Outcry over Communion as ‘puppy chow’
ELCA Pastor Mark Lingle leads an Episcopal church in Connecticut that offers a monthly Communion service for "animal lovers and their pets"
© Pretty Good Lutherans
Many Christians believe that Jesus, the Good Shepherd, is present in Holy Communion.
That’s why some were outraged recently when a Canadian priest provided Communion to Trapper, a German Shepherd.
They flooded the Rev. Marguerite Rea of St. Peter’s Anglican Church in Toronto with a torrent of complaints. Rea apologized after her bishop joined the outcry.
Meanwhile, in Connecticut, an Episcopal church led by ELCA Pastor Mark Lingle, has held a monthly Communion service for “animal lovers and their pets” since 2003.
During the service, the pets receive a blessing, but not Communion, according to the website of the church, St. Francis Episcopal in Samford.
(CONTINUED)
Lingle, a graduate of Luther Seminary in Minnesota, couldn’t be reached for comment. The church’s website provides an explanation for the service from the Rev. Richard Mayberry, a Episcopal priest.
“The monthly communion service is much the same as our regular Sunday service, except that our four-legged friends can come along too and receive a blessing,” Mayberry is quoted as saying.
“For many people, their pets are more like family members than animals, and we want to help them celebrate these special relationships.”
An ELCA pastor in Iowa thinks the recent outcry against the Anglican priest in Canada is ridiculous.
“I’m not advocating a regular inclusion of animals in the celebration of Holy Communion,” said the Rev. Joelle Coville-Hanson, pastor of Salem Lutheran Church in Roland, Iowa.
“However, anytime Christians are upset at the idea that the wrong people and/or creatures are receiving the Body of Christ, I see a problem.”
LINKS
Read Pastor Coville-Hanson’s full column
Read about the Canadian priest
___________________________________________________
Thank you for visiting Pretty Good Lutherans. Come again!
The following individuals are known murder victims with ELCA ties killed since Pretty Good Lutherans was started in September 2009:
July 28th, 2010 at 9:53 am
Lutherans,
What’s the protocol for the ELCA? Does the ELCA policy clearly state that Holy Communion is species specific or has that always been assumed?
If, for some reason, someone brings a pet to Holy Communion, is the pastor supposed to:
a) ignore the pet
b) bless the pet
c) provide Holy Communion to the pet
I can’t imagine this question on any seminary exam.
Susan
July 28th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
A farmer named Muldoon lived alone in the countryside with a wee dog that he loved and doted on. After many long years of faithful companionship, the dog finally died, so Muldoon went to the parish priest:
“Father, my dear old dog is dead. Could you be saying a Mass for him?”
Father Patrick replied, “I am so very sorry to hear about your dog’s death. But, unfortunately, I can’t say Mass for the poor creature…”
Muldoon said, “I understand, Father, I do. I guess I’ll go to this new denomination down the road; no tellin’ what they believe… Do you think $500 is enough to donate for the service?”
Father Patrick: “Why didn’t you tell me your wee dog was Catholic?!”
July 28th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Good grief!! as Charlie Brown would say. Communing dogs is one of the silliest things I’ve heard of.
I suppose one could quote Jesus: “Do not give what is holy to dogs”(Matthew 7:6), but that opens one to the criticism of being a Biblical literalist. Or we might get into a battle of Bible verses with Matthew 15:27 quoted: “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
Lutherans teach that the Sacrament of the Altar “is the true Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus, under bread and wine, given to us Christians to eat and to drink.” It is the Body and Blood of Christ whether a person believes that it is or not. The Real Presence is dependent not on our faith, but on God’s Word. We do not give the Body and Blood of Christ to animals. The notion that giving the Sacrament to a dog is a matter of hospitality or welcome is just wrong.
When people with assistance dogs come to worship at the church I serve, we do anything we can to make that person welcome and to accommodate any special needs they have including getting a bowl of water for the dog. That’s hospitality. Communing dogs is sacrilege.
July 28th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Timothy,
I’m confused. Is that story a slam at Catholics? You are a sensitive person, but that story struck me as a wee bit insensitive.
Susan
July 28th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
For Lutherans the eating and drinking of the elements is not what conveys the grace and gifts of holy communion, but believing the words that are joined to the elements, “given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins.” (Luther’s Small Catechism) I assume that pets are not capable of such a belief. So if someone brought a pet to Holy Communion, I perhaps would bless the pet but not commune the pet.
July 28th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Siri,
Thank you for weighing in on the discussion.
Susan
July 28th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
She handed the dog a wafer. For Lutherans it is the words “given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins” along with the eating and drinking that make up the sacrament. I think Anglicans teach a little differently but for a Lutheran, handing a dog a wafer is not giving him communion. I think this is a much ado about nothing.
July 28th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
I’m with Joelle on this one – yet another example of the church missing the forest for the trees. And we wonder why more people don’t take the Christian faith seriously?
Also, Susan, I liked Timothy’s joke, and while it’s a slam at Catholics, you could just as easily make it Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist, whatever.
July 28th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Hi Scott,
Thanks for weighing in.
For some Catholic readers, it didn’t feel like a joke, but a hurtful dig. Catholics have nothing to do with the dog story. That story is about Episcopalians.
That’s all.
Kind regards,
Susan
July 28th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
Pr. Joelle, it wasn’t just a wafer given to the dog, but the true Body of our Lord Jesus Christ under the wafer.
“Even if a knave should receive or administer it, it is the true sacrament (that is, Christ’s body and blood) just as truly when one uses it worthily” (Large Catechism, V). “We hold that the bread and wine in the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ and that these are given and received not only by godly but wicked Christians” (Smalcald Articles, Part III, Article VI).
The sacrament does not benefit those who do not believe the word “given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins,” but it is still the sacrament. Efficacy does not change the sacramental reality. Giving dogs the sacrament is wrong. It is not “nothing” when the sacrament is misused.
July 28th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
I’ll go with Wayne’s first post in this case, and unabashedly grab onto a name “biblical literalist” like a burr to a wool coat.
Keep in mind, if we do not take this passage literally, we must ignore it completely or apply some interpretive hermaneutic to this passage, then we are saying that Jesus actually meant the term “dogs” to apply to certain people. The early church made this interpretive move and considered this exact verse to be applied to be the unbaptized with respect to receiving communion–cf. The Didache.
Regarding your question, Susan. The Use of the Means of Grace (ELCA, 1997) says in Principle 37, “Admission to the Sacrament [of Holy Communion] is by invitation of the Lord, presented through the Church to those who are baptized.”
Several other principles and applications within the document use the words person, adult, children, infants, etc. There is no specific enumeration of Homo Sapiens, but I think there is enough there to say it unquestionably implied.
July 28th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Joelle,
I don’t understand your parsing of this issue. The dog was included at the altar during communion distribution. As I read the news story, the words of institution had been said, and distribution begun, and as the priest was distributing the body and blood of Christ, the dog was included with a wafer (full communion, in both denominations.)
A spur of the moment gesture? yes. Was it in accord with our Lutheran/Episcopal teaching about the sacrament? No.
For most of us, I think it’s something about something. That something is that sacraments are means of grace for living human believers. Thus the uproar.
July 28th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Susan,
I thought the joke was aimed at human nature. In reading the dogs and communion story, I vaguely remembered this joke and googled it, receiving this Catholic version from a Catholic site. (Lots of jokes about rivalries among various Jesuits, Benedictines, Dominicans, Franciscans, etc) If I had time, I would change the joke to feature Lutherans with the punch line, “Why didn’t you tell me your dog was Lutheran!” My only hope was to give folks a laugh. Didn’t mean to slam anyone or be offensive.
Tim
July 28th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
None other than Martin Luther speaks of the dog eyeing a piece of meat as the model for a person’s faith in Christ.
Luther also told the story of the dog who – let’s say – “lifted his leg” above a holy water pot left on the ground during a burial presided over by some bishop (I think it was). The clergyman’s response, “Has the whole world become Lutheran?”
Also, obviously “dog” is “god” backwards.
So, if we take these notions literally, “we give what is holy to the dogs,” if by ‘dogs’ , we mean Lutherans.
Otherwise, if the dog was offered consecrated bread, then he did in fact receive the body of Christ. Coincidentally, one of the historic Lutheran tensions with Anglican doctrines of the Eucharist is the insistence of the Lutheran Confession’s Formula of Concord that the unworthy and unbelieving do receive the body of Christ. Historic Anglican doctrine says these do not receive anything but bread.
In my estimation, both the dog and its Creator would prefer the presider offer a nice scratch behind the ears.
July 28th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Hey Pastor Jim,
Thanks for your comments.
Susan
July 28th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Hi TIm,
Thanks for writing back. I’m sure the folks who wrote to me will be grateful to hear your comments.
Kind regards,
Susan
July 28th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
I wouldn’t advocate giving Communion to a pet. However, we had a member with dementia bring his dog to church one Sunday. During Communion, the member brought the pet forward, and the pastor blessed the dog, something like “may God bless Benji as your companion in this world.” This meant so much to the member. Again, I wouldn’t suggest giving Communion to the pet, but the blessing of a pet in this case seemed to be appropriate.
July 28th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Hi Tracy,
Thanks for your comments.
Susan
July 28th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
And another thing. Everybody who was there save one person thought it was the appropriate thing to do for the context. What is with Christians second guessing and criticizing their fellow Christians without having been there and knowing the situation. Is that what we do now as Christians?
July 28th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Gee, I hope questions are always welcome. I worry when people become overly defensive because questions are being asked. Questioning to understand a situation isn’t the same as criticizing.
July 28th, 2010 at 7:21 pm
I’ll start by saying that I wasn’t there and don’t the the situation. But I wouldn’t feel comfortable giving a communion wafer to a dog, and I love my dog. We have had an animal blessing here for the past three years. I would certainly acknowledge the presence of the dog and give a blessing, as we do at our blessing service.
I’m not here to criticize what the pastor did, just to say what I would do.
I am more in line with Pastor Jim’s thinking on this.
July 28th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
Communing an animal? No way. Blessing an animal? Sure.
But the sacrament – a means of grace, the real presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, his body and blood – is received by the faithful. Receiving the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is act of faith for people of faith. If our sacrament were a mere symbol or sign, there would be less of an issue with sharing it with an animal. But we Lutherans teach and believe that the bread and wine of Holy Communion carry within its elements The. Real. Presence. of our Lord. Sorry, but I wouldn’t commune an animal.
See: “The Use of the Means of Grace: A Statement on the Practice of Word and Sacrament” (link below), particularly Principle 37: The Holy Communion is Given to the Baptized. “Admission to the Sacrament is by invitation of the Lord, presented through the Church to those who are baptized.”
See also: Principle 33: Jesus Christ is Truly Present in this Sacrament. From Principle 33, “In this sacrament the crucified and risen Christ is truly present, giving his true body and blood as food and drink. This real presence is a mystery.”
http://www.elca.org/Growing-In-Faith/Worship/Learning-Center/The-Use-of-the-Means-of-Grace.aspx
July 28th, 2010 at 9:35 pm
This is a prime example of communion-as-welcome theology going off the deep end. We gather to receive the forgiveness of Christ and celebrate the new life his forgiveness brings. While that includes all sinners who seek these gifts, it does not include pets!
I think most Lutherans agree that a blessing for cherished pets is fine.
July 29th, 2010 at 7:52 am
And let’s not forget this Anglican, Christopher Smart, whose poetry was put to music by Benjamin Britten in the Cantata, Rejoice in the Lamb:
From “Jubilate Agno”
For I will consider my Cat Jeoffry.
For he is the servant of the Living God, duly and daily serving him.
For at the first glance of the glory of God in the East he worships in his way.
For is this done by wreathing his body seven times round with elegant quickness.
For then he leaps up to catch the musk, which is the blessing of God upon
**his prayer.
For he rolls upon prank to work it in.
For having done duty and received blessing he begins to consider himself.
For this he performs in ten degrees.
For first he looks upon his forepaws to see if they are clean.
For secondly he kicks up behind to clear away there.
For thirdly he works it upon stretch with the forepaws extended.
For fourthly he sharpens his paws by wood.
For fifthly he washes himself.
For sixthly he rolls upon wash.
For seventhly he fleas himself, that he may not be interrupted upon the beat.
For eighthly he rubs himself against a post.
For ninthly he looks up for his instructions.
For tenthly he goes in quest of food.
For having considered God and himself he will consider his neighbor.
For if he meets another cat he will kiss her in kindness.
For when he takes his prey he plays with it to give it a chance.
For one mouse in seven escapes by his dallying.
For when his day’s work is done his business more properly begins.
For he keeps the Lord’s watch in the night against the adversary.
For he counteracts the powers of darkness by his electrical skin and glaring eyes.
For he counteracts the Devil, who is death, by brisking about the life.
For in his morning orisons he loves the sun and the sun loves him.
For he is of the tribe of Tiger.
For the Cherub Cat is a term of the Angel Tiger.
For he has the subtlety and hissing of a serpent, which in goodness
**he suppresses.
For he will not do destruction if he is well-fed, neither will he spit
**without provocation.
For he purrs in thankfulness when God tells him he’s a good Cat.
For he is an instrument for the children to learn benevolence upon.
For every house is incomplete without him, and a blessing is lacking in the spirit.
For the Lord commanded Moses concerning the cats at the departure of
**the Children of Israel from Egypt.
For every family had one cat at least in the bag.
For the English Cats are the best in Europe.
For he is the cleanest in the use of his forepaws of any quadruped.
For the dexterity of his defense is an instance of the love of God
**to him exceedingly.
For he is the quickest to his mark of any creature.
For he is tenacious of his point.
For he is a mixture of gravity and waggery.
For he knows that God is his Saviour.
For there is nothing sweeter than his peace when at rest.
For there is nothing brisker than his life when in motion.
For he is of the Lord’s poor, and so indeed is he called by benevolence
**perpetually—Poor Jeoffry! poor Jeoffry! the rat has bit thy throat.
For I bless the name of the Lord Jesus that Jeoffry is better.
For the divine spirit comes about his body to sustain it in complete cat.
For his tongue is exceeding pure so that it has in purity what it wants in music.
For he is docile and can learn certain things.
For he can sit up with gravity, which is patience upon approbation.
For he can fetch and carry, which is patience in employment.
For he can jump over a stick, which is patience upon proof positive.
For he can spraggle upon waggle at the word of command.
For he can jump from an eminence into his master’s bosom.
For he can catch the cork and toss it again.
For he is hated by the hypocrite and miser.
For the former is afraid of detection.
For the latter refuses the charge.
For he camels his back to bear the first notion of business.
For he is good to think on, if a man would express himself neatly.
For he made a great figure in Egypt for his signal services.
For he killed the Icneumon rat, very pernicious by land.
For his ears are so acute that they sting again.
For from this proceeds the passing quickness of his attention.
For by stroking of him I have found out electricity.
For I perceived God’s light about him both wax and fire.
For the electrical fire is the spiritual substance which God sends from heaven
**to sustain the bodies both of man and beast.
For God has blessed him in the variety of his movements.
For, though he cannot fly, he is an excellent clamberer.
For his motions upon the face of the earth are more than any other quadruped.
For he can tread to all the measures upon the music.
For he can swim for life.
For he can creep.
July 29th, 2010 at 7:54 am
I am torn on this one. If all creation praises God (Isaiah 55:1 — the trees of the field, Revelation 5:13 — all living creatures in the universe, Psalm 148), then perhaps to say animals have faith is not a matter of whether or not they can understand human language and can rationalize the promise contained in the sacrament.
In many ways I think the other creatures in Creation know better than we do the things God has done. That being said, I am not sure that animals need the sacraments in the way we do.
Though, in the story of Noah we are told of the redemption of all flesh on earth, which is recalled as part of our baptismal liturgy. Still the rest of creation does not need the promise of forgiveness of sin through the water, bread and wine.
I am not sure giving the sacrament to an animal is harmful in the act of doing so; it is mostly in what it communicates about why we share the Eucharist in the first place.
At my church we dispose of the elements by consuming them or allowing them to return to the earth. When we put the bread out on the ground the birds may come and consume it. In any case it has been returned to creation.
So, dogs at communion — I don’t know. But I am confident that God will work it out.
July 29th, 2010 at 8:40 am
The defining role of those ordained to Word and Sacrament ministry is to steward the right and good order of these holy and life-giving things of God for the sake of the world God loves.
In theory we may know certain things. In practice, sometimes we just learn by experience.
I’ve enjoyed the give and take here and terrific theological positions. What I’ve discovered is the table itself is a horrible place to have to make those split-second decisions, and not the best place to hold a theological discussion. Denying folks at the table even for good theological and pastoral reasons feels bad. Potentially not treating the sacrament with holy reverance feels bad. I’ve done both, I confess. In my pastoral experience what has worked best for me in the midst of awkwardness is extending maximum grace and hospitality in the table moment and cleaning up — holding both the individual and communal conversations and discernments that will ensue — afterward. For me this enacts most closely what the sacrament does; covering myself and the community in forgiveness and grace in a real world of constant trial and error.
While my role gives me ultimate temporal authority, the sacrament is gifted to and for the community. Hopefully, our communities can bear the consequences of erring on the side of grace for both myself and the recipient and these occasions can become what they have now been in this case for the extended cyber-community: a rich opportunity to reflect on the gift of God’s presence and self-giving love in Word made flesh dwelling among us, and the mystery of the finite being capable of bearing the infinite, and death and resurrection for a whole creation that labors and groans toward redemption.
July 29th, 2010 at 8:47 am
If the dog was an energetic three year old child visting for the first time with parents that you did not know, would everyone have enthusiastically placed bread in her outstretched hand?
A young child is not a dog, but I sady see the barriers we set up (arbitrary ages or school grades attained) or layers of instruction as a pre-requisite (instruction is supposed to “accompany” communing which is a splendid word that many, I think, tend to interpret rather narrowly.
July 29th, 2010 at 11:40 am
The issue many of us seem to be dancing around is whether or not the pastor in question deserved public censure, or even private admonishment. Frankly, I don’t think she deserved either one.
It’s easy for us to sit and critique from a distance what happened in an instant. Would I, in that position, have done the same thing? Possibly, though upon reflection I think a blessing is far more appropriate, and should such a situation arise this is the course of action I’ll take. There is, however, no way we can prepare mentally for every single decision to be made in the course of a career in ministry, especially one which seems so improbable as the one this pastor faced.
I feel compelled to consider the end result. The dog received a bit of bread, which likely did no damage. The pastor possibly made a mistake in the service of welcoming a stranger into the church. Our Lord was willing to go to the cross for sinners: going to the dogs is somehow worse? Not in my book – in this instance, no harm, no foul for me. I find the reaction by the congregants to be really uncharitable in this case.
I can tell you from personal experience that refusing to commune someone is a terribly hard thing to do. In my opinion we’ve got far more important things to worry about than whether or not anyone, including our Lord, would be harmed if communion went to someone or something for which it wasn’t directly intended. Being kind isn’t sacrilege.
July 29th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Many thanks!
July 29th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
This was not a situation of pastor agonizing of whether or not to give communion to someone and then making the worse or better of two possible choices.
This was a dog. And there is no choice to be made. This is not a “shade of grey” situation. Communion for dogs ought not even be a real question. It should sound shockingly like utter nonsense in our ears.
This pastor did not heed what she most certainly knows. I’m all for the forgiveness for pastors when we make mistakes. And as a thanksgiving for that forgiveness, I think we ought do our very, very best to avoid mistakes that turn what God has given us in Communion into a banally cute Kodak moment.
July 30th, 2010 at 9:52 am
The following article was published in the March 1, 1983 issue of __Perspectives in Religious Studies_. I ran across it in seminary when I was avoiding doing real work (Hey, that’s what I’m doing right now!!) Look it up in EBSCOHOST — it’s real!!
COMMUNION FOR DOGS (ABENDMAHL FÜR HUNDE) by Charles M. Nielsen, Colgate Divinity School
This is the kairos for canine communion, a theological event of great power and meaning, and not only because it can be expressed in German. It will unite the churches, bolster love and understanding, increase membership and save the Ecumenical Movement. Most liberals and all radicals will accept the idea because they tend to embrace anything new, liberation theologians will want to liberate what is left to be liberated, and some liberals, conservatives and neo-orthodox will be forced to accept communion for dogs because of our careful and persuasive interpretation of biblical and historical texts. Note Singer’s symptomatic title, Animal Liberation,
In our context, kairos simply means that every dog has its day and this is it.
And so on for 10 pages — It is, however, a LOT tongue in cheek and filled with horrible puns.
August 8th, 2010 at 4:58 am
There has to be a limit to this pets and animals trend. Animal blessing on the Feast of St. Francis Assisi, fine. Dogs at the Eucharist, let’s draw a line right about there.