse fruitfully on anything at all -- again, because "our ethical assumptions don't jibe."

From the end of the article Jillian linked to:

Even those who have to deal with or publicly support the administration do so grudgingly. They say that regardless of whether his fortunes improve, Bill Clinton has essentially lost the Washington Establishment for good.

It didn't appear that way during this election. He ran his wife's campaign, and ran it into controversy, and ran it into the ground. If he lost the Washington Establishment for good, he didn't lose his control of the Democratic Party, or didn't seem to.

How likely do you think it would be for Quinn to go into a Muslim or Jewish house of worship, offend against its most sacred principle, and having been called on it, lecture Muslims or Jews on how they need to get over themselves? It. Would. Not. Happen. People like Sally Quinn don't do things like that, and if she had, inadvertently, she would have worn herself out apologizing. For the Catholics, it's different. Sally, I believe, sees herself as one of their Betters. I don't know Sally Quinn, so I may be judging her motivations unfairly, but I certainly know her type.

I simply don't understand how you can say this. Are they in communications with alternate universes where this has, in fact, happened? What sort of 'type' is this?

Isn't it a better assumption that Quinn is just sorta arrogant? And attempted to justify her mistake instead of taking responsibility for it? And it had nothing to do with Catholicism?

You either have reverence for the rules of another religion, or not. I think that the Catholic's rules are wrong and my religious beliefs say that I, as a follower of Christ, am eligible for the Eucharist in whatever Christian church. However, I would, under no circumstances, take it from a Catholic one, as they don't think I am and it's their church. It's not like it's some public Eucharist where anyone can just walk up and participate.

Religions that nominally share the same sets of beliefs, like Protestantism and Catholicism and Orthodoxy, should feel free to critique each other where they feel they have fallen short of those beliefs, but there's a difference between that and just wandering into each other churches and doing whatever they want.

And atheists and non-believers, of course, really have no cause to critique religions except where those religions impact themselves and others. If there's a Wicca church down the street that believes the way to worship a god is to build houses of playing cards, and then knock them down, and they do that during their services, I have no call to criticize that, no matter how silly it seems to me. (I'm not trying to insult Wicca here, I picked that simply as a non-Abrahamic religion. I'm sure that is not actually one of their beliefs.) They have fundamentally incorrect beliefs, but as am I'm not a follower of those beliefs, I can't say if they are doing them 'correctly' or not.

It's sometimes a blurry line...if there are fanatical Wicca wandering around knocking down actual houses that belong to other people, well, the symbolic destruction would get called into question. Likewise if there were crazy Christian cannibals wandering around eating people they thought were Jesus, some people might have things to say about the Eucharist.

The obvious real-world example here is Islam, with many people attempt to tell Muslims what they 'really' believe and what the Koran 'really' says. And everyone is learning the hard way that attempting to change a religion from the outside is counterproductive...change comes from the inside. But the impulse to meddle is always there.

But barring any sort of impact on the public, people should not attempt to tell religions 'that belief is dumb or wrong'(1), except 'schismed' religions that theoretically are the same. And even then it's in the form of ecumenical discussion, not walking into their services and doing it 'the right way'.

1) People, of course, are free to think this all they want. Or tell other people how silly that belief is. But attempting to debate the church itself is just rude.

It didn't appear that way during this election. He ran his wife's campaign, and ran it into controversy, and ran it into the ground. If he lost the Washington Establishment for good, he didn't lose his control of the Democratic Party, or didn't seem to.

The real point of the article is about The Village, of course. It's infamous for Quinn unintentionally baring its utter smug hypocrisy.

Yes, the conservative establishments of the Party did side with Obama. They made him their anti-Hillary candidate when Edwards flamed out. They threw all those caucuses Obama's way best they could. Texas most flagrantly. There's a long Charlie Rose interview with the political editor of the Washington Post about it. Every Blue Dog supported Obama, Richardson did, Carter did. Obama very much recapitulated the Jimmy Carter politics of the New Old.

No, the outcome has to with bigger factors in the electorate. Obama supporters don't at bottom believe even a quarter of the stuff they said about Bill/Hillary, if that. Just as swing voters who voted for Bush in 2004 didn't actually believe the excuses they gave for voting for him or the rationales they gave for voting against Kerry. It's pathetic and lacks integrity, but it's what people do to reconcile their needs with their desire to maintain face.

The Catholic Church (I have been a member since birth) is making a tremendous claim about the Eucharist. They are claiming that it is indeed really - really! - the body and blood of Jesus Christ, the God-Man who came here and died to save all humanity.

Is this "true"? Opinions vary, of course, but I believe, because I am (trying to be) a follower of Jesus, that it is true. He said it was true. That's good enough for me.

What does this mean exactly? Beats me, and beats everyone else too. He didn't say we had to understand it.

This statement of Jesus is partly remarkable in what he did NOT say. He did not explain just how this works. ("Transubstantiation" "Consubstantiation" "symbolic" whatever.) He did not say, "Take and understand." He did not make the eating of this substance a badge of or a requirement of or a privilege of membership in a particular lodge.

Did Sally Quinn and/or the guy who gave her communion at the funeral of her good Catholic friend and/or the deceased friend screw this up?

I think we're way out of our depth here. Like WAY out of our depth, like the bottom is 10,000 feet down. On this discussion we're merrily throwing around concepts like "transubstantiation" and "consubstantiation" and "Real Presence" and "recognizing the Body" when we in fact don't have a clue or even the beginning of a clue what we're talking about. This is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity we're talking about, right?

Did Sally violate the Lodge Rules? Yes. What does this mean? I don't know, and neither does anyone else.

Did Sally violate the Lodge Rules? Yes. What does this mean? I don't know, and neither does anyone else.

:^D

It seems to me that most folks are focusing on one of two basic points of her comments, and the wrong one. Seems like she basically made two comments. First, that it wasn't clear to her that the Eucharist was only for Catholics. Secondly, that Catholics should be more open to others taking the Eucharist. I think Rod and others are right on the second point, but what is debating it going to accomplish? Folks who don't care what Catholics believe are still going to do what they want. But, the first point is something that 1) can actually be changed and 2) will likely convince folks who might otherwise take the Eucharist not to. So what do most people at this blog do? Tilt at windmills, argue an issue where you will make no difference, and take every opportunity to bash liberals in general and the mainstream media. And you do this over convincing people not to take the Eucharist, and thereby reducing sin as you see it. Hmmm.

Probably not necessary to say this, but I'm not a Catholic, and am an agnostic. Just saying that your actions don't match your supposed interests.

Max:

The Koran? Well I'm of the opinion that it is not an object qualified for descration to begin with.

I know some Moslems who would much disagree with you.

"I know some Moslems who would much disagree with you."

Well, that's hardly going out on a limb speculatively. EVERY muslim disagrees with me.

FTR, God doesn't have an "opinion". He doesn't "think". Opinion allows for error, and thinking is a process. God knows all that is to know, but he has known eternally, he did'nt get there by thinking aobut it.

This blog is chronically fraught with human beings (including, but to his credit very very rarely, our host) who claim to "know" what God "knows," to wit, to be in unity with the deity on a very great variety of assorted topics.

The mind boggles.

As one might expect, all these savants by no means agree with one another. As to God's opinion (or, as Max would have it, God's "knowledge") on all these topics, well, it's anybody's guess from the available data. The persons who claim to have direct information from the deity disagree quite a bit amongst themselves.

The status and impact of Ms. Quinn's reception of the Eucharist at the funeral of her good friend falls squarely within this category.

A little humility here would go a long way.

God forbid that anyone here should admit that he/she doesn't have a 100% grip on what God knows on any of this. It may have been a horrible, damning sin. It may have been a salvific act. Who knows?

Well, any number of bloggers here know, or claim that they do. But I maintain a kind of skepticism.

For myself, I don't have a clue. Anyone who does have a clue, or who knows for sure, is invited to present his/her credentials for the thus-claimed direct line to the Divine Intelligence. (Citations to what the RC Hierarchy says must be accompanied by evidence, convincing to skeptics, proving that these persons have a direct line to divine knowledge.)

Leave the girl alone. If she did the wrong thing, surely God is competent to defend Himself. If she did the right thing, it's none of our business.

If someone professes to me that they are ignorant of something I must believe them. I don't have to join them in their ignorance, nor deliver them from theirs.

If someone professes to me that they are ignorant of something I must believe them. I don't have to join them in their ignorance, nor deliver them from theirs.

No, but if you propose to deliver them from their "ignorance" you are under some obligation to explain how you "know" whatever it is that you allegedly know.

I'm waiting.

"No, but if you propose to deliver them from their "ignorance" you are under some obligation to explain how you "know" whatever it is that you allegedly know.

I'm waiting."

I don't intend to deliver you from anything.

I don't intend to deliver you from anything.

Max,

If you already know everything, and are not even interested in conveying that, we are wasting our time here. Sorry for my messages, which are intrusive on your certainties.

All good.

Blame it on that dad-blasted filioque. It's the root of all evils.

I am waiting for the day when Sally Quinn becomes a Christian and maybe even a Roman Catholic. Then we well hear that her conversion was the result of her supposedly unworthy reception of the Eucharist at Russert's funeral. It will all be explained as God working in mysterious ways.

I agree with Old Susan and reaffirm what I wrote on Erin's post on this subject. Our Lord both knows what He is doing and is perfectly able to take care of Himself. Think for a moment of the apostles who wanted to keep the little children away from him.

And perhaps Sally Quinn will take advantage of this situation to write an article on the do's and don'ts of visiting in other peoples religions. Might even be a best seller.

Old Susan,

The point is not whether or not Roman Catholics are are correct in how they conceive of the Eucharist. The point is whether or not Sally Quinn should have respected the Roman Catholic conception of a central doctrine out of common courtesy. If she doesn't accept the Roman Catholic conception of the Eucharist it's her prerogative not to. But it isn't her prerogative to take the Eucharist anyway, in a manner that shows disrespect to faithful Roman Catholics for whom the matter is one of more import than it is to Sally Quinn. You are right that no one knows God's will in its entirety, which is why there are different religions, different denominations within each religion, and those who hold the equally religious view that there is no God at all. But you are wrong to think that that fact allows one to disregard the doctrinal norms of particular religious communities. Just as it would be wrong for me as an Anglo-Catholic to participate from certain Roman Catholic rites which are reserved for Roman Catholics alone -- the Roman Catholic Eucharist being one -- so too was it wrong for Sally Quinn as an Atheist to do the same. I have the prerogative to receive the Eucharist in an Anglican, Episcopal, or Methodist church, or a church of some denomination that will offer the Eucharist to me. Sally Quinn likewise has the prerogative not to receive the Eucharist, since she does not believe in God, let alone in Jesus Christ as the son of God whose sacrifice for humanity if what the Eucharist is all about. I hope this post was not too "long" or too "learned" for you.

Well, Augustus, as much as I may agree with you, Sally Quinn doesn't. And I'm not in a position to decide which of you is right.

God will have to sort this out. I have no doubt that He is up to the task, and no doubt that He doesn't need our help with this.

This blog is chronically fraught with human beings (including, but to his credit very very rarely, our host) who claim to "know" what God "knows," to wit, to be in unity with the deity on a very great variety of assorted topics.

You'll love this bit by a former fundamentalist theologian, Susan. The part about the "Prophetic Ramrod" in particular. ;-)

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_biblicism.htm

Ooo, Jillian, and how cool is this! Thank you!

Yeah, this event could lead Quinn to the Church. But it's also could be a trip to damnation. That's a helluva coin to be flipping according to those who suggest that this event might be a blessing leading to faith, and therefore not really anything to worry about.

Yes, this event could lead Ms. Quinn to God. Or it could lead her away. It has this quality in common with every other experience in her life (and in ours) of course. We flip that coin every day, each of us. So?

Susan, why the double standard? According to you I'm supposed to respect the Koran despite my faith, yet I'm not supposed say anything when someone disrespects my faith.

Not at all. You should recognize that there are quite a number of human beings who believe that the Koran is the Word of God. Your statement to the contrary, phrased as though it were self-evident ('the sun rises in the east') is insufficiently nuanced.

But whatever. We are all of us, including me, perhaps inappropriately sure of ourselves. God is so much bigger than any of our ideas.

Anyone here, including Max, who disagrees, and who is so sure of his/her position, is welcome to that disagreement. I only wish I could join you.

You need not agree with Muslims to acknowledge their belief just as I need not and do not agree with you as to your belief; all you need to do is not to make flat statements as though you were God Yourself. (Unless you are, in which case I retract this entire message, Your Majesty.)

Look, here's the deal.

Sally Quinn, under the emotional stress of a funeral of a colleague who had died unexpectedly and prematurely, received communion. All we know of her relationship with the deceased is what she tells us. All we know of what was going on in her mind and heart at that moment is what she tells us.

So far as I can tell from what she tells us, this action was not intended as a spit in the eye of the Catholic Church. It may or may not have been the result of mixed motivations; it may or may not have been partly a response to confused messages from the Church herself.

If the Eucharist is indeed, objectively, the body and blood of Jesus Christ, regardless of what the recipients may be thinking about it, then Ms. Quinn truly received and ate the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, whether she realized it or not, whether she understood it or not.

Is this necessarily a bad thing? Only Jesus himself could know that. I suggest that we back off and let Him work that out with her.

The greatest of these is love ....

Jim, watch out. You might be called upon to prove it.

John E., common practice? Only in the better Churches. The ones without liturgical dancing clown masses and such.

Speaking of the Eucharist, I have a question on taking communion in other churches. What is the rule in the other direction--for Catholics and Orthodox taking communion in churches who do not share the same understanding of it as they do (a Catholic taking communion in an ELCA Lutheran church, for example)? Should they not do it, even if invited?

As an Orthodox Christian, I am not supposed to receive Communion outside of the Orthodox Church. Period.

Would those of you here who are Catholic or Orthodox still choose not to if even if it is permitted (or, at least, if the teaching is unclear)?

I choose not to, I have chosen not to in the past, and I will choose not to in the future.

Busted!

Okay Sig, there have been clown masses, and liturgical dance masses, so it seemed reasonable that the two would have gotten together at SOME point in time!

"Non-Catholics aren't supposed to receive communion in a Catholic church, and for very good reasons."

So much for the "Come unto me all ye who labour and are heavy burdened." So much for "Whosoever will may come."

Liberal Feminists are the biggest hypocrites in the world. I am so enjoying their gnashing of teeth over Palin.

Is this the same Sally Quinn who when years ago a passenger jet blew a window out and a man was sucked out and died she laughed and made a big joke about it? This man was someones husband, father, friend and a human being. Is this the same Sally Quinn who took another woman's husband (Ben Bradlee) in adultery?