‘He consumed it’


 

The Prime Minister’s Office, in response to this report, says Mr. Harper did indeed eat the communion wafer at Romeo LeBlanc’s funeral. The video evidence is inconclusive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTH9b6YJ6mc


 

‘He consumed it’

    • The video does not show the PM consuming the host, although it shows him taking it. Consumption of the host by anyone not in good standing with the Church is wrong – but does happen, through misunderstanding. It is not a mortal sin if there is no intent to sin. Destroying a host otherwise, though, is an act of sacrilege, and one hope the PM knew better.

      • He made the active decision to rise, go forward to receive the host, and took it but, unlike everyone else, did not eat it. At least not until after he had left the pew which would be very odd.

        I've been to a few Roman Catholic services and the priest is always very clear about clarifying who can come forward to receive the host before asking the congregation who would come forward to receive it.

        It seems pretty clear to me that Harper went in for the photo opportunity and not out of naivete or ignorance. He knew enough not to eat it, so why did he take it in the first place and what did he do with the host?

        • Well…initially I thought it was no big deal…but he does seem pretty cavalier about it…he could've done the respectful thing and refused it instead of receiving it like it was pocket change (and thanking the priest for the loonie)

          • it is incredible austinso. dude, totally looks like he is waiting for his change at starbucks.

          • Like "Here's your Nickel Back"?

          • worst. band. ever. (or right up there anyways).

    • If you're not Roman Catholic, how is it a sin to eat it? If you don't believe in transubstantiation, it's just a cracker.

      • because if you don't beleive you have no business taking it in that system. pretty simple.

  1. What this story fails to report is that later Mr Harper tried to cash in at the Casino Bank.

  2. Another journalistic triumph from the paper published by Paul Zed's nephew.

    • It's a video, not a newspaper. Do try to keep up.

  3. Now the problem is that the PMO is lying about it.

    Can't take Harper anywhere anymore when his handlers can't control his every move. Still, it's a little surprising that Harper wouldn't know about non-Catholics not taking communion. But then, he took it like it was a receipt from Tim Horton's, so maybe he really is just that unaware.

    • I'm not Catholic (but like PM Steve was raised in the United Church with Presbyterian influences) and I took communion at a friend's wedding in a Catherdral. I didn't realise it was inappropriate for a non-Catholic and I don't remember the priest having mentioned that it was for members of the Holy Mother Church exclusively.

      So, while I'm no fan at all of PM Steve, he might very well have not known he was excluded from taking communion. If he did take the host then he should have consumed it.

      • He knew what he was doing. Or else he would have eaten it right away.

        Look at the first bit of the clip. It is clear that the priest has just called all to come forward to receive the host. You can see some staying put but making room for others to squeeze by and go up.

        Even if this was a mistake, it is still a sacrilege and he should apologize. Christians can be very forgiving for genuine atonement.

      • I've been to several Catholic events and the priest has never made it clear that you had to be Catholic to take communion. I've never done it, but I thought it was a personal choice rather than 'non-Catholics are not allowed.'

        • I've been to several as well and the priest never says and never would say "non-Catholics are not allowed" because it goes beyond even that. At weddings and funerals they do sometimes explain it better and more clearly but not alwasy. I forget the exact wording they always do say is you have to be baptized in the Church and in good standing with the Church to receive communion.

          Given the very public discussion about Prime Minister Martin and other Liberal and NDP and Bloc MPs being denied communion in the last few years because of his belief in a woman's right to choose, I don't for a second think that Harper didn't know exactly what he was doing. The fact that he received it but did not consume it confirms that even more.

  4. Maybe he wanted to scalp it to any closet-catholic Liberal, NDP, or Bloc MP that might need a fix? Aren't they denied communion for their anti-church positions on abortion and same sex marriage?

    • There's humour there…you just have to work on it and not drag in a hugely controversial issue that's dividing Catholics (not abortion, but who's in communion or not).

      Hey, maybe that's what Harper's trying to do? Damn, that Vulcan chess is hard.

  5. Harper can't claim ignorance: he knew enough not to eat it once he had taken it. The PMO is claiming that he did eat it, but clearly he was walking away from the pew without having done so.

    My guess is that he wanted to be seen to be religious – if refuse the host, you are basically admitting you're not in good standing with the Church – but as an evangelical, he didn't want to actually eat it, which would have been even worse pandering than receiving it.

    It'is a mess. And it's a personal mess. And it can't be resolved by PMO spin. It was Stephen Harper who took the host when he should'nt have; Harper who either cavalierly tossed the body of Christ into his pocket – a sacrilege and mortal sin – or who, later after the ceremony for some reason, decided to eat the host when he should not have.

    Any way you slice or dice this, it is a personal issue arising from his personal actions and so it is Stephen Harper and not the PMO who needs to address this very serious issue and problem.

  6. At a Catholic funeral it is perfectly acceptable to remain in your pew when communion is called if you’re not baptized in the Catholic church. You might get a few “heathen” looks, but nothing like the ones you’d get if you ate the host and people found out.

    I have no doubts that there would be several people in attendance who didn’t get up for communion, it’s not like Harper would have been the odd man out if he followed religious procedure and sat it out.

    • Jenn:

      Sorry but you clearly have no idea about the importance of the host. It is very insulting in fact to call it a "cookie". Once consecrated, it is not "symbolic". It becomes the body of Christ and the consecrated wine becomes the blood of Christ. It is an incredibly important rite in the Orthodox and Roman Catholic faiths. It is only Protestant Christians who speak of it as a "symbolic" or "representational". And to go further and call it merely a "cookie" is deeply and deliberately offensive.

    • Sorry Jenn. These comments were meant for Baldygirl. Not you.

    • It's also expected that you not receive the sacrament if you believe yourself to be currently
      in a state of sin. That raises any number of other possibilities for discussion.

  7. If a non-Catholic goes up to receive the Host at Communion they should cross their arms on their chest and they will receive a blessing from the Priest. Also, non-Catholics are always welcome to attend Catholic Service without attending Communion.

    And clear Catholic rules is: Non-Baptized Catholics should not receive Communion

    However, accepting a Communion Host and desecrating it but both placing it in his pocket or consumming it (as a non Baptized Catholic) just shows a low level of education to the level of a lack of fit for Office.

    This is a big failure by both Stephen and Stephen's Protocol Advisors

    • it was certainly a mistake and probably not brought on by ignorance. but not knowing the intracies of a religious ritual, especially a religion you don't practice, hardly makes one unfit for office.

      • Regardless of what Harper apologists who have now gone into a full panic mode are saying

        This is a substantial issue – which will obviously mean more to Catholics than non-Catholics, and intelligent people who respect multi-faith protocols than agnostics.

        Stephen Harper could easily have asked Jason Kenney (a Roman Catholic) what to do if he cared…. Read More

        Not knowing how to handle communion is a basic thing, not an intricate issue like who was the last six Popes. C'mon, now.

        Stephen made a positive action to go up and receive Communion.

        Somehow I am reminded of Kim Campbell's infamous "ward off the evil demons of the papacy" comment

      • Regardless of what Harper apologists who have now gone into a full panic mode are saying

        This is a substantial issue – which will obviously mean more to Catholics than non-Catholics, and intelligent people who respect multi-faith protocols than agnostics.

        Stephen Harper could easily have asked Jason Kenney (a Roman Catholic) what to do if he cared….

        Not knowing how to handle Communion is a basic thing, not an intricate issue like who was the last six Popes. C'mon, now.

        Stephen made a positive action to go up and receive Communion.

        Somehow I am reminded of Kim Campbell's infamous "ward off the evil demons of the Papacy" comment

        • The details of how a cookie is handled before it supposedly becomes the body of christ is of no value to non-Catholics, and of interest only to a few. Only the issues of protocol and politeness are at issue beyond that.

  8. I can't believe there's a discussion going on here about a cookie. A symbolic cookie, but a cookie nonetheless. And here I've come and done the same.

    "He ate the cookie . . . . He didn't eat the cookie . . . . He shouldn't have asked for the cookie."

    Whatever. It's a freakin' cookie. There are more important things to waste keystrokes on.

    • From the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://liberalvideodepot.blogspot.com/2009/07/kra

      Real sacrilege

      Real sacrilege is the irreverent treatment of sacred things as distinguished from places and persons. This can happen first of all by the administration or reception of the sacraments (or in the case of the Holy Eucharist by celebration) in the state of mortal sin, as also by advertently doing any of those things invalidly. Indeed deliberate and notable irreverence towards the Holy Eucharist is reputed to be the worst of all sacrileges. Likewise conscious maltreatment of sacred pictures or relics or perversion of Holy Scripture or sacred vessels to unhallowed uses, and finally, the usurpation or diverting of property (whether movable or immovable) intended for the maintenance of the clergy or serving for the ornamentation of the church to other uses, constitute real sacrileges. Sometimes the guilt of sacrilege may be incurred by omitting what is required for the proper administration of the sacraments or celebration of the sacrifice, as for example, if one were to say Mass without the sacred vestments.

    • Baldygirl:

      Sorry but you clearly have no idea about the importance of the host. It is very insulting in fact to call it a "cookie". Once consecrated, it is not "symbolic". It becomes the body of Christ and the consecrated wine becomes the blood of Christ. It is an incredibly important rite in the Orthodox and Roman Catholic faiths. It is only Protestant Christians who speak of it as a "symbolic" or "representational". And to go further and call it merely a "cookie" is deeply and deliberately offensive.

    • "Whatever. It's a freakin' cookie. There are more important things to waste keystrokes on. "

      How many keystrokes did it take to tell us that?

      • You'll note I pointed out how ridiculous it was that I, myself, was adding to this. But I really think there are more important things and I find it bizarre that such a big deal is being made over this when Harper has done things to harm the rights of women and to belittle impoverished folks in this country. Did he take the host? Did he eat it? Man alive. Who cares? And if you DO believe in some magic ghosty figure up there who's going to punish Stephen for NOT eating the flesh of his son OR for eating it, or whatever, why don't you just simmer down and realise that if there's any real harm to eating the forbidden host Stephen will suffer the consequences UP THERE. There's a whole lot of chastising that's being done here for something that was probably an attempt at Harper to fit in and appear more human.

    • You're ignorance is just so charming.

    • Hey, baldygirl. I just want to say that, while I agree with Former Catholic that your post is "deeply and deliberately offensive", that's pretty much what I like about it. People are too afraid to be offensive these days, or at least to seem offensive. You keep on offending.

      • Thanks, Not Stephen.

        While the point wasn't to be deeply/deliberately offensive, I just wonder why THIS, of all things, is so offensive to people. That my wonder is perceived to be offensive is interesting in and of itself. Really, it's participation in a wholly symbolic practice. People who study comparative religion (I'm not one of them, but I'm just saying), they would note that most religions have practices that boggle outsiders. Maybe Stephen genuinely didn't know what he was doing. WHO CARES? Frankly, I think that people who profess to be Christian should not be so bloody judgmental. 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.' Or something like that . . .

        Oh no, DUCK!

        • It's not about whether or not you believe, it's about respecting the beliefs of others. You don't seem to get that.
          And I do study comparative religions.

  9. From Code of Canon (Latin Rite Code canon 1367; Eastern Rite Code canon 1442):

    "As Christians believe Jesus to be true God and true man, his body and blood in the form of the consecrated host are adored in the Catholic Church. Theft, sale, or use of the hose for a profane purpose is considered a grave sin and sacrilege."

    • I think you may be replying to the wrong post.

  10. From Code of Canon, Latin Rite Code canon 1367; Eastern Rite Code canon 1442:

    "As Christians believe Jesus to be true God and true man, his body and blood in the form of the consecrated host are adored in the Catholic Church. Theft, sale, or use of the hose for a profane purpose is considered a grave sin and sacrilege."

  11. Wafergate, Part IV.

    Maybe when Harper meets the Pope in a few days he can ask the Holy Father for forgiveness.

    • Any priest would suffice.

    • Yeah, maybe he'll give the wafer back to the Pope.

      • "Uh, yeah, I sort of happened to come into possession of this piece of the Saviour's flesh the other day, and I've been carrying it around in my pocket ever since. Very awkward – the guy didn't give very good instructions and now everyone's got all sorts of questions, again…anyway, is there something you can do with this?"

  12. Well, he certainly made sure he understood protocol at Jewish events – he wants their support and votes….I guess because he's Christian (evangelical) he automatically gets their vote.

    How many times has Harper shown how backwards and unaware he is.

  13. hey this is good! what is it? the body of…wWHAT?? ew! ew! ew! peh! yuck!

  14. I really hope this is a headline tomorrow/tonight:

    "PM COMMITS SACRILEGE"

    amazing!!!!! ahahhahaaa

  15. The fault for this lies with the priest. Harper wouldn't have known; the priest should have (a) made an announcement prior to communion that non-Catholics and Catholics not in good standing should refrain from receiving, and (b) passed over Harper.

    Given the state of the church in Quebec, none of this is particularly surprising. It's likely most of the people in the church that day should not have received communion.

    • Ah, Harper is suppose to statemanlike at events and should ask the right protocol on things he's not familiar with – Harper thinks he knows all – boy he's an embarrassment.

    • Don't follow where you are going with the Quebec reference, the funeral was in New Brunswick.

      It is really not all that hard to understand – I was never baptized Catholic so have always just stayed in my pew when the ceremony was taking place.

    • Right. Blame the priest. Not Harper's fault. Never is. Where have we heard that pass the buck response before. Isn't there a staffer somewhere he can fire for this?

      There clearly was an announcement. Look at the beginning of the video. It's clear that lots of people did not actively seek out receiving the host like Harper did.

      Look at Harper himself. He reaches out to the priest before the priest even turns to him.

      And the fact that Harper knew enough to toss it into his pocket instead of consume it.

      But even if he didn't know, the receiving of the host is, for Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christians, a sacrilege. He should be apologizing no matter what.

    • Sorry Gaunilon but protocol offices exist for a reason.

  16. Oops, you are correct. Same statement applies to NB though.

    • In other words, when you're wrong you're still right.

      You're supposed to outgrow that by the time your 12, you know.

    • The priests of New Brunswick are notoriously lax? I must confess I did not know that.

      • Nor did they.

  17. oops. meant to say: "receiving of the host is, for Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christians, a sacrilege if you are not baptized in the Church and in good standing"

  18. Who cares…..

  19. What an idiodic move. How does Harper not know that if you are NOT catholic you do not take the host?! Every educated person knows that. Uggh I'm appaled yet again.

  20. Clearly it's time to dust off and revitalize another great Catholic tradition ….. The Inquisition.

    I know it's outsourced some of its' core functions lately but the great tradition is still there.

    • "Clearly it's time to dust off and revitalize another great Catholic tradition ….. The Inquisition"

      Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

      Sorry, just had to write it.

  21. This is so offensive. Please stop this thread.

    Yes, he made a mistake, but this is about my faith, and the faith of many other Catholics. This is not fodder for idiots who want to turn it into political games.

  22. I don't know if things have changed in the Church but when my grandmother took me to church when I was young, you had to fast for a couple of hours prior to the Mass and you had to be sin-free, so confession was also a must, before you were allowed to take Communion. Someone pointed out earlier that Protestants, and other religions, are meant to cross their arms and Priest will bless you.

    • I've done that. Being blessed is quite nice.

  23. OK, so let's check the scorecard so far.

    Whenever a Conservative gets bad press:

    6. Claim this is no big deal, an invented story – check
    5. Say this is the result of hypocritical Liberal spin – check
    4. Say this is the result of liberal-biased media – check
    3. Blame it on someone else – check (the priest)
    2. If it still won't go away, fire a staffer – pending?
    1. If it still won't go away, start talking about the sponsorship scandal, promises to cancel the GST, Shawinigate, HRDC boondoggle, the NEP and Pierre Elliott Trudeau – No sign yet

    So we are currently at DefCon (i.e. Defend Conservatives) 3, and holding.

    • You forgot no. 7: The video was altered, we have the experts to say it was altered and this will be the Liberal leader's biggest mistake.

      You only get an A, not A+, sorry.

    • First Place for Public Service goes to Ted.

    • you also forgot 8. [put name here] did it first.

  24. by consumed I'm guessing that is like being consumed by vapours – ie in the trash where it was "consumed" ie destroyed.

  25. This is a total non-issue.

    I can hardly believe that I am about to click on 'Submit Comment'

  26. So are faces red now? Are any newspapers editors, owners, going to send out their investiagive reporters to find out just who and why on the NB newspaper altered the story and inserted those lies? Did the perpetrators of this lie get a reward and from whom? Why will no one on the newspaper answer questions? Are the media afraid of the answers? The only conclusion is that it was a Liberal conspiracy directed against Prime Minister Harper who is doing such a good job for Canada that they have to resort to lies in order to attack him.