DScottD, I can certainly understand you reasoning, on the level of you interpreting the symbolism of your religion in a particular way, because you are Catholic. But isn't what Clinton was doing simply a gesture of respect? Is it dishonorable or insulting for him to have done that? And is it true that in Africa, which for one thing had to incorporate pagan ritual into its churches to convert the natives, things might be more flexible? If so, does Cardinal O'Connor have any authority in the matter?
One thing that has always fascinated me about Catholicism is its willingness to experiment with new rituals. For example, when I was in college suddenly everything was in English and there were guitar players!! In South America for quite awhile, the priests were leftist rabble rousers, much like Jesus was, fomenting social change. I was therefore perhaps assuming the same flexibility would apply in this situation.
I think it is difficult for some Protestants to understand that not everyone is always eligible for Holy Communion. At least at my Protestant church when I was a child, all sinners were welcome and encouraged in every part of the service. One thing that intrigues me is whether Clinton did this not to embarrass his hosts, or for some potential political advantage.
I think for a some people, this may be objectionable on some of the same grounds they were offended when Billy Graham seemed to excuse Clinton's sins.
On a personal level, my husband is a Catholic from Northern Ireland, a place where religious hatred has caused one tragedy after another for hundreds of years. So I am always hoping that less distance between the ways people worship will take hold, and examining some of the prohibitions about rituals might help there. You know, inclusive rather than exclusive. |
