If the National (not very) Catholic Reporter could be embarrassed...

This article, "What makes our bishops think they own the Eucharist?" would do it. Alas. 

Let's look at this penetrating commentary together, shall we?

To be fair, headlines are usually written by the editor, who clearly was too busy, or else he/she/they/it/erm would surely have seen greater merit in other options:

"You can't make me!"

"Who died and made you the boss of us, bishops?"

"I know you are but what am I?"

But if we ascribe to this mindset a seriousness that is doubtfully there, we might translate this headline to, "Why do the bishops think they get to make these decisions?" But of course, that takes Marianne Duddy-Burke nowhere she wants to go. Who did Jesus put in charge of his Church? The Apostles. And guess who succeeds them? Er ... the bishops? But gosh, the NCR still has a lot of space to fill; now what?

Ms./Mr./Mx. Duddy-Burke is terribly concerned with people not receiving Holy Communion if they "support legal abortion" or redefining marriage and other things. But Duddy-Burke thinks it's entirely too silly a question to even ask why any of these things (or anything else) would even raise an issue of someone not being allowed to receive Holy Communion. Which raises the first question I'd want to ask these folks who get the vapors at the thought of a politician or anyone being denied communion:

"Are there ever any circumstances under which a bishop rightfully ought to bar giving someone Holy Communion?" But of course Duddy-Burke and the NCR crowd never, never poses this question. Why so incurious?

Because, of course, that again leads somewhere they do not want to go; namely, to a discussion of just what those situations might be; and why facilitating the destruction of unborn children isn't worthy to include in that list.

Instead, Duddy-Burke takes us on a tour of church history. According to her, in those happy, olden-golden days of yore, "What we now know as Holy Communion originated in a home-based religious ritual, the Passover Seder, which is still a sacred celebration marked by Jews and friends in their homes."

And, of course, there was never any question of allowing absolutely everyone to take part in the Passover seder -- everyone knows that! Right?

The LORD said to Moses and Aaron: This is the Passover statute. No foreigner may eat of it. However, every slave bought for money you will circumcise; then he may eat of it. But no tenant or hired worker may eat of it. It must be eaten in one house; you may not take any of its meat outside the house.k You shall not break any of its bones. The whole community of Israel must celebrate this feast. If any alien residing among you would celebrate the Passover for the LORD, all his males must be circumcised, and then he may join in its celebration just like the natives. But no one who is uncircumcised may eat of it (Exodus 12:43-48).

Oops. Well, maybe Duddy-Burke needs to do a little more studying. She/he/yrm may want to check out the Didache, from the period she is describing:

But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs  (Chapter 9).

Or St. Justin Martyr:

The Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. 

Oops again!

Well, Duddy-Burke is not faint of heart, and plows on, rejecting seeing "the Eucharist ... as something we 'receive,' rather than something we are vitally and essentially part of creating, sharing, and responding to. Something we are — the body of Christ." Not wrong; but a little fuzzy. She also laments that the Eucharist came to be "administered only by the clerical caste," whereas rightfully, quoting theologian Thomas Groome, the Eucharist "is the work of the whole community. By the power and presence of the Holy Spirit in the community, the assembly acts in union with Christ to realize again the Risen One's eucharistic presence in its midst."

Say, did you notice something? No mention of a priest being involved in the Eucharist! How about that! Look again: it's the "whole community," the "assembly," "in union with Christ" that confects the Eucharist.

How about that! I can go to brunch on Sundays!

But this raises a question for Duddy-Burke: if you don't need a priest to have the Eucharist, why are you complaining? According to you, you can stay home, with your friends, and have a nice seder-sort-of-meal, and have the Eucharist. No meanie bishops being mean to "shroud" everything with "mystery and taboo." Scary!

Seriously: why does Duddy-Burke even care what those dastardly bishops and their "clerical caste" have to say? Everyone can have the Eucharist any way he/she/gorm wants!

Shorter Duddy-Burke article:

D-B: You mean, terrible bishops, you won't let me and my friends have the Eucharist!

Bishops: But you just said you don't need us; you can celebrate the Eucharist without us.

D-B: Haters! (Blocked on twitter.)