Dan Rodricks and His Battle Within
Does Dan Rodricks feel truly unwelcome in Church? Or is his conscience talking to him?
I’m not the best person to explain Catholic teaching. I’m not a theologian. I’m not someone who has studied who as studied scripture as much as some (or as much as I should). I’m just a guy who has been Catholic.
But I do believe in the teachings of the Church, which is more than I can say about anybody working at The Baltimore Sun these days.
The Sun published yet another anti-Catholic diatribe from Dan Rodricks. If Rodricks kept his complaints to the ghastly sexual abuse scandal, then his arguments might have merit. But instead of focusing just on that, Rodricks decides to freestyle some more thoughts about the teachings of the Church.
The problem with Rodricks is that he, as a self-professed “fallen-off Catholic” either doesn’t understand or doesn’t know the basic teachings of the Church.
Rodricks starts off with this:
At the funeral of a colleague who died young, the priest felt it important to warn the non-Catholics in attendance that they were forbidden to take Communion with the rest of us. The admonition was not gentle, it was crisp. And disgusting.
How could a priest be so unwelcoming, officious and doctrinaire at a time when so many friends of the young woman had gathered to mourn her death? It was hard to imagine Jesus citing the house rules in opening remarks to those who had just lost a sister, daughter and companion.
But then, this occurred in a church governed by bishops who feel empowered to deny the bread of faith to elected officials, even the Catholic president of the United States, with whom they have political disagreement and for whom they probably didn’t vote.
There is a lot here to digest. And while there is something to be said about the way a Priest can deliver a message about eligibility for Communion at a funeral, Rodricks general complaint is misguided and opposes Catholic teaching.
The guidelines for receiving Communion, which are issued by the U.S. bishops and published in many missalettes, explain, “Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law.”
Scripture is clear that partaking of the Eucharist is among the highest signs of Christian unity: “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor. 10:17). For this reason, it is normally impossible for non-Catholic Christians to receive Holy Communion, for to do so would be to proclaim a unity to exist that, regrettably, does not.
Another reason that many non-Catholics may not ordinarily receive Communion is for their own protection, since many reject the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Scripture warns that it is very dangerous for one not believing in the Real Presence to receive Communion: “For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself” (1 Cor. 11:29).
As Catholics, we believe that Jesus Christ is physically present in the Eucharist. The denial of the Eucharist during Communion is not to be mean to the grieving but in an effort to avoid a Grave Sin both on the part of the Priest or Eucharistic Minister distributing it and on the part of the individual receiving it.
It’s the same reason that some Priests and some Bishops authorize the denial of Communion to elected officials. In those instances, it is usually elected officials who are actively promoting of voting for grave sins, to whit, abortion.
Rodricks continues, writing about Cardinal Keeler and about Rodricks feelings (justifiable) about the Abuse Scandals. But toward the end, Rodricks returns with this:
….on the other side of the mountainous scandal of abuse are all the other remaining issues: The all-male priesthood and the nonsense of celibacy, the stridency against abortion and gay rights, and now, because of the abuse scandal, the lack of credibility on matters of social justice. And there’s the feeling that not all are welcome, a far cry from what Christ had in mind.
Rodricks lists of a number of personal issues he has with Church teaching. All of which put him completely at odds with what the Church teaches and at odds with what practicing Catholics themselves believe.
There is no push within the Church to ordain women. Not the least of which is that the issue was settled by St. John Paul II in 1994.
There is also no push within the Church or from Priests to eliminate the requirements of Clerical Celibacy. While no doubt many Priests have violated the conditions in the past, there is no institutional push to remove the requirements by the Bishops, the Priests, or by the Laity alike. There are even exceptions made for Priests in Ango-Catholic personal ordinates.
The “stridency against abortion” goes back to the simple concept of “thou shall not kill.” That’s not even a part of the Catholic Church; that concept predates Christianity and goes all the way to the Ten Commandments. It is a central tenet of every Abrahamic and of decent personhood. Some things are just morally wrong and should be beyond contestation, and yet Rodricks used this as a reason to beat the Church over the head.
Then there is the argument regarding “stridency against gay rights.” The Catholic Church is not against gay rights, as Rodricks implies. You can be gay and be Catholic. There is no prohibition in any church law about this. What the Church regards as a sin is the concept of sex outside of marriage. Since the Church (and God, after all) only recognizes marriage between one man and one woman, that means homosexual activity is a sin. That’s the way it is, and that is the way that it will always be.
“And there’s the feeling that not all are welcome”
What is that even supposed to mean? Is it a bizarre statement with a complete lack of context? Who isn’t welcome, exactly? The statement seems open to interpretation, but it is clear Rodricks himself does not feel welcomed in a Church that he disagrees with. What Rodricks needs to ask himself is this: is he not feeling welcome because the Church truly does not make him feel welcome, or does he not feel welcome because his conscience is calling him to come back to the faith and to learn the true meaning of the Word, of God’s Love, and of forgiveness?
I hope Dan Rodricks finds what he is looking for. Because it is clear he is based on his misplaced anger at Church teaching that he is missing something. Pray for him.