In the latest Country Club Christian Church newsletter, our senior pastor, Rev. Carla Aday, relates a startling and unsettling experience with Catholicism.
Listen to what she wrote in this piece dated Aug. 23:
I’m at St Benedict’s Monastery in Colorado. I longed to visit here for 32 years. When I heard Father Thomas Keating, the abbot, present a guest lecture in graduate school, I was mesmerized by his passionate approach to prayer and contemplation. Nestled in a wide valley surrounded by mountains, the monastery stretches the heart to inhale God’s boundless beauty.
Posted on the doorway into the chapel is a small notice that says, “The bishop of Denver wants us to remind you…the bread and wine are only to be served to the Catholics.” As I listen to the monks in white robes sing the glorious liturgy, I meditate. And then my mind wanders back to that little sign. Somehow I am not worthy of the feast. My Protestant spirituality is not good enough. I remind myself that no church is perfect. But still I wonder, do they know I am a minister? And who gives them the right to separate me from God’s holiest of gifts?
After the service, a monk greets me kindly. I want him to say, “It’s ok if you want to take communion…we have to post that sign but truly, you are invited, you are welcome, you belong.” But he doesn’t. Maybe he thinks I am too much of a sinner. Or not even a Christian. And so I leave, feeling like an outsider.
Rev. Carla Aday
I think you’ll agree with me that the humble and unemotional way Rev. Aday describes her experience accentuates how repulsive it is.
It was like a smack in the face to me, too, even though I was a Catholic for about six decades and have experienced similar instances of exclusivity in Catholic churches, such as priests telling those assembled at funeral Masses that non-Catholics are “welcome to come forward for a blessing” at communion time.
Here’s the issue: What in the world makes Catholic church leaders — like the bishop of Denver, former Kansas City Bishop Robert Finn and former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick — think that what they’ve got is so special that only card-holding members of “the club” can participate in all club-related events?
Continuing the question…
…especially at a time when the church continues to be exposed as being led primarily by a bunch of blowhard men who have covered up sexual abuse by priests (and in some cases themselves) for decades?
**
In recent weeks, the Catholic church has been dragged down into a new, deep round of turmoil over sex abuse of children and seminarians. First there was the grand jury report out of Pennsylvania that said bishops and other leaders of the Roman Catholic Church in several dioceses in that state covered up child sexual abuse by more than 300 priests over a period of 70 years. (More than 1,000 victims were identified.)
Then yesterday, before Pope Francis returned to the Vatican from a trip to Ireland, a former top Vatican diplomat claimed that the pope himself was guilty of covering up McCarrick’s abuses.
Archbishop Vigano
The former top Vatican diplomat in the United States, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, alleged in a letter that he had personally told Pope Francis about McCarrick’s history of abuse in 2013. Writing in The New York Times, reporter Jason Horowitz said Vigano’s claim “seemed timed to do more than simply derail Francis’ uphill efforts to win back the Irish faithful, who have turned away from the church in large numbers.
“Its unsubstantiated allegations and personal attacks amounted to an extraordinary public declaration of war against Francis’ papacy at perhaps its most vulnerable moment, intended to unseat a pope whose predecessor, Benedict XVI, was the first pontiff to resign in nearly 600 years.”
Back in Rome, the pope refused to address the controversy.
**
The juxtaposition of Rev. Aday’s experience and the new sex-abuse-coverup allegations is striking because it amplifies the church’s head-in-the-sand insularity in ways both large and small. While Pope Francis beats his breast, asking the Irish to forgive the church’s misdeeds, the church as an entity maintains strict barriers between itself and what it views as unenlightened outsiders…like Pastor Aday.
That sign. “The bread and wine are only to be served to the Catholics.”
God, it is galling!
It must be galling to God, too.
JimmyCsays: At the juncture of journalism and daily life in KC 
Jim,
I’ve always found this “Catholics only” stuff to be offensive. I ignore it and take the Eucharist anyway. The Lord’s table is open to all. No one has ever objected, because they can’t tell if I’m Catholic or not. Add this ridiculous prohibition to the long list of reasons the Catholic Church is in trouble.
I agree with Cheryl. I have attended funeral masses as well as marriages and I will always disobey the man and received Christ’s gift to all Christians.
I’ve done that, too. (And thanks for your comments, Cheryl and Richard.) But that’s not going to prompt any change, and it still gives church hierarchy the satisfaction of being able to continue bellowing, “We’re special!”
The only things that are going to work are 1) people leaving in droves, like they have in Ireland and 2) cultural Catholics — those who don’t agree but stay anyway — reducing their contributions.
Unfortunately, the church is finding success at countering its head-count losses by mining the Latin American countries for new acolytes. That leaves the purse strings as the best way to force change.
A KC area priest, who was recently defrocked, married us back in 1995. He refused to offer me communion at our wedding simply because I was not a member of his denomination. Consequently, I refused to have communion served at our wedding. I would not have my fellow non-RC church friends be treated so badly at such a beautiful ceremony.
Bravo, Bob, for turning the tables on the priest who tried to play the role of judge, jury and executioner.
I often say that the RC Mass is like inviting people to your house and only serving wine and cheese to just a few. To the rest you say, come sing with me, pray with me and listen to what I want to teach you. It is not only bad theology, it is the height of religious rudeness and in-hospitality.
I do wonder Jimmy. Are people who contribute to RCC complicit in the scandals? Perhaps if the Catholic faithful withheld donations (or maybe directed them to Catholic Charities) they would put pressure of the RCC to change?
As a Catholic, I have absolutely no problem with exclusivity only to Catholics at a Catholic ceremony. Though I respect other faiths, I don’t expect or want to receive communion or anything else at a Protestant church, Jewish synagogue or Buddhist temple. It is ridiculous to think that if you show up at a Catholic Mass then you should be entitled to a sacred sacrificial rite without even a knowledge of Catholic theology. I guess if you want to do it secretly then who will stop you? No one, so where’s the problem? Do you need some sort of encouragement or permission that it’s all right? We don’t carry membership cards (try to get into a Mormon temple for a wedding ceremony if you are a non-Mormon). What I do have a problem with is the antiquated structure of non-responsive Catholic bishops and their consistent sick illegal practice of covering up sexual abuse by hiding behind their supposed Church authority. This has got to stop. The bishops who have knowledge of such crimes and do nothing or just move priests around need to go to prison. Bishop Finn is example #1.
Roman Catholic teachings on this sacrament is based on transubstantiation. Lutherans believe in the “real presence”. Other Protestant denominations believe the elements are symbolic. While I have a lot of issues with Roman Catholicism I will take the contrarian issue and say this CCC pastor picked the wrong issue to play victim on. I found her writing sanctimonious, ill-informed and disrespectful to the sacrament she feels she missed out on.
When it comes to communion I have a bigger problem with Roman Catholic on Roman Catholic “crime”, where the withholding of communion is used like a weapon in areas such as annulment and divorce.
I’m with Liselotte. And I found your pastor’s ignorance and hubris astounding. It’s particularly egregious since she now has an entire congregation believing what she said unless they happen to be better informed about Roman Catholic beliefs than she apparently is.
Would she have had the same response had she gone to a mosque where they requested that she cover her head and remove her shoes? I highly doubt it. Or to the house of any other faith with traditions different from what she believes and where she was asked — respectfully — to abide by their beliefs while she was there?
The Catholic practice has nothing to do with “sin” — it’s about what one believes or doesn’t believe and then respecting the belief of where you happen to be and then acting accordingly.
I found her “message” highly offensive and I hope someone in your church hierarchy will at least alert her to bone up on Catholic teachings before she goes off on her high horse again.
Eucharist is a sacrament in both the Protestant and the Roman Catholic denominations. However (BIG however), RCs believe in transubstantiation — that the bread and wine that the priests hold become, in reality, the body and blood of Christ.
If Rev. Aday believes in transubstantiation, then she can bemoan that Protestants rarely agree with her. If she does not believe that, then why feel slighted by those who do and want to preserve it?
Perhaps a thoughtful commentary on the theological differences pertaining to the Eucharist would be more helpful than a personal peeve about how left out she felt. I’m saddened by the lack of theological grasp she displayed and the misconception she promulgated.
BTW — I am female and Protestant — never have been nor never likely to be Roman Catholic.
I’ve long thought that this clash between transubstantiation and symbolic presence in the Eucharist has been overblown.
As Martin Luther said, there is no basis whatsoever in Scripture to support the concept of transubstantiation. It’s just a notion that Catholic leaders (all men, of course) pounced on centuries ago, just as they jumped to the conclusions that only men can be priests because the Apostles were all men and that priests can’t marry because none of the Apostles appear to have been married.
There’s nothing in Scripture to support either of the latter positions, either.
And regardless of what Scripture says, we’re talking about shadings of beliefs among CHRISTIANS! It’s not like the cultural differences between Christians and Buddhists or Buddhists and Muslims, or Jews and Christians. There are, of course, very fundamental differences among those groups, and few Christians would expect to be welcomed and invited to participate, as guests, in those rites.
That’s Rev. Aday’s beef: She was among fellow Christians — all of whom believe in the power of Communion — and she was disinvited. It really doesn’t matter if she believes the bread and wine are the actual body and blood of Christ or whether they are symbols of the presence of Christ.
And all you’ve gotta do to find the right answer here is ask yourself this:
Would Jesus have put up a sign saying, “The bread and wine are only to be served to the Catholics”?
Since we can’t seriously believe that the Roman Catholic Church has the higher moral ground on anything of importance, this issue comes down to marketing. Catholic theology wants you to believe that what the Church offers you–symbolized by the transubstantiated body of Jesus—is so compelling and life-enriching that you will be moved to cast aside inferior beliefs and sign up for a lifetime subscription to The Vatican Rag. Of course, to do so, you have to ignore a whole lot of evil, hypocrisy and “near occasion of sin” from the Earthly ministers of the faith. They need to rebrand, like Domino’s Pizza did a few years back. “We know we’ve alienated our customers with our inferior product and our second-rate workforce, but we promise to get better—We’ll deliver you to heaven in 20 eons or less, or the wine (I mean, blood) is free.”
Thanks, Mike…This batch of comments (including mine) needed a sardonic interjection.
I do enjoy Mike’s humorous posting; he nailed it.
But, on a more serious side, to those who argue from the “Karen – we don’t want you/this is beyond your understanding,” POV, I request you to consider that this attitude, policy, doctrine of exclusion has impacted countless lives, by pushing apart many mixed couples bound for marriage.
Pious Catholic mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, meddling gatekeepers and church people have substituted doctrine, eclipsing love, and thus, altered the life course of so many. How many good people and good Christian acts that would have positively impacted our civilized journey would have emerged from these unions? How many stayed single? Not important. NO SOUP FOR YOU! NEXT!
Well, Ned, you know very well that the vast majority of non-Catholics headed for union with a Catholic bow to the wishes of those of “the one true faith” and convert. The “converters” do it mostly to keep the peace and have the blessing of the spouse or, more often, the spouse’s parents.
When I was still a Catholic I once “sponsored” a woman for entry into the Church, and she was only doing it to satisfy her husband’s (they were already married) wishes. She had no interest whatsoever in any religion — she was 100 percent secular — and contributed no reflective thoughts of any kind during the several-week process leading up to baptism. It was a waste of her time and my time, and I wish she would have just said, “No, you married me as I am and that’s the way it’s going to be.”
I don’t see a comment from “Ned.” There was another Jimmy who had a friend named Harvey he was always talking to…:-)
You’ve got your green eyeshade on today, BN…Edward E. Scott, an old friend of mine and a retired teacher in SMSD, goes by Ned. We’re pretty familiar around here…Hell, you might catch me calling you Mister Rogers.
Or you could get real familiar and just call BN Fred.
As for Mr. Scott, anyone who quotes The Soup Nazi (oooo, how’s that for a juxtaposition of subjects?!) is OK in my book.
Catholics are not allowed to receive Communion without religious training, commitment and acceptance of transubstantiation. Catholics can forfeit the right to receive Communion as well.
It seems a little petty to take offense that anyone visiting a Catholic church cannot receive its sacrament. A blessing from the priest is offered and that is more than just a waving of hands in the air in terms of the grace conferred.
Might be other motives in this, I don’t know. Maybe just sincerity derailed by religious naivety.
Appreciate that response Dennis. While I do understand the theology and tradition behind the RC denomination’s approach, I have always found it rude and inhospitable to deny access to the Lord’s table.
Gayle — Mr. Scott, or Ned, as some people call him, is the king of the non sequitur.