Agreed.

Host o' quiddick?

Tempest in a chalice.

I like Pearlygate.

Someone in the previous thread came up with it.

Actually..........Lutherans also beleive it is the actual body of Christ, and they are Protestant.

I'm afraid a visit from our own brown-shirted, jack-booted, gauleiters of the various human rights commissions is to be expected in the near future.

Let's keep our fingers crossed.

I'd stand by "its just a cracker" I think that those who get upset by it, be they athiest journalists who are trying to score points against the PM or religious zealots who play offended should have a nice piece of brie and a glass of Pinot Noir with it and mellow out.

Tell Jenny Lynch that you talk thru a mediator by the name of Ezra Levant.

All conversations between the two shall be direct and oh yes......CTV is invited :)

I guess if they can call the body of Christ a "cracker" they can keep calling my sons the same thing in high school. Some of the things they get called and told are, Foffcracker, its our country now cracker, we gonna do your white chick cracker, all this time I thought they were referring to a T.V. British detective.

Well, actually, in the Greek Catholic tradition (there were occasions where the Romans got just a little bit too full of themselves), it's a little cube of bread, so I've decided on biscuit as a compromise phrasing, in order to avoid annoying anyone. But the important thing to remember, folks, is that there's booze involved. It's those danm puritans who are the problem!

Speaking of Jenny and the HRC, this Tory is doing a good job of making this pack of morons look like the pack of manipulative nazi-like brownshirts they really are:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlhAY_T5QAY&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fezralevant.com%2F&feature=player_embedded

These pack of morons are at the point of treason IMHO. Hey if they don't agree with me, doesn't that make the guilty of hate speech?

Yes, vitruvius, there's booze involved, and that brings to mine,

'The vessel with the pestle has the potion that is poison;
The chalice with the palace has the brew that is true'.

Or is it the other way around?

I think Kate is correct to use the term 'cracker', for it shows the hypocrisy of the MafiaMob (Canadian journalists) who suddenly are all hyped up about the 'sanctity of Christianity', when normally, they are all hyped up about sneering at Christianity.

Their real focus is, of course, Harper. They are 'stuck on stupid'; they live in a quicksand of hatred for Harper because their beloved Liberals are not in power.

Let me take a turn at bat:

The troubel with using 'cracker' is that, when used in a political context, it normally means 'Southern hick'; it's often used as a slur against conservatives. When I first saw the original post, I didn't know Kate was referring to a communion wafer.

There. Now the arguments between Catholics, Protestants and pagans of various sorts can be about another subject.

Cracker-quiddick? Bwaha! :D

I'm not sure the priest appreciates being called a "cracker", maybe depending upon whence he came:
"Slang: Disparaging and Offensive. a poor white person living in some rural parts of the southeastern U.S." -- from Dictionary.com.

I'm not sure what your point is, Kate. There's a big difference between Kathy's saying "I object to your use of the word 'cracker'", on one hand, and her tossing a bomb through your window or filing an HRC complaint on the other. Kathy is within her rights to tell you how she feels, just as you are within your rights to speak dismissively of her religious beliefs. No one is suppressing free speech here. How do the Mohammed cartoons relate in any way to your post or to her response?

This is my favourite kind of cracker. Look, the point, RSP, is that this whole topic is completely stupid, which, of course, means that it's low hanging fruit for comedy. The problem is, sometimes some people can't separate the fire from the whoopie cushion.

So if a fundamentalist Christian cannot be science minister because he may believe the earth is only 6,000 years old how can any Catholic be allowed to have any position of responsibility (like supreme court justice) if they believe a cracker is actually the body of Christ because some priest said so? Why do journalist only mock protestants and never Catholics (or Muslims or Jews or Hindus) for their weird beliefs and rituals? To a journalist all protestants are weird but a native American who believes his ancestor reside in a killer whale is hip - not loony tunes.

why the hell does this even require a comment period?

show me where the bible says the world is 6000 years old.

This could get ugly. I live in fear of this: Kathy vs. Kate - whom to root for? (yes, whom.)
They both scare me.
I'm an agnostic, so that's no help.

Well, technically, it doesn't require a comment period, Old White Guy, it could be handled instead by a comment frequency, in which case you could then compute the period from the frequency, given the speed of comment.

My post was directed to Kate, Vitruvious. She is at least as eloquent as you are and more than capable of speaking for herself.

Point taken, RSP, or as Steve Martin once said: Well, excuse me.

I'm not seeing the connection between not wanting the Body of Christ to be called a "cracker" and Islamofascism and all the censorship and violence it brings. Catholics have every right to be offended (as they often are) and you'll see none of this will ever rise above an explanation and arguments.

This thread needs Winston Wolf.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANPsHKpti48

Far be it from me to choose sides in a Kat fight, but as the doctrine of transubstantiation is a denial of Christ’s humanity, I’ll have to give this round to Kate, at least on points.

And now we can reignite the decorous brawls of the 4th and 16th centuries on soteriology, the nature(s) of Christ and the doctrine of the holy supper.

Hmm...this would seem to constitute an incitement to hatred and contempt.

Oh, Jennifer (PBOH) - Sacred incarnation of the holy Gaia, save us!

Did you know, Tenebris, that there's actually an ancient translation error involved in it, and it's not actually PBOH, it's Poobah. By the way, if anyone wants to make fun of what I believe, go ahead; why the he11 should I care what you think?

Well now you've done it Kate. I bet the Catholics will be rioting in the streets anytime now.

Well maybe we can calm them down. Vituvius, quick link to someone singing Ave Maria and we can all say a prayer for those poor souls still wandering in purgatory for eating meat on a Friday before they changed the rules.

I thought the picture reference was to remind Kathy that Kate just caught her in "Hi Kettle, I'm Pot, you're black" moment.

But I could be wrong, I'm not very smart.

I'm sorry, Largs, that's DJ EBD's department.

I was thinking along the same lines Kate and Poobah Vit, or should that be Grand Poobah out of respect for, er, the divine Gilbert and Sullivan (and oh, the Flintstones - see below).

RSP - the image of Mohammad is sacred for many Muslims. Kathy, as is her right, has spared him and his followers no end of ridicule. You may not like the taste of the medicine but the service is fair.

Wonder too, how Warren Kinsella squares his "Barney the Dinosaur" stunt with his apoplexy over Harper's supposed disrespect for the RC belief in the 11th century theory of transubstantiation - whereby a priest declares 'hoc est enim corpus meum' or some such, and it's no longer just a simple wafer but Jesus in the flesh.

To me it seems little different than Wiccan spells, hocus pocus, abracadabra, or Louisiana healing voodoo. Nor does my mind bend any further to consider some 7th century 'prophet' as the embodiment of the perfect man demanding of 21st century respect and emulation.

I'm happy for people who have faith in something they believe to be divine. If it helps them get through the day, fine by me. I just don't happen to share their beliefs and I feel no obligation to practice or have faith in any of their rituals (or pay for them). Nor do I expect them to follow or practice mine, such as they are not.

I just wish we'd all grant each other the opportunity for the same level of disrespect we afford ourselves. The world would be a much happier place.

By the way, if anyone wants to make fun of what I believe, go ahead; why the he11 should I care what you think?

Now there's wisdom. As my poetic old man used to say: "F*** 'em all, the long, short and the tall".
Certainly one of many compensatory factors in ageing, eh, Vitruvius?

Aye.

What ET said!!

Let's not get off on tangents, eh.I don't like the word 'cracker' in reference to the host,and I'm not Catholic, but Kate has the right to be offensive.
It's the media that are the hypocrites and fools.

Jan:
You're right in saying that if Kathy has mocked the religious beliefs of others, she can't very well object when others mock hers. If that was Kate's point, I suppose it's well taken. However, I thought Kathy's objection to Islam centered more on its predilection for controlling others rather than on its spiritual beliefs per se. Perhaps I haven't paid close enough attention to all that she has said and written.

Hey people, MSM dwelling on the communion wafer to this extent shows the level of their intelligence. We believe what we believe. Let us rather talk about something important like Iffy's poll decline or the fact that it is so cold for this time of year.

"Kat Fight" lol classic!

I suppose Kathy can file an HRC complaint against Kate.

Being a rap listening cracker myself, the term "wigger" comes to mind. It seems the solution is simple since someone pointed out Jesus was in fact a Jew. Hence forth I recommend we call it a "Jacker".(no offense intended folks)

Mamba

I too am an agnostic but a few months ago I was flamed for not knowing what an agnostic is. Anyways, for conversations sake I just call myself an atheist because to everyone who is not agnostic the terms mean the same thing: We're going to hell.

I'll bring the chips, you bring the soda and ET can bring the DVD's. On second thought; ET, I'll bring the DVD's, you bring the chips.

Well I am absolutely in favor of free expression and the right to criticize religions, I would simply say that:

(1) As stupid and inane as the coverage of this non-story has been, the specific content of Catholic beliefs are entirely beside the point

(2)Unlike, say, Islam, where a single magazine piece sparks an endless series of HRC complaints, there really is no shortage of anti-catholic expression as it is

(3) why was the "cracker" comment even necessary? Sure, the media coverage is dumb, but have catholics done (or threatened to do) something that defines them as the enemy?

As a (recently converted) catholic, I must admit to being somewhat taken aback at the comments about the church by (some) evangelicals here.

Can't we all agree that what Harper did or did not do with the host is utterly irrelevant to his fitness to govern the country and move on?

correction:
the word should be "while" not "well"

RSP see:

http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/:entry:fivefeet-2008-05-22-0007/

for a small sample. I love the wit and brashness of Kathy (and Kate), but I think Kathy stepped in it here.

FWIW, nothing Kate posted offends me in the least, after all, she's the one going to hell :)

If it is now an insult to describe a small wafer as a "cracker", then there's a whole row of boxes in my grocery aisle guaranteed to bring some of you to your knees.

DVD's? Me? Hmm. Let's see, there's Dora The Explorer. And 'Blue's Clues'. Something about 'Now I Know My ABC's..(I have grandchildren). Hmmm. You're right. I'll bring the chips. And marshmallows. There's something about marshmallows, sticks and a fire...

Is there an easy way to corelate the number of posts as a function of the topic here? Call me crazy but I think there may be a relationship.

I used to love going to Mosha's Deli, it's gone, on 8th Ave S.W. across from the now demolished Town Cinema Blue in Calgary where I especially like the chicken matzo ball soup.

So last Easter I tried to make some of my own and it was very hard to find matzo meal.
When I finally found a Safeway store with a Jewish food section I found out that matzo meal was actually made out of crushed soda crackers*.
*(unleavened bread, heh)

Chicken matzo ball soup is a staple in Jewish households for the Passover dinner which, interestingly, coincides with Easter.

I'm with Kathy on this one.

The discussion should not be one of rights. Do you have the right to offend Catholics? Yes. By all means.

The discussion is about whether it is wise to offend Catholics on this particular issue. It costs Kate next to nothing to modify her words, out of respect for people who are usually her allies.

Bringing up the Muhammad cartoons is an enormous stretch; offending religious people is not a good in itself. The biggest problem with Muslims choosing to be offended was that they were being outraged for a reason--to increase their power. Catholics are not attempting the same thing.

@6:43 - Oh Indy, you go to hell, don't drag me into it!
"I suppose Kathy can file an HRC complaint against Kate": Now this, THIS I like!

"However, I thought Kathy's objection to Islam centered more on its predilection for controlling others rather than on its spiritual beliefs per se."

Apparently someone here never met a Catholic missionary.

I suppose now Kate will have to live in fear of some prelate issuing a fatw... er, edict. hmm, burqua may come in handy after all, as a disguise.

By the way Largs, your ignorance of all things Catholic is showing. There has been no rule change.
The only thing re-stressed is that if you have to eat meat on Friday for myriad reasons, you must do something positive or charitable to make up for it.
It would be advisable to remain quiet than to speak such garbage. There, is that too harsh? Have I hurt any feelings?

I'm such an authentic Cracker you could call me Saltine. Forget these artifical wannabes. As a native Texan I'm the real deal.

The well-known Protestant Principle says:

"The P.P. may be negatively expressed as the protest against any absolute claim made for a finite reality, whether it be a church, a book, a symbol, a person, or an event. Positively, it may be expressed as the confession that Grace is not bound to any finite form, that God is the inexhaustible power and ground of all being, and that the truest faith is just that one which has an element of self-negation in it because it points beyond itself to that which is really ultimate."

So Protestants would not see the Host as an embodiment of Christ, because Protestants would see Jesus not beckoning people onto himself, but pointing beyond to God."

Because he "sacrificed himself as Jesus to himself as the Christ".
-- A Handbook of Theological Terms by Van A Harvey

However, this by no means diminishes the idea of the Mass and the Sacrament as a Sacred event in the lives of Christians.

I very much appreciate the way most Catholic churches remain open, while Protestant churches are usually only available during specific functions.

Catholic churches are often open for prayer, for the Rosary, to light candles, and to offer a respite from the commercial world.

If you think about it, you can find a place in any big city to do just about anything except to try to associate yourself briefly with the Sacred. You can even go to a porno movie if you want to. So everything is available just so long as it does not point to something beyond the temporal realm.

I have a lot of respect for Catholic laymen who rose up against the pedophile priests in their church and have done more than anyone to begin to change the character of lavendar seminaries and orders dominated by gays. And it is they, the people in the pews, and the good priests who remain, who have to bear the brunt of the fallout the pedophiles brought to them.

Oh, and I doubt there is a diocese in North American that hasn't seen some Protestant inadvertently given the Eucharist. This is almost always innocent, simply because a vistor is not accustomed to the rules, and there have been times when ruder things than a commercial communion wafer have been used to celebrate mass. During war time, people behind enemy lines, and so forth, and sometimes crackers have been used as a substitute.

"If it is now an insult to describe a small wafer as a "cracker", "

It's not, however, calling a small wafer, after it has been consecrated, a cracker, is dismissive and offensive, or, at least, a reasonably intelligent person, should understand, that people of faith, may find it offensive, just like calling Muhammad a pedophile, is offensive to Muslims, regardless of the factual nature of the statement.

I swear like a stevedore, just not here, because, based on the "Profanity is discouraged." sentence below, it might offend you, and, you might banish me from a site I've come to enjoy quite a bit over that past year.

Yeesh, I'm like Vitruvius with the commas tonight.

"By the way, if anyone wants to make fun of what I believe, go ahead; why the he11 should I care what you think?"

Stupid Jews and their stupid hats. Crybabies always whining about antisemitism. Circumcision is gross and torturous, the CMA recommends against it. Is it true the Jewish priest sucks the penis of the baby after circumcision to drink up the blood? Ew. What a stupid, gross, backward culture. There was no Noah, no burning Bush. The Talmud is garbage, just disgusting. The Torah is not historically accurate. An assbackwards stone age culture, I'm glad we knocked down their stupid temples and imposed Greek and Roman culture on them to civilize them.

I can keep going, let me know when you've had enough.

I think what I appreciate most about Christianity is that, unlike Islam, it seems to have a sense of humour. Is there any Christian symbol that hasn't been parodied by now?

Okay, Indy, E.T., since I'm in charge of hellish softdrinks, I guess I'll bring the Cherry Mountain Dew.
But you know, I think Vitruvius must be coming with us, even as the righteous gloat - and remember, there is no cheese in hell.
Just every Alanis Morisette album after JLP.
And a permanent link-up to Warren K.'s website.
Repent? Repent now?

I altogether agree with bluetech about the media being the hypocrites and fools on this one. And, yes, the irony of the MSM being offended on behalf of the RC Church (anything to disparage PMSH) is rich.

Like GM, I’m a Catholic convert (one of the best things I’ve ever done). I also find quite distasteful and often ignorant certain disrespectful comments here, over the long run (GM, mainly, I think, not from other Christians), about an institution, which gave the West not only our educational and health institutions, but some of the most sublime art on this planet, as well as the underpinnings of the rule of law. “By their fruits ye shall know them”: to look at only the negatives of the Roman Catholic and other Christian churches is simply dirty pool.

There is a huge blind spot concerning Christianity in our now post-Christian and even anti-Christian (most of our public institutions make sure of it) society. I’d go so far as to say that much criticism of Christians and Christian churches—even here—is undeserved and some of it decidedly bigoted. (Kate’s use of the term “cracker” is probably meant to be disrespectful: not a big deal, IMO.) However, it’s a free society: where people have the freedom to say what they choose, many will choose to be willfully ignorant and biased. That’s their loss and one more nail in the coffin of civil discourse and society, I’d say.

I don’t blame the PM in any way. Both the RC hosts—sorry!—and the PMO are at fault here. Surely someone among them should have made it his/her business to be sure the PM knew what was expected: it’s not very difficult. And, IMO, Monsignor Brian Henneberry, Vicar General and Chancellor for the Diocese of St. John, sounds uncharitable to me: it’s his kind of “jot and tittle” legalism that often gives the Church a bad name. I KNOW that if the PM had been briefed on the protocol of the occasion, he would have respectfully followed suit. I believe he’s entirely absolved of any impropriety.

The MSM? Not at all. What degenerates!

Everyone here has missed the issue completely. The Archbishop is the one who violated canon law as this Canon Lawyer points out:

http://www.canonlaw.info/2009/07/canadian-communion-blunder.html

And catch this closer from a US Canon Lawyer who is no shrinking violet when it comes to Catholic theology:

Update: Sources say Harper consumed the Host, some claiming right away, others, just after Mass when he asked a Catholic what to do with it. Either way, the PM's decorum is commendable. Now, about Catholics putting Protestants in such positions to begin with . . .

Well that is the MSM sport isn't it?

..to make a mockery of the other guy's God/ideology. But of course they didn't have the courage to sportingly mock the Muslim faith.

It only stings when its their ox getting gored.

Truly spineless wimps.

But if you can't stand the heat, then stay out of Hades.

But then from God's perspective, God might think that we're all bastards.

It's just that some of us are bigger bastards.

Agreed, lookout their is no greater hypocrisy.

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group "True North"

It is simply a common courtesy to stay away from patently insulting something you do not care about.
If Harper put the host in his pocket, which thing he did not do, it would be not that terrible. Once in downtown church in Calgary, the priest gave communion to a person obviously high on something else.
This, a kind of insult to call it a cracker is not helpful. The only thing to be said, don’t do it in a decent company, if you do it anyway, I’ve had my say, go ahead knock yourself out.
While a church attendee, I would say that I fall short , there are many better people commenting here that do not attend a church, than your agent.
Those that go to church are not necessarily zealots although there are many.

It's also common courtesy to not take something
as an insult when it's not intended as an insult.

You remember: mens rea.

"...how can any Catholic be allowed to have any position of responsibility (like supreme court justice) if they believe a cracker is actually the body of Christ because some priest said so?"

They don't believe the Host is the body of Christ because a priest said so: they believe it because JESUS said so. Of course transubstantiation doesn't make logical scientific sense. That's why it's called a Mystery.

People believe all sorts of things. Unless they ACT on those beliefs in a way that produces a demonstrable harm, who cares what someone's religious beliefs are?

Great line, Kate. Others are entitled to object, but it's strange to see this sudden outburst of propriety from some quarters.

As for the media, it is clear, as Posted by: ET at July 10, 2009 4:48 PM earlier, that this has nothing to do with religion, it is to put down Harper.

At last.
A maze of posts for "new" to have to navigate.
LOL.

Insults don’t touch me, though there are some pretty decent people that may feel insulted, they don’t even have to be zealots.

Correction re Lutherans (above): Luther rejected transsubstantiation (the RC belief that the elements actually become the body and blood) and said that Christ is spiritually present "in, with, and under" the physical elements. Calvin (Happy 500th, John!) and most other Protestants adopted approximately similar positions to Luther.

In a Lutheran church, those who don't want communion are free to remain seated and not go up to the altar at the relevant point in the service (similarly for RC and Anglican), but many Calvinist and probably Baptist denominations (likely including the PM's) have the elders distribute the elements to the congregation in the pews, and a service where things are done quite differently than what you're used to can be a bit "interesting".

I may not know much about religion,and I'm OK with that.My god can beat up your god,if he ever shows up.My suggestion to those who have their knickers in a knot,is to turn on the TV and watch for that 'slap chop' commercial,and then order a few. These gadgets will improve your life and make you thinner faster than any religion. Just do it. Cheers and a joyous 'wallah wackbar' to all.

"a reasonably intelligent person, should understand, that people of faith, may find it offensive, just like calling Muhammad a pedophile, is offensive to Muslims, regardless of the factual nature of the statement."

But that rather misses the point.

I didn't refer to Muhammed as a pedophile.

Islamic law forbids any representation of Muhammed, good, bad or indifferent. Cartoon, line drawing, historical art, doesn't matter. It is impossible for a infidel to publish any representation without giving offense.

Therefore, avoiding offense is in essence, submitting to Islamic law. You cannot have one without the other. I chose that cartoon simply because it is republished so frequently on conservative blogs, including Kathy's.

Just as I reject the demands of Muslims that I observe their religious laws, I do not recognize demands by Catholics that I conform to Catholic terminology that suggests I believe that a biscuit, wafer, or cracker is the "body of Christ".

I don't.

You find it offensive that a non-believer uses common terminology to describe an aspect of Catholicism.

I find it offensive that a person of faith in a free society would demand non-believers submit their expression to your rules and traditions outside of your places of worship.

What outburst of propriety? As a Catholic, I have the right to be offended by someone calling what I believe to be the Body of Christ a 'cracker' - Just as Kate has every right to call it one if she deigns to do so. It's the marketplace of ideas and opinions baby, and my opinion is that it was disrespectful to many of Kate's Catholic readers, including myself, to call it such. Your witticisms aside Kate, when a Catholic Priest consecrates that whole aisle I'll be offended. 'till then, enjoy your crackers.

Only thing I ever figured out about agnostics and atheists is their obvious blind spot, but so what.
ST!

You rock,Kate. Rub their noses in it. Religion is organized superstition. It is a crutch for the weak. Religions,from the barbaric islam to the supposedly gentle Buddhists,allow their SUBJECTS to shirk personal responsibility. Grow up people,there is no god,there is only you.Do the best with what you have.

I am a practicing Catholic. No apologies. My religion is right up there with my wife, kids and grandkids of what I love and am proud of. I have a serious problem with those who are on the outside looking in and know less than nothing about my religion, its tenets, rituals, liturgies, doctrines and history telling us what we should or should not be doing.

None of your business folks. You want to change the way we do things. Come and join. Our doors are open and you are welcome. Then you can express yourself and maybe someone will listen. In the process you might just save your sorry ass.

Oh - and BTW - none of your crap about priest and boys. That was not Christ and he is the God I follow.

I don't know which God or Jesus the "complaining Catholics" on this thread know...the Jesus that I was taught about wouldn't give a tinker's damn about the "cracker" crack. If he wouldn't care, why would I?

Folks, even the Pope would've chuckled. It was harmless. Take offense if you like, but I'm sure that Kate will continue to say whatever she darn well pleases (as will I).

Good for you 'a different bob'. Couldn't care less how you do things. Do whatever you want.

Just, please, don't expect me to give you tax relief, or a separate school system.

Fortunately, since it's no more your business than mine, my sorry ass doesn't need your kind of saving.

I don't bear any animosity towards organized religion. I just draw the line at demands that I acquiesce to their various doctrines in the public sphere.

Being "offended" by neutral terminology suggests that you think I have an obligation to conform to belief system I don't share.

That's not going to happen.

"Look at that nice tree."

"That's not a tree, you insensitive clod, that's the miraculous hand of Saint Phillip. Apologize at once! I am deeply offended."

"Yeah, but that's a tree."

What knots people tie themselves into over religion, that you can't call a cracker a cracker.

LOL... indeed.

"They don't believe the Host is the body of Christ because a priest said so: they believe it because JESUS said so." (Dave J., 8:23 pm)

Jesus also said, "I am the Vine," and "I am the Door." Was he a vine? Was he a door?

Dear Catholics: we don't believe those crackers become Jesus' Christ's body, and we never will. He died once for all our sins. You deny that Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient everytime you believe you need to eat him to be saved.

"Do this in remembrance of me." Protestants think those words of Jesus are just a wee bit more on the reasonable side of the whole bread-and-wine thing.

I would say that this whole argument misses the point.

As a catholic, I don't especially care if Kate called a host a "cracker"- in purely physical terms, it's not a bad description. Moreover, she isn't bound by the rules of a faith, unless she chooses to belong to it.

Moreover, I don't think anyone seriously contests her right to say so.

But that said, Why all of the anti-catholic statements? They seem, well, un-christian
(or intolerant, depending on your views).

Having the right to say something doesn't mean it is always productive to do so.

Calling the 'host' a cracker is really a stretch. I broke into a 'united' church when I was a kid. We stole a bunch of wine and a batch of 'cracker/hosts'. The wine was crap,but those cracker things were gross. I don't think that even a liberal slathering of the best jam or jelly would have rendered them palatable. I know that some think that I will be going straight to hell for this,but I don't. I know that I will leave this place with a smile. Life is a cabaret,my friends,life is a cabaret.

Wallyj:

I won't make any jokes about the crackers tasting bad cause the body of Christ is almost 2000 years beyond its "best before" date, cause that would be really offensive and I'd catch a lot of flack.

Oh, see, now I'm just going to the agnostic's hell. You two are going to the hell where they play The View on a loop, 24-7, for ever and ever...
(Possible Get Out of Hell Free Card: The United Church doesn't count...)

"You find it offensive that a non-believer uses common terminology to describe an aspect of Catholicism."

Kate,

Nope. Not in the least. See my comment at 6:47pm.

I also never said you called anyone a pedophile, nor would I support any "demand" that you or anyone else to follow the tenants of any religion.

What I did say was calling the host a "cracker" was dismissive and Catholics might find it offensive.

I believe that you knew this when you wrote it making your post at 7:01pm seem disingenuous and that's the bit I found disagreeable; your comments at 8:48pm seem to show that you were aware.

In short:

I fully support mocking/insulting everyone's most sacred tenants/beliefs. I just like everyone to be up front and say "I know this is insulting; I don't give a shit."

Shmeh,the MSM are comma-toast to me.

Like Iv'e said before. No one has a sense of humor anymore.

That's funny.

Except nobody said you had to conform or adhere to Catholic terminology, Kate. You can call it a 'cracker' all you want. And we have the right to call you on it and say that we find someone calling what we believe to be the Body of Christ a cracker is offensive to our beliefs. That's the beauty of free speech.

You don't have to change at all - you can keep doing what you're doing 'till the end of your days, long may they be - but pity the person who chooses to alienate their friends over a preference to be obstinately tactless.

Have to agree with Kate on this one... For an individual who'll happily go out of her way to offend muzzies, It's a bit rich for Kathy to take offense when Kate calls a cracker a cracker...

Intellectual honesty isn't a suggestion, it's a requirement...

Black Mamba,as long as the shows with Rosie aren't in the loop ,well,I can die with that.Otherwise ,that would be hell. ...Jeevus,forgive me for I have sinned,and place the symbol of your life in my mouth,to cleanse me of these sins. I feel better now and will continue to be an a-hole until next Sunday.

When I was a kid growing up in Midland, Texas, I wasn't a Catholic, but my best friend was.

Eventually Jack went to the seminary and became a priest.

Before he got the call, we chased the same women, drank out of the same jug, and hung around with the same crowd.

Sometimes when I saw him coming from mass I would grin and say, "Hey, it's my favorite mackerel snapper."

He would grin and say, "I'd rather be a mackerel snapper than a blankety-blank-blank-blank."

And then we would take off for whatever outrageous mischief we could get into that day.

You gotta love symbolism and ritual.

Been to a number of funerals (do rituals get better than this?). To be perfectly honest, never even gave a thought to service vs. mass, or host vs. cracker, etc. Is this the type of sh1t you think about when you go to a funeral?

Funny, I can't recall ever thinking I have to catch that funeral because it's RC or Jewish or whatever.

What anti-Catholic statements, GM? Are you perhaps confusing lack of submission with anti-Catholicism? If so, you're obviously not alone in this regard.

I'm disappointed, and a bit surprised, with the attitude of some of the Catholic commenters, Kathy included. To -- in effect -- *demand* that non-Catholics describe a baked flatbread -- a cracker, a wafer -- as being the body of Christ is....kind of greedy, or something; it's a bit like inappropriate touching, or something. It's oddly pushy -- odd because the forward thrust is portrayed as resistance to meanness and aggression. Odd one.

Bottom line: any demand, by anyone of any faith, that others bow unreasonably -- alter their use of common language, in this case -- in enforced obedience to another person's privately held belief is a little bit piggish, and the extra topping of righteousness doesn't lessen the effect, to put it mildly. Especially in this instance, where it's entirely clear that Kate, in her original -- and supposedly offending -- post, meant no offense, and was decidedly NOT attacking religion. She was talking about the idiot media.

No, this one isn't about theology, or Christ, it's about rudeness, pushiness, and self-victimization -- and Kate isn't the guilty party here.

Vitruvius summed it all up nicely, and nailed it shut:

"It's common courtesy to not take something as an insult when it's not intended as an insult."

Verily.

Amen to that.

Black Mamba: "... hell ... they play The View on a loop, 24-7, for ever and ever..."

Nah, I heard that they just installed 200" HD plasma tvs all over hell. They play soccer 24/7 ... the breaks feature womens golf ... they are thinking of adding womens hockey and womens ski jumping.

Repent.

And the WNBA has just contacted the HRC's.

"What's that?"

"It's our sacred mound."

"It's a beaut!"

"No. it's a mound."

Gotta apply for a zombie job.

EBD,

I never suggested that referring to the host as a "cracker" was an issue for me- in fact, I said the exact opposite:

"As a catholic, I don't especially care if Kate called a host a "cracker"- in purely physical terms, it's not a bad description. Moreover, she isn't bound by the rules of a faith, unless she chooses to belong to it."

When I used to the term "anti-catholic", I was referring to some of the other things said about catholics and their faith in this thread.

I acknowledge the right of people to say what they please, but at the same time I question the usefulness of some of what has been said.

I HAVE NEVER AND WOULD NEVER suggest that anyone "submit" to my faith- any more than I would expect to submit to that of a stranger.

My faith is not one of "submission"- it is one of choice, period.

I don't think Kate did anything wrong here- but I don't see the need to start a religious fight over nothing- which some people here seem to be trying to do.

Well, it seems the gauntlet has been thrown down and it is now okay to be offensive to one another's religious beliefs, but especially to Roman Catholics. It's not like this was an inadvertent snub, but that the comment comes from someone with a deep-seated hatred of the Catholic faith. But, having experienced it many times and knowing that it comes from a spiritual anemia (something common to many Protestants who generally attend Church once or twice a year) we have developed big shoulders. There is some truth to the statement that the only good Catholic is a bad Catholic, but I know few with the kind of foul resentment of their fellow Christians that is often seen in Protestants.

"Being "offended" by neutral terminology suggests that you think I have an obligation to conform to belief system I don't share."

Actually, it doesn't.

If I'm offended by a movie, a book, or this blog, it doesn't mean that I think the creators of said media have an "obligation" to conform to my belief system.

It simply means they offend me - there's nothing obligatory either way.

Any other straw man arguments?

A cracker, unleaven bread, host, eucharist --- who cares what it's called. As a Catholic I understand what it is. Doesn't bother me one iota if you call the communion wafer a different name.

Was born and raised Catholic and although I have a much deeper understanding of Spirituality than when I was young - I believe that God is not prejudiced. All come to him if they live with the motto "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

No one is trying to alter anothers belief here, and this whole topic is somewhat bloated and stale.

Larry Bennett,

What do the RC's TVs have on in hell? I like football (they real kind) and baseball.

comedy central in here:-))))

me thinks some O thee catholics will take their bible and go home!!!!

Just, please, don't expect me to give you tax relief, or a separate school system.

Ah, but he does expect it...and he does receive it.
So it IS our business, bob. If you want
everyone to butt out, get out of the trough.

"Peace Be Upon Him" , KABOOM "Little Pieces be upon him"

If I was Chatholic this would be a bigger isue than a PM who was caught in a protical issue.
This insults the whole Church.

Without a Doubt

Why Barack Obama represents American Catholics better than the pope does.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/205961

"Kate, in her original -- and supposedly offending -- post, meant no offense,..."

EBD,

I believe she was aware that the statement may offend and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

I also think Vitruvius was referring to the post directly above his, not Kate's original post.

For the record, I'm not Catholic, not religious and not offended.

GM, re 10:51, your position is eminently reasonable. My opening question was for you, but I didn't mean to tag you with the rest of what I wrote.

But I'll ask again: when you asked "Why all of the anti-Catholic statements?" what, what comments are you referring to? I feel like I'm not reading the same thread as you. There's certainly been some disagreement as to whether it's rude or offensive for non-believers to refer to the wafer/cracker/biscuit as being such (sorry, I cannot with a straight faith call it the body of Christ, and it would be condescending for me to do so -- is there some other term I could use that wouldn't offend?) but I can't see that there's "all of the anti-Catholic statements." Can you direct me to them? I can't find them.

The only religious insult I can find is Larry Bennet's gratuitous slurs on *Protestants* at 10:53, which he proclaims to be a direct response to a gauntlet being thrown down against Catholics. But again, by whom? Where? Where in this thread is there a serious *attack* on Catholicism itself?

Many out there seem to think that Catholics don't pay school taxes. If you'd rather your children be brainwashed by the freaks teaching in the public system, that's up to you, don't ask me to pay for it. It was the Catholic Church that instituted the first schools and universities and hospitals, and holidays for the people. Scholastica is proof that the Church originated the idea of educating girls. Don't give me that bull sh*t

What the hell is wrong with some of the people commenting?
You are neither worst nor better then the other, you may be better in your own eyes, thought to the rest of the world it does not count, it is also ignorant.
What counts is that you conduct yourself as per common ethics, though others may not applaud. If you count on others for your happiness, you are going to have a disappointing life.
It is, as the US constitution perfectly says, every ones inalienable right also called natural right, to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
These self evident truths are obviously not everybody’s cup of tee, as the saying goes. Nontheless if one think that one is superior, the suggestion would be, go jump in the lake. It is nobodys position to dictate to another how to behave unless of course you are a socialist/fascist or some such, one may hope that the common ethics prevail.

SDH: "I believe she was aware that the statement may offend and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous."

Your belief is groundless, so you are certainly not in a position to label as disingenuous all those who don't hold that belief.

For years Kate has been slapping the media senselessly with humour and apt quips. So today, she posted --

"Readers may note that the preponderance of items posted here in recent days are decidedly non-Canadian in content. This is due in no small part to the fact that the number one story in Canadian politics at the moment is a controversy involving the Prime Minister and a cracker."

If you sincerely see that as being an intended shot a Catholicism, you are either tone-deaf or not a long time SDA reader. Look at it this way: Kate has posted at least hundreds, more likely *thousands* of posts about the idiocy and inanity of the media when they cover stupid crap and pretend it's important, while there has not been one single post attacking Catholicism or ANY Christian denomination. So if you see a post now where she's drily ripping the media a new one, don't you think the odds are good that the subject matter is the media, and not some aspect of the media story incidental to the *lame coverage* she's criticizing?

And here's what seals it: if Kate ever sets out to insult a sect of a church, for example, you can rest assured that she won't hide the subject matter at the tail end of a dry quip about something unrelated.

That is why I don't like churches. They hide cons and even when they go to church they get it wrong! The Liberals need to ban churches if they get in so this doesn't happen again. Trudeau was supposed to be Catholic but he didn't listen and he was right! If he did we wouldn't be multicultural, have gay marriage or fewer white people. We need less churches!!

I was going to have a snack of crackers and cheese. After reading some of the comments, I think I'll settle for soup and rum.

By the way, GYM and EBD We're not going anywhere, you see, as Catholics we are infused through and through with the need to forgive, it's what those men and women in black dresses taught us to do. In the Pater Noster, the prayer of Jesus, we ask the Father to forgive us "as we forgive those who trespass against us." We have been tricked into obedience by our faith. You feel you haven't trespassed, and we think you have, either way we
(Catholics) lose ... or do we win?

Much ado about noshing.............

bleety's comment (oddly enough) brings up an interesting point. Being "offended" has become a cottage industry of late. As a physical therapist I've been told a myriad of words over the years that I'm flatly not allowed to use because they are "offensive".

Like "cripple", for example. The proper circumlocution by which we avoid offending the perpetually offended I was told was to be "differently abled". I suggested that perhaps dis-abled might reflect the truth and at least be shorter, this was not well received.

Telling the truth about someone's condition might damage their self esteem, you see. So we are supposed to LIE about it, and this will make the poor crippled b@st@rds feel better about not being able to put their own socks on.

Important to note that (most) people who are actually CRIPPLED don't care. They have much more important things to worry about, like getting their damn socks on.

Therefore, being the contrary sort that I am, I went out of my way to use the word "cripple", "crippled", "crippling", as often as possible. Handicapped parking spots are the crippled spots, and so forth.

Predictably, patients either didn't notice, didn't care, or thought it was a giggle. Administrators uniformly had a cow. This is because administrators live in the world of the perpetually offended, where there is no humor, no truth, no reality, only the frantic avoidance of fuss.

Its the same reason I say "girlies" and "chicks" all the time. Certain people need to be reminded that not everyone will bow to their will all the time.

In the same spirit of nose thumbing at the perpetually offended, I would like to say: cracker.

Those who are offended by this should appreciate two things. The first is that it matters not at all to me or indeed to anyone but you that you are offended. We don't even know and don't care.

The second is that you gain nothing by taking offense. Nothing. It actually costs you liver cells and brain cycles to keep the offendedness going.

Y'all do not have a right to not be offended. Not everyone in the universe sees things your way, and whining that you've been offended isn't going to change that.

Its a free country. I'm free to be an unfeeling, uncouth swine, and you're free to ignore the hell out of me. What you're not free to do is try to make me shut up and do it your way.

But take heart, the HRCs are working on it for you.

All I know is that you can choose to be offended or not but it is always a choice. No one can offend you without your permission. The media works at pitting us all against each other by trying to make us feel offended and then blame others for our feelings.

Look, people, if there is a God, He will not be judging you by the amount of time you spent in a pew or by what religious background you are from. The key lies in how you treat your fellow man. THE END.

I'm RC and wasn't offended. Look, Kate has a right to be offensive. It's a free country (so far), and I'm mature enough to be teased about my religion without making a fuss.

That said, Kathy has a right to be offended. Again, she is simply speaking her mind, and defending her faith. Good for her.

I'm guessing the driving idea behind this story is the MSM is really surprised Harper didn't vomit the host and turn his head 360 degrees.

For the record, if you're not catholic you can simply place your hands on your chest. This is a signal that you don't require the host and the priest will give you a simple blessing.

Be that as it may, Phantom, Bleeter is, once again, mistaken. "Offense" has a moral connotation; if I am offended, I feel have been wronged. Where there is morality there is, of course, a "belief system".
Bleeter is confusing being offended by something and just not liking it.

Meanwhile the Obama administration seeks to exclude Christians from holding government posts.

Hypocrites pi$$ me off... Some of the oh-so-offended catholics above need to get away from the computer and spend some time giving themselves a good long look in the mirror...

@ Norman 12:33

"Look, Kate has a right to be offensive. It's a free country (so far), and I'm mature enough to be teased about my religion without making a fuss. That said, Kathy has a right to be offended. Again, she is simply speaking her mind, and defending her faith. Good for her."

Amen. My point exactly. Not asking anyone to change, submit, etc etc; I am simply letting my viewpoint be heard, and last I was aware that was allowed. Why the fuss?

As for folks like richard, how Christian of you to condemn those you haven't even met. If you read St. Paul, he says that God loves us even more when we sin, and clearly no christian is perfect. How beautiful is that knowledge? That's why we are Christians, because we believe that God can make us better individuals. After all, A man who is well does not need a doctor, does he?

OK, I'm tossing a grenade...Hopefully to end this silly thread...

"Ritual Cannibalism"

*cracker*

(Sorry, Kate.)

The notion that a wafer turns into the literal body of Christ is magical thinking that is ridiculous on the face of it.

Nevertheless, Roman Catholics, as well as Jews, Muslims, etc., have the right to use their own resources for the purposes of educating their own children. So one cannot rationally say "they shouldn't get any of my taxes for their schools". It's their own taxes they're getting back, not yours.

All in all I thoroughly enjoyed the back and forth both the cracker supporters and those that prefer the term Host, I believe made a good showing. Back and forth I went eager to see the next rebuttle and sure that it, too, would be witty,wise and filled with Intellectual wonders I had not considered nor would ever be able to conjure.

Being protestant I am largely ignorant of Catholic custom, however out of respect for how another chooses to worship Christ it would be my own preference to simply defer to their choice of description, after all it is their ceremony. That is just me.

What did occur to me was, those that supported the cracker position were ruthless in their rationality. A take no prisoners posture that was well, a little disconcerting.

On the other hand the Catholics and their supporters seemed far more forgiving and certainly
less intractable.

Hmm. Food for thought.

[quote]If you read St. Paul, he says that God loves us even more when we sin,[/quote]
Mark,
I guess that means that God loves me the MOST.. I know...

It seems that being antagonistic is a lot more fun than having good manners...no doubt Kate wouldn't be the least bit annoyed if someone referred to her show dogs as mutts, etc.

Whoa, 120+ comments on this thread and nobody has quoted Bierce yet. Well, it's never too late:

"Eucharist, n. A sacred feast of the religious sect of Theophagi. A dispute once unhappily arose among the members of this sect as to what it was they ate. In this controversy some five hundred thousand have already been slain, and the question is still unanswered."

- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, 1911

The difference between discussion of slights to religious paraphernalia in the Christian world and the carnage that resulted from the manufactured outrage over the Prophet Mobombhead cartoons is that - as many have pointed out above - we seem to be able to get through barb and counter-bard without resorting to Semtex. Ironically, that's called evolution. It may have taken us 350 years, but at last we're at the point where we can get through a day without beheading Bill Maher for blasphemy.

For being criminally unfunny...well, that's something else entirely.

Meanwhile, since we're on the subject of transubstantiation, if anyone could perhaps advise me how to turn some Iodine-127 into Iodine-131, we might be able to get past the Chalk River shutdown. It's only 4 neutrons, people! It's not like we're trying to turn bread into God or anything!

(That was a joke, by the way. I'm sure the big guy upstairs understand. He has to have a sense of humour. Look at Whoopie Goldberg!)

"Nevertheless, Roman Catholics, as well as Jews, Muslims, etc., have the right to use their own resources for the purposes of educating their own children. So one cannot rationally say "they shouldn't get any of my taxes for their schools". It's their own taxes they're getting back, not yours."

Yes, we certainly all have the right to use our own resources to educate our children, that is presuming after paying taxes, we have them. What Jews, Muslims, etc. don't have, that Catholics in Ontario do, is the right to pooled education tax resources for the purposes of educating their own children. Therein lies my objection.

This is a hangover from the days when Canada was primarily English and Protestant or French and Catholic. Times have changed. Especially in Ontario. Public schools are no longer Protestant in focus and they haven't been for quite some time.

I don't believe our government should, any longer, be supporting (sanctioning) any one religion over any other. If education tax dollars were directed to the student with the family determining appropriate school placement, I'd agree with you with respect to the return of education tax dollars, but that isn't the case.

We should either provide funding for all or none, i.e., funding for one secular school system with specific religious education taking place in the home, in after-school programs or in houses of worship.

Larry, the teachers teaching in separate schools all come from the same training schools as the 'freaks' in the public, so I'm not sure the quality of education in the separate system is markedly different. At one time, it may have been but once full funding became available, separate schools fell under the same Education Act with the myriad of restrictions that entails. I've heard more than one old-time Catholic parent comment that the separate school system has never been the same since the day Bill Davis extended full funding.

Anyway, sorry Kate, this is hopelessly off topic. Yes, the media are putzes but so too the parishioner and the priest that initially made this an issue. I'm certain Stephen Harper meant no offense nor disrespect and it seems mighty un-Christianlike to me to publicly embarrass the man for not appropriately following ritual. A simple phone call from the Monsignor to the PMO advising of the faux-pas would seem to me to have been more reasonable.

So much for goodwill toward fellow Christians from some elements and people within the Catholic church.
This is going back to an era we all thought was long gone. Apparently not.

It appears they're practicing the same values as Ontario with their full funding for the education of those of one religion over all others.

The message can only be some are more equal than others. Those baptized in the Christian faith are often invited to take communion at special services in the Anglican church,and I assume others.

This whole episode is so disappointing and even more so for Christianity. I'm thoroughly ashamed for and of all of them.

They ought to hang their heads in shame.

This comment by wallyj @ 9:02 has given me an entirely different take on who I am: “You rock, Kate. Rub their noses in it. Religion is organized superstition. It is a crutch for the weak . . . [and] allows [its] SUBJECTS to shirk personal responsibility. Grow up people . . .”

Wow: all along, I’ve been under the impression that my faith has helped me to be, among other things, more generous, more compassionate, more aware of inward truth versus outward trappings, and more prone to self-examination re my shortcomings: in fact, being a Christian OBLIGATES me to “Do the best with what [I] have”. That some posters have so little understanding of that is too bad.

Religious discussions here quite often bring out opinions which I find both uninformed and offensive. But, as I wrote earlier, it’s a free country. However, I’m alarmed, that as we become a more “progressive”, socialist and, less generous country, anti-Christian and, especially anti-Catholic, bigotry seems to be officially sanctioned: comments people wouldn’t dare voice about other groups are de rigeur in the public square if Christians are the targets.

Kate? She’s an equal opportunity skeptic, who doesn’t pull her punches for any group. I can live with that. Neither does she make merely gratuitous put downs. I appreciate that too.

You were right Kate to ignore the whole issue initially since the MEDIA were the ones using this to bash Harper.
That' all folks.

Wow, this thread has some legs.

EBD, please re-read my posts, I think you've misread them. Let me channel my inner Inigo Montoya and sum up:

SDH: "I believe she was aware that the statement may offend and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous."

EBD: "Your belief is groundless, so you are certainly not in a position to label as disingenuous all those who don't hold that belief."

The only belief I stated is that I think Kate is very intelligent. This is not groundless statement, it is based on my reading her blog for the past year or so.

I also believe she possesses a rapier wit, of which I am quite envious, which takes me to:

EBD:
" So today, she (Kate) posted --

"Readers may note that the preponderance of items posted here in recent days are decidedly non-Canadian in content. This is due in no small part to the fact that the number one story in Canadian politics at the moment is a controversy involving the Prime Minister and a cracker." "

This is "the statement" I refer to above. It is dismissive of both the press and religion. I loved the way she laconically gave the back of her hand to two organizations she has little time/use for.

I only find the following bit disagreeable. You said:

EBD: "Kate, in her original -- and supposedly offending -- post, meant no offense,..."
referring (I think) that she meant no offense to the the church.

I'm saying I think she was aware (Kate's post at 8:48pm seems to confirm this) that referring to the host as "a cracker" may be offensive to Catholics and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

That's it.

By the way Largs, your ignorance of all things Catholic is showing. There has been no rule change.
The only thing re-stressed is that if you have to eat meat on Friday for myriad reasons, you must do something positive or charitable to make up for it.
It would be advisable to remain quiet than to speak such garbage. There, is that too harsh? Have I hurt any feelings?
Posted by: Larry Bennett at July 10, 2009 7:27 PM

My ignorance extends well beyond all things Catholic. I am not a religious person and care not what your rules are. What I wrote was in jest. If you can't take it, then that is too bad Larry. If you want to become the Catholic version of the Islamic rage boy fine by me. And no, you weren't too harsh I face much worse than your piddly little rant on a daily basis. Except for editing out some unacceptable words I let posts stand as they are.
The difference between us Larry is that I can not only dish it out I can take it too. That goes for all you here who are raving about the use of the term cracker. How many of you have no problem dissing the beliefs of Muslims (something I do with regularity) and then get in a hissy fit when someone uses the wrong term to describe the host. Hypocrites all.

"When in Rome, do as the Romans do"

As a person of Protestant heritage, when attending a Catholic ceremony or in a Catholic church, I will do as much as possible to not offend and to comply with their rules. But, once out in public, I will say and do whatever I choose...mostly I choose not to offend, but that's just the way I am.

If and when I choose to be loose in my speaking and toss off some casual comment (like the "cracker" crack), if someone takes offense to that..............I get angry, not contrite.

"Why the H-E-double toothpicks is this person upset with me for saying something completely innocently?!? They can go to H#ll!"

Anyway, I'm not as eloquent a writer as others, so I will let Kate, EBD, Vitruvius and other like-minded folks speak for me on this issue. Even Phantom, to an extent...I tend to speak the same way regarding "girls" and "boys" and "cripples" and so on...always with a twinkle in my eye so people know I'm only joshing. Just another way to show that people shouldn't take things so seriously all the time.

Agree it's a media thing to get at the PM to the point of some, calling it a "scandal", but in doing so they drag a Christian faith and Christianity along with it.
It proves their desperation knows no bounds.

It's all about playing the dirtiest of dirty politics at an opportune time to offset the success the PM is having at the G8.

What a pack of slugs and slime balls they are.

> Well, it seems the gauntlet has been
> thrown down and it is now okay to be
> offensive to one another's religious
> beliefs, but especially to Roman
> Catholics.

I notice I offended Kathy in the other thread with my cannibalism joke, but it's her own fault, really. She keeps advising people to speak their mind as it's often a good thing to offend. So I did.

Do I find things about Catholicism damned silly? Absatively. But I'd say that's much better than certain religions that are just damned scary.

If someone built a Catholic church next to my house I'd bake some cookies and go over to shake hands with the priest and welcome him to the neighborhood. If someone built a mosque next to my home I'd have a for sale sign up so fast it'd make your eyes bleed.

I'm aware this makes me a bigot and I don't care. There are things that are within my comfort level and things that aren't, and once again I'm taking Kathy's advice and being honest about it.

My 2 cents, which is probably more than it's worth.

Well, lookout, I have to say I too found wallyj's remark gratuitously offensive and wholly agree with your observation about the essential difference between Kate's and his: Kate was merely ridiculing the breathtaking and hypocritical silliness of Canadian MSM and her choice of words reflected her disgust with them, not with religion.

Don't blush, but while I'm not a believer myself, I do find your remarks and your being as evidenced by your contrubutions at sda to be a great advertisement for religion. I note with interest that you are a Catholic convert. I have a very old friend who I played rock music with in the mid 60s, who got into deep trouble with booze and drugs, et al, and who found redemption through becoming a devout Catholic. Whenever I feel the urge to bait the devout, I always think of Terry, and since coming to sda, you and others like batb.

As another old friend puts it, man needs religion. If it's not RELIGION religion, it'll be some other kind. Gaia. Environmentalism. Statolatory. Celebrity worship.

LizJ, with respect, I think your censure of the RC Church is quite selective: I’m a Catholic, who somewhat agrees with you. I wrote last night: “I don’t blame the PM in any way. Both the RC hosts—sorry!—and the PMO are at fault here. Surely someone among them should have made it his/her business to be sure the PM knew what was expected: it’s not very difficult. And, IMO, Monsignor Brian Henneberry, Vicar General and Chancellor for the Diocese of St. John, sounds uncharitable to me: it’s his kind of “jot and tittle” legalism that often gives the Church a bad name . . .” But that’s not the whole Church.

Re the full funding of RC education: please don’t blame the RC Church. That dispensation is a constitutional matter, settled in the BNA Act of 1867. It can’t be changed unless the Constitution is changed—an eventuality that Trudeau and his cronies made virtually impossible. No one in those days envisioned a multicultural, post-Christian Canada. Protestant and RC educational systems, both explicitly Christian, were set up. In the 50s, the Protestant systems were still nominally Christian: we said the Lord’s Prayer every morning and a minister would come in for a half hour session once a week. However, as the “Protestant” system became more and more secular and our country more and more racially and religiously diverse, the Protestant system quite happily gave up any pretensions of being Christian and embraced multiculturalism and now, even Gaia worship and openly anti-Christian attitudes.

Re who gets to receive the host at the Mass: it is perfectly reasonable for the Church to set its own rules on that. (But it should let people attending its services know what the expectation is: of course, non Catholics have the freedom to disregard it.) Receiving the host has nothing to do with some people being “more equal than others”. I’m as equal, in the sight of God and the state (well, that’s now debateable!) as the next person, but I’m not eligible—at my own choosing—to be bat mitzvahed. Would you blame Jews for that? And, if one is not a Catholic and doesn’t subscribe to the Church's teachings, (as many here make perfectly clear they do not), why would one want to receive at Mass?

Re the Anglican Church, that ever so inclusive institution: I and many other ex-Anglicans, who were both marginalized for decades, because we weren’t considered “progressive” (read, “unorthodox”) enough, and made to feel distinctly unwelcome, how does letting all baptized Christians receive Communion rectify this church’s bending the knee to the Zeitgeist? In fact, considering how many marginalized, ex-Anglicans there are these days, the Anglican conceit of “come one, come all” rings pretty hollow. (BTW, for all its trumpeting its own inclusiveness, the Anglican Church is in serious schism. Its numbers are dropping like a stone. Kyrie eleison.)

Threads like this one are most instructive: a number of the very people, who pride themselves on their progressivism, appear to have very uninformed ideas about Christianity, especially the RC Church. This does not augur well for the very openness and understanding many critics of the church say they want to see. Kyrie eleison.

Why such an uproar over PMSH and the wafer by the MSM? Does the MSM not remember that Pauly-want-a-cracker-and-can't-have-one-Martin was excommunicated from the Catholic church when he was PM over the abortion laws in Canada? Maybe they should be reminded...there I did.

Hey, Me No Dhimmi, great to hear your voice!

I really appreciate your comments here. Yup, as Christians are sinners, with feet of clay, it's no surprise that the Church screws up. But, as you graciously concede—as many refuse to—the Church has also been, for two millennia, the locus of quite amazing grace for countless believers all over the world. (Bless your friend, Terry!)

Thank you and bless you too!

"Reject the sense of injury, and you reject the injury itself."

-- Marcus Aurelius

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

-- Epicurus

Lookout, I'm not censoring the Catholic Church but the people involved in this incident, including the clergy who opined it was a scandal, and running off with it. That stuff is not Christianity as Jesus taught.

I too am a former Anglican, they no longer represent what I can believe in. At this point they could be begging with a "come one come all" to our alter but I really think it's at a crossroads and where it will go remains uncertain.

Lookout, I do not blame the RC Church.

If I were a Catholic who firmly believed that the school was also the child's church, I would want precisely the same thing. Similarly desired, were I a devout Jew, Buddist, Muslim, etc. I do not know the official position of the RC Church on the provision of government education funding to those of other faiths but to remain blameless in perpetuating the current situation, I assume they would have no objection to spreading the wealth around on a per-student basis.

I am not sure that supporters of the formerly Protestant school system gave it up so happily. Was it voluntary or simply the result of being obliged to accommodate others having nowhere else to go to school due the the restrictions in obtaining a placement in the separate system? Many Christians are terribly distressed by the loss of Christmas concerts, daily prayer and the lack of formal religious instruction in our schools. Short of conversion to Catholicism, they have no choice but to enroll their young children in private (unfunded) Christian schools if they want their children to obtain a religion-oriented education.

The fact is, Manitoba (1890), Quebec (1997) and Newfoundland (1998) have structured their provincial laws to provide either a single school system or, in Quebec's case, one based on language not religion. Ontario could do the same.

Hmmm I didn't even know this thread was happening until Sean emailed me.

But basically, what RSP said.

There really is NO comparison between Muslims who blow up publishers for what they write, and my rather mild _explanation_ of why some Catholics are put off by the "cracker" word.

A lot of people don't know about the Catholic belief in transubstantiation, and why they don't think that the host is merely a "symbol" or "a piece of bread" the way Protestants do. Especially in our religiously ignorant age.

So I offered an EXPLANATION.

I didn't threaten Kate in any way, or condemn her for using the word, or throw a hissy fit. I actually thought I was being rather lighthearted.

Sheesh.

Seems from this thread that _some_ atheists can be just as touchy about their beliefs as others are, so it is funny seeing them mock _me_ for being the touchy one.

that's the built in danger with charges of "hypocrisy." They're never a good foundation upon which to build a sturdy argument, because the charge often comes back to bite the accuser on the behind.

Also, the difference between what Christianity teaches and what Islam teaches is that Christianity is true.

Just sayin'.

It is about consistency, consistency of the media, who couldn't give a whit for Catholic purity until it becomes a stick (breadstick?) to beat Harper with, consistency of commentators...Kate stands in a place that has a bracing wind, clearly not all can.

As for the other stuff, what bothers me the most here is that people seem to be accepting that Harper did something wrong. I have seen no proof
that Harper put the communion in his pocket...the egregious charge....he defintiely didnt eat it at teh tme, but neither did the woman two to his left (who was that)

Once again this is manufactured, and turning around and quoting Catholic ritual doesnt illuminate the situation any, when he didnt do what you are discussing.

Once again, who is the Monsignor, where are the vaunted research skills of the conservative blogosphere....you afraid that lightning will strike?

Then why call him God?
~Epicurus

Because God made Epicurus, not the other way around.
The creation doesn't judge the Creator.

Epicurus assumes his life is for Epicurus' own ends.
It isn't.
This is what the Book of Jonah teaches, that God made Jonah for His purpose, not Jonah's.

Epicurus judges God but does not ask whence he was created for.

God will judge Epicurus.

re the cracker:
LUKE
Chapter 22
19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in REMEMBRANCE of me.
20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Christ was literally still there with his disciples when he said what Luke quotes.
It was a METAPHOR.

If through transubstantiation the priest is actually able to bring Christ down from heaven and transform the cracker into Christ flesh, then it isn't in remembrance because Christ would then be actually present at their mass.
It was a METAPHOR.

Jesus said this at his last supper because he wanted his sacrifice to be remembered at every meal his followers had every day, it wasn't something to be transformed into a ridiculous ritual to be presided over by a priest.

Jesus hated priestcraft, he wanted people to be able to go directly to his Father through their belief in his once and forever sacrifice, therefore remembering Christ and his sacrifice at every supper was to confirm this in their minds.

JOHN
Chapter 19
28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.
29 Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.
30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, IT IS FINISHED: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

The ritual, known as the mass in Catholic churches, and known as communion in Protestant and Evangelical churches, shouldn't even exist.

Christian believers should commune with God through the remembrance of Christ every day, at every meal, that was the purpose of the metaphor.

"no doubt Kate wouldn't be the least bit annoyed if someone referred to her show dogs as mutts"

Nope. Apart from being demonstrably incorrect, "mutt" isn't an insult. It's common usage for a dog of uncharted pedigree.

"Pet quality" is the typical insult directed at show dogs, as it suggests the owner is an idiot for putting it in the ring to be evaluated as potential breeding stock.

> Because God made Epicurus, not the other way around.

Prove it.

> Epicurus judges God but does not ask whence he was created for.

Actually, he was just pointing out some logical inconsistencies that cannot be answered simply by quoting scripture, which is where the logical inconsistencies came from in the first place.

Since I seem to be in quote mode today:

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same god who has endowed us with senses, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

-- Galileo

Amen, Oz. Exactly as I believe it to be. However, you'll never get a Catholic to accept this factual, logical assessment of the Bible...they'll just (figuratively) stick their fingers in their ears and say that transubstantiation (or whatever) is what they believe or what they are taught to believe. End of story.

There are none so blind who WILL not see.

I would rather they NOT selectively quote the Bible and then try to say that the Bible is the Word of God. Either all of it is or none of it is. There are many examples, but I don't want to dredge up yet another silly debate that has raged for literally millenia.

But...that's fine. They are entitled to believe anything they want to. And we're entitled to point out their illogic.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not being mean. Honestly. Just expressing myself (thanks Kate).

Full disclosure: I'm a fallen Protestant married into an (ostensibly) Catholic family...Catholic by heritage and self-identification, but not by action.

"There really is NO comparison between Muslims who blow up publishers for what they write, and my rather mild _explanation_ of why some Catholics are put off by the "cracker" word."

Of course not. But I wasn't talking about terrorists.

Moreover, you didn't say "some" Catholics. You wrote in the first person.

"I too have to object to the use of the word "cracker"."

Publishing an image of Muhammed in any context at all is as off putting to peaceful Muslims as the word "cracker" apparently is to Catholics - yet you feel no obligation to observe their sensitivities when posting content to your blog.

I was genuinely surprised that you came in from that angle at all, when the original post was clearly one directed at Canadian media.

Catholic doctrine is as foreign/meaningless to me as sharia law, and I've studied neither. (I've been in a Catholic church precisely once in my life, and that was for a wedding. )

Oz,

When Jesus spoke metaphorically He would say "Here's a parable." and then he'd tell the parable. And then He'd say "Here's what that parable means."

Try John 6. Jesus is explaining that they must literally eat His flesh and drink His blood. He's right there with them and they're like "Hey this is one of those metaphors, right?" and He keeps repeating it. They understand Him to be speaking literally and some of them leave because of it.

Catholics aren't 'remembering' Christ or 're-sacrificing' Christ, we're following His directions and partaking of Very Same Sacrifice, once and for all time.

If we're supposed to just break bread as a symbolic, not-real, metaphor then the earliest Christians wouldn't have celebrated the Sacrament of the Eucharist in the same way we do now (the rubrics of the rest of the Mass notwithstanding).

Prove it.
~Darrell at July 11, 2009 12:57 PM

I don't care to.
I was just pointing out that Epicurus' reasoning was starting from the erroneous assumption that God was meant to serve man or be judged by man as if man can understand God's ways apart from what God himself reveals.

Personally I thank God for offense and do not shy away from it. After all St Paul said that the Cross was offensive and as the result of his preaching the Cross he was persecuted. Had St Paul wished not to offend, the Roman Catholic Church may not even exist!

If anything comes from this 'Wafergate' I hope the actions of PM Harper begins the removal of petty divisions in the Christian community. I would hope that all Christians begin recognizing all other Christians as Christians and stop playing silly games like "you can't eat our wafers because you don't genuflect before entering the sanctuary" and like nonsense.

As a Christian PM Harper had every right and even an obligation to partake in the Communion service. As a Christian PM Harper had every right to hold the Host for a time before consuming it.

> Also, the difference between what Christianity teaches and what Islam teaches is that Christianity is true.

"My god is the true god!"

"No, MY god is the true god!"

"Oh yeah?"

"Yeah!"

"Oh yeah?"

"Yeah!"

"Well, MY god says you have to be converted!"

"Oh yeah? Well, MY god says YOU have to be converted!"

"Oh yeah?"

"Yeah, so on your knees, heretic!"

"No way! YOU get on YOUR knees, infidel! I have a direct line into the mind of my God, and He says I can kill you for being wrong!"

"Oh yeah? Well, you can't have a direct line into the mind of your god, because I have a direct line into the mind of MY God, and HE says YOUR God is fiction! He also says that WE'RE the chosen people, and I can kill YOU for not seeing it my way!"

"Oh yeah?"

"Yeah! Draw!"

"Excuse me, don't you guys think that your gods can take care of themselves? Why would an omnipotent God have the slightest interest in what you or anybody else thinks? Why would he obsess over who you sleep with? And isn't it possible that what you perceive as a direct line into the mind of God is just you thinking, and attributing your thoughts to your God?"

"Hey...that guy's trying to make us think! Get 'im!"

"Yeah!"

lookout @10:08 - the Anglican want desperately to be inclusive; they just can't find anybody much who wants to be included anymore.

"Catholic doctrine is as foreign/meaningless to me as sharia law"

Google "Harold Berman Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition" and be sure you're sitting down.

When Jesus spoke metaphorically He would say "Here's a parable."
~Bill at July 11, 2009 1:23 PM

Not so.
Most of the parables are similes, a comparison using like or as, while metaphors use the construction of saying one thing is another to compare.

Christ preached the parables from the Mount of Olives before a mixed crowd, the metaphor at the last supper was to his inner circle, and it clearly is a metaphor.

"you can't eat our wafers because you don't genuflect before entering the sanctuary"

No. It has nothing to do with being mean or divisive. You haven't assented to the doctrinal points of the Catholic Faith so it is dishonest to consume the Host and thus give witness that you do assent to them. You would be publicly claiming that you are in Communion with the Church, which is clearly not your intent. Its also a violation of the church's canon law for a priest or bishop to knowingly put a non-Catholic in that position. That's a point that a previous commenter (Manitoba Moose) has made. The Archbishop is in serious violation of canon law.

Never mind the cracker, Something Important has just occurred!

A Hawkwer Sea Fury just flew right over my house! Ooh, shiny!

All religion is a metaphor. How else can you explain the mammoth science behind what exists.

And more to pacify the child who become aware of human mortality when grandpa or spot dies. It's simple we all go to heaven and wait for each other to arrive.

It's all nonsense like global warming ... who can explain the science behind the workings of the sun, the clouds and the ocean currents ... so it must be the SUVs we are driving. Simple eh?

Religion and politics are the evil vs evil locked in an eternal struggle to get their hands on other people's money and control their lives.

That's right, neither are the good ... the only good I know would be Blondie AKA Clint Eastwood in the "Good the Bad and the Ugly" and he too was a just a metaphor. We know what's bad, now if I had assign the Ugly, that would be the media and Hollywood.

Do you actually think Jesus wanted you to eat his flesh and drink his blood? WTH is wrong with people. It is obvious, no wisdom has been given to those who do not even understand what his flesh and his blood represent in scripture.

Incidentally I should say that I have Kate beat, I've been in a Roman Catholic church -twice-! Once for a wedding, once for a christening.

I do find some of the details of Catholic doctrine a bit much, the christening particularly. Transubstantiation is a bit silly (look Mummy, its still a cracker!), but the Original Sin Removal (TM) by the priest smacked of hubris. And of business franchise from days gone by.

Torqued me off, I must say. The Pope refused to return my calls, too.

Protestants seem a bit more sensible, making these ceremonial things an allegory for the struggle of the spirit. But then I was christened as a protestant so I would think that, wouldn't I? The very word Protestant means a guy who protests "dude, its still a cracker."

What I take away from our debate is the kind of country I want to live in. Catholics can't make me be properly respectful about the Host, and I can't make them admit its still just a cracker. This would seem to be the best possible arrangement among people who disagree.

Elizabeth the First settled it for all time by sinking the Spanish fleet, as a good conservative I respect that tradition. Muslims, take note that the British Queen's name is Elizabeth again.

And remember friends, an armed society is a polite society. ~:D

"Seems from this thread that _some_ atheists can be just as touchy about their beliefs as others are, so it is funny seeing them mock _me_ for being the touchy one."

Exactly Kathy. That's why I disagree strongly with Jan and this statement:

"We should either provide funding for all or none, i.e., funding for one secular school system with specific religious education taking place in the home,"

Jan Advocates "funding for one secular school system" because that's her (and my) religion; that's wrong. No one group of people should have a strangle hold on everyone else’s tax dollars. I would support Muslim, Buhdist and ManBearPig schools with public tax dollars is there was a demand, and there was an endless money supply. Since there isn't, I say two school systems are better than one, and three may be better than two.

Jan

If you want schools for every Tom, Dick and Harry then you’d better get out there and raise some money, get some infrastructure down, some teachers hired, some kids enrolled and show some results on a large scale; then, when you have a REASONABLE argument you can make your case for equal public funding for whom ever you like. You know, when apples are apples!

Other than that, quit being a player hater! That is the most pathetic of all left-tarded traits.

"Christ preached the parables from the Mount of Olives before a mixed crowd, the metaphor at the last supper was to his inner circle, and it clearly is a metaphor." Oz

So when Christ was telling the crowd they must literally eat His flesh and they could scarcely believe it and when He repeated it and some of them left because they just couldn't buy it, that was a 'parable' that He didn't bother to explain. But when He instituted the actual Sacrament at the last supper that was 'clearly' a metaphor because He said "This IS my body".

I think I understand now but you'll forgive my if I side with the early Church fathers and the traditional understanding of transubstantiation that existed for over 1500 years.

The Phantom, @ 3:06, wrote, “Protestants seem a bit more sensible [than Catholics]”. Maybe.

But how come mainstream, Zeitgeist mirroring, Protestant churches—Anglican, United, Presbyterian, Lutheran—are emptying out, while Catholic and evangelical churches, with higher expectations, are thriving and growing?

(In the developed world, personally, religiously speaking, I find more Catholics more sensible than more Anglicans because, in my experience, more Catholics actually take Christianity more seriously than more Anglicans do. To expend all the energy that the upkeep of a church takes, while really not believing what it says it stands for, and sometimes actually repudiating those beliefs and traditions, doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Why not just join one of our four, ever so inclusive, socialist, political parties or a service club? Isn’t it interesting, though, that service clubs just don’t provide the kind of services that even nominally Christian groups provide. In serving others, there’s definitely something about Christianity . . .)

Black Mamba @ 1:27. Exactly. I laughed! (P.S. Have you read Roald Dahl’s story about a black—and a green—mamba in his book, “Going Solo”? Great stories: kids love them.)

Joe @ 1:25, wrote, “As a Christian PM Harper had every right and even an obligation to partake in the Communion service.” With respect, I disagree, even though I’m altogether on his side in this silly controversy, which, as we all agree, is simply a pretext for the media to make fun of him. He should be pleased: the media appear to think he’s worse than the Catholic Church. Now, that's a compliment!

Raving Papist: My point is the fact that Christianity is greater than the Roman Catholic Church and as such all Christians should join in unity around the Communion Table. We Christians can have our differences while we remain united.

After addressing someone called “Raving Papist”—whoever that might be—Joe then adds an apparent non-sequitur: “We Christians can have our differences while we remain united.”

While I wholeheartedly agree with the latter sentiment and that Christianity is greater than the Roman Catholic Church (who said it isn’t?), I don’t see how using a pejorative term, like “Raving Papist”, helps achieve Christian unity.

And, as I’ve made clear, I’m altogether with PMSH on this one: I’m not the least bit offended by any of his actions here. In an unfortunate slip-up, I think both the PMO and the RC Church let Stephen Harper down. That the MSM has too is business as usual.

"We Christians can have our differences while we remain united."

You should look up a little book called The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood written about 30 years ago by then Josef Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope B16. Its a short book, but quite well done. I think you would enjoy it.

Best,
RP

ps to Lookout -- Papist was considered a term of derision by anti-Catholics in Britain. Many of us Catholics wear the term as a badge of honor and the Raving part is bit of literary tweaking of sensibilities. (Evelyn Waughish)

pps So a handle Raving Papist on Kate's blog impairs Christian unity? Good heavens, I guess calling myself Torqemada Tony wouldn't meet with your approval either, would it?

I was not particularly advocating for one secular system but rather pointing out that this is one solution since it is the situation in other provinces. The Constitution is not an impediment in making changes to the Education Act. Truthfully, I'm a somewhat leery of that proposal since it removes what little competition there is in the system. Though it is argued that this is the best way to promote tolerance amongst children from different cultural/religious backgrounds.

I, too, would not be uncomfortable seeing the state provide funding for education to those of other faiths. It is done in other Provinces. See the following link for a summary (sorry it's CBC but it does give a quick overview).

http://tinyurl.com/mfzcrj

There are already such schools in place in Ontario. They are called private religious or independent schools. They have teachers. They have students. They have buildings. They have shown results. What they don't have is stable government funding. Though at one point, the former Ontario Conservative government did provide some tax relief to parents paying private tuition. That was taken away by the McGuinty government.

Jewish parents have been unhappy with this situation for some time. Non-Catholic Christian families resent having to pay for a private religious education when their cousins receive theirs without any additional financial burden. Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs are also ignored.

I'm not a 'player hater' and I'm fairly certain I'm not a leftard. I don't think the current system is fair or, lacking competition, particularly conducive to improvement. Perhaps you do. We can agree to disagree.

I'm sorry for taking up so much off-topic space on this thread but I did want to set the record straight.

Lookout: Could you please explain the 'slip up'? A Christian in a Christian Church partakes in Communion. This is a 'slip up' because??????? To call it a slip up would mean that you don't believe PM Harper is not a Christian and therefore ineligible to participate or else the Catholic Church is not Christian and therefore Christian PM Harper was participating in a pagan ritual. I assume you are a Christian and as such I encourage you to read 1 Corinthians 3.

Hi, Joe.

(I was going to leave this thread, but I believe you’ve posed questions in good faith and so I’ll answer in the same manner.) In this controversy, I’ve just described the expectation of the Roman Catholic Church: that only those who are Roman Catholic will receive the host.

When I was not a Catholic, I refrained from receiving communion in an RC Church out of respect for its rules. Certainly, the teachings of the RC Church on this sacrament are much more detailed than those I’d received as an Anglican. Also, the instruction and initiation of the catechists are much more thorough and rigorous matters than in most other churches. The sacrifice of the Mass is taken very seriously and the Church expects that those who receive will be spiritually prepared.

While many might disagree with the way the RC Church does things—absolutely their prerogative—I believe there is a valid reason for the Church’s modus operandi.

In the case of the PM, the RC officials should have known that he was not Catholic and they should have briefed his office on what is expected. If they had done that—the PMO officials should have also been on their toes—there would have been no problem: obviously, the PM was surprised to receive the host and found himself confused about what to do. (If he’d wanted to receive, he could have just popped the host in his mouth: no one would have stopped him.) I’ll bet he wasn’t too pleased at being unbriefed in this matter.

I altogether believe that the PM is a Christian. I also believe that the Roman Catholic Church is Christian and does not indulge in pagan rituals. I’ve just checked out 1 Corinthians: 3: “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” I guess Christian minds think alike: that’s just what I was going to say to you!

Lookout you are making the assumption that PM Harper was not briefed on the RC Protocol. I would bet you dollars to doughnuts that Harper is more than aware that the Roman Catholic Church wants to perpetrate divisions in the Christian Community by denying non Catholic Christians Communion. I'm equally certain that PM Harper has been told that Roman Catholics are not Christians by people who go to the same Church PM Harper attends.

All too often I fight with such people. Those (mainly ex-Catholics) who deny Roman Catholics communion because they view the Roman Catholic Church as being non-Christian neo-pagan.

My point is simply this: With all the external foes of Christianity, Islam, Secular Humanism, Scientism, etc etc etc the Christian community should be looking for commonality in the major tenants of the faith (Trinity, Divinity of Christ, Communion etc) and not be looking for reasons to exclude each other from what we ALL share as Holy.

Well, Joe, I don't agree with what you think the PM's been told about the Roman Catholic Church, but I altogether agree with you about Christians trying to be as united as we can. (I don't think trying to sweep substantive differences under the rug is at all the way to go.)

Are you aware of the 2002 document, “Evangelicals and Catholics Together”, co-authored by Chuck Colson (a Christian for whom I have the very highest regard) and Fr Richard John Neuhaus (RIP, a hero of mine: he used to be a Lutheran pastor)? Its subject is exactly what you and I seem to agree on.

Many blessings.

http://www.calendar-updates.com/info/holidays/canada/orangemen.aspx

Maybe Stephen Harper can be tarred with this one as well.

I am sure some clever journo can do this in conjunction with some monsignor's and a couple of Liberal war roomers.....

Lookout I will guarantee that if PM Harper has been to adult Sunday School in any Evangelical Church for anytime longer than two months someone in that Sunday School will have waxed poetic about the Roman Catholic Church NOT being a Christian Church. Usually the person so waxing is a former Catholic. In no way does that imply that PM Harper believes the Roman Catholic Church is not Christian simply that that is what he has been told.

I do not believe that we should sweep major differences under the rug but I do believe that as Christians we should be mature enough to realize that not every Christian must believe exactly what I believe. Nor do I believe that failure to believe exactly what I believe is grounds to deny Communion to that person.

My personal standard is if you, a baptized believer, can say amen to the Nicene Creed then I can not deny you Communion. Should you choose to believe in transubstantiation while I simply believe that I am eating the Body and drinking the Blood without transubstantiation then that is between us and God and not between you and me.

As Jesus said, "I have sheep of other pastures".

Actually, Mamba, it simply isn't true that being offended by something means that the offended one believes that the offender "has an obligation to conform" to his/her belief system, as Kate insists. That's a spurious definition of taking offense which Kate has concocted for her own ends.

I don't deny that a belief system is involved in taking offense at something; I deny that the belief system which causes one to be offended then impels the person to believe that others have an obligation to conform to his belief system, which is what Kate said, and which is obviously ridiculous.

Of course, mature and reasonable people are offended by things everyday, without wasting time believing that the offenders have an obligation to conform to their belief system, simply because they realize that life is short, and prefer to move on, without thinking of illusory obligations of people they'll never meet.

The only reason Kate makes such a preposterously silly argument is to give her an excuse to, well, take offense.

I hear you, Joe. I didn't make the rules about the Mass but, for me, they make sense. I know this is a stumbling block for many (as are some beliefs/practices of other denominations to the RC Church): these are sad facts of our imperfect nature. So, in our differences, it seems that as much charity as we can muster is required.

lookout said: "But how come mainstream, Zeitgeist mirroring, Protestant churches—Anglican, United, Presbyterian, Lutheran—are emptying out, while Catholic and evangelical churches, with higher expectations, are thriving and growing?"

This is true lookout. I should have said that -historically- protestant theology was more sensible. Currently the churches you mention have been invaded by the same plague visited upon our universities, hence their decline.

Myself, I haven't been in church (United) pretty much since my parents stopped making me go, other than special occasions. Too many earnest Lefties tut tutting about the environment and such from the pulpit

See Kathy? I'm an equal opportunity nose thumber. ~:D

bleety dear, I read that post of yours twice and its complete gibberish. Utterly devoid of reason, old son. Try again.

And try not being quite so lippy to your hostess, eh? She doesn't -have- to let you yammer here.

Getting back to "cracker," etc. The problem is that some things are not just beliefs. Like Kathy said, "also, er, it's Jesus." Look at it like an anti-abortion person looks at a pro-abortion person. Whether or not it's a baby is NOT something to be decided by a person. It either is or is not a baby, and we either do or do not recognize that. If it's not a baby, it probably is ok to get rid of it. If it is a baby, that is murder of the most innocent. If the eucharist isn't Jesus, no big deal, respect it if you want, as a symbol. If it is Jesus - you are committing disrespect and blasphemy to the most holy body and blood of your saviour. Most people on this site would agree that there is such a thing as truth, true in and of itself. Catholics know that the eucharist is the body of Jesus, and as such cannot say "well, it's okay for YOU to desecrate it, since you don't believe it, no problem!" That insult to Jesus can't be tolerated. Kathy's phrasing ("er",) intimated that she may have been slightly embarrassed by exposing that sometimes controversial belief, and her knowledge that she was letting herself in for just what she got from this crowd. And, oh yes, NO ONE refers to the eucharist as a cracker unless they want the pleasure of giving offense deliberately and then being offended that offense was taken. I believe the term is disengenuous.

bleets, my dear, we're getting a little involved here. This is the kind of stuff I enjoyed in Philosophy of Ethics 101.
I think that "believing that offenders have an obligation to conform to their belief system" is where you're getting tripped up.
"I am offended" means "you have behaved wrongly".
The first question is: How do we decide what's bad (Answer: The Western Philosophical Tradition + use your head).
The second is: What ought we to do with bad people (e.g. sic Jennifer Lynch on them? Suicide bombings? Sternly worded letters to the Globe and Mail?) - now that's another issue.
I, for one, believe that the perpetually offended, most of whom are lefties, are self-important jerks. But that takes us back to the nature of their "belief systems" (e.g. "how much do I believe that people ought to defer to my feelings" etc).
Kate's basic point was about whether she ought to defer to Roman Catholic terminology when describing the Host - she went with "no". Kathy Shaidle (basically) said "yes", and Kate equated that (playfully, I think) to Muslim demands to conform to their dhimmi-submit-pictues policy.
And I'm done with that.

lookout - I love Roald Dahl. He's so - crafty. Does he write about mambas? Bless him! If and when I have children I'll be very into that.
(Do you read Damian Thompson's Telegraph blog? I bet you'd like it.)

"Being "offended" by neutral terminology suggests that you think I have an obligation to conform to belief system I don't share."

It's quite simple.

To take Kate's statement seriously one would have to believe:

1) that referring to the host as a "cracker" is neutral terminology - i.e., that it wasn't meant to diminish the Catholic belief in the spiritual significance and sacredness of the host.
Try going into a Catholic church and ask the priest for a "cracker". See if that gets you branded as anything other than a smartaleck. Kate knows this and pretends not to. 'Neutral terminology'. Uh-huh.

2) That being offended necessarily means that one thinks others have an obligation to conform to their belief system. Nonsense. People can be, and are, offended by things all the time without thinking that others have an 'obligation' to conform to their belief system.

If you're intending to defend Kate's original statement you're evidently in full agreement with these two points, so, please, illustrate for us how they're true.

Oh yeesh.
Bleets, dearest, here's where you're mixed up about this: An "offended" person believes the "offender" has wronged them. This wrong may (usually does) amount to no more than "I am a crippled Vietnamese lesbian and it is WRONG of you to insult cripples Vietnamese lesbians because that is HURTFULL and it is wrong to HURT people (especially me because I'm very important)!"
If this person is a Canadian and a dipstick with no notions about Freedom of Expression then she may believe that the law (or whatever the HRCs are) should intervene.
Otherwise she'll just move on.
If a person objects to something because he dislike it but does not find it morally wrong then his reaction is aesthetic, not moral.
That's it. If you don't understand, I can't help.

Can you read, Black Mamba?

Kate's point was that the offended person thinks other people have an obligation to conform to their belief system.

The point you're attempting to make is that an offended person believes the offender has 'wronged' them. That's an entirely different point, which has nothing to do with the conversation at hand. Are you unable to focus your mind on what is actually being said?

Further, do you believe along with Kate that referring to a communion wafer as a 'cracker' is neutral terminology? Would referring to a yarmulke as a "beanie cap" be equally neutral?

Why the bloody hell am I up at this stupid time doing this? Why has it come to this for me?
You wronged me = You failed to conform to my beliefs regarding what is right and wrong (which is my belief system).
"Neutral Terminology" in this context means "not the terminology of the RCH".
Now I have Lithuanian herring to buy in the morning, so this time I really am done.

Oh sh*t, RCC which = Roman Catholic Church.
Sleep, herring.

In the interest of exactitude:

"You failed to conform to my beliefs of what is right and wrong" does not equal the belief that others have an 'obligation' to conform to those beliefs, as Kate argues.

Neutral terminlogy means neutral terminology - which in this case means terminlogy which is neither positive or negative towards the Catholic Church. Calling a communion host a 'cracker' is terminology which is disparaging of the beliefs the Church, so it is negative, not neutral terminology.

You can't simply re-define terms to mean whatever you want them to mean, Mamba, in your zealous need to defend Kate. Words have meanings.

Bleety

Nobody is arguing that it isnt nuetral, in the sense that someone else might find it offensive or degrading etc.

The only way you can not be that way is to accept the others sides definition and uage of words. Which, according to the argument, is similar to what those who are offended by depictions of Mohammed are. The only way not to offend them is accept their precept and never do it....so this is the whole "Tyrrany of Nice" thing isnt i? In order not to offend I act and speak like you even though I dont believe what you believe, all to not offend and be nice, made worse in some cases when it is backed by the state.

Is "cracker" an inappropriate word to a devout Catholic, seems pretty clear. But so what....in the larger sense not in the it never matters. Objectively it is a cracker, it is only more if you accept, or choose to honor the person you are speaking to, the religous ideas attached to the ceremony that preceeds it, or even in the Protestant sense, the symbolism of what it represents.

So Kate's argument still holds, she isnt Catholic, she doesnt buy into the magical qualities that the Priest performs. There is no neutral when you have no common ground, there cannot be.

The usual response is to either ignore it or register the correction and then ignore it. You cannot force language that implies your beliefs on to someone...this is the point. Sometimes your beliefs are your beliefs...it doesnt make them any less or more worthwhile, it just means their yours.

But once again, Harper never pocketed the "Host", he didnt eat it right away like many people, including some at the ceremony. So this is manufactured, a monsignor was recruited to spread the lie/allegation, and the media jumped on the idea so the can beat Harper up with it in a constituency he makes inroads in.

Goodness, this is right out of Kinsella's book, turn your opponents strength into a weakness. So in this case, take Harper's personal religous beleiefs and turn it against him with another community. Quite the art to make a genuine Christian look like he is disrespectful of "Christianity" (as defined by the RC Church), hats off Warren, you earned your pay this week....Conservative minded Catholics should hang their head in shame for getting suickered into this and letting their religon be used for partisan purposes.

And Ignatieff the athiest (not that it should matter) was where during this ceremony? Who is the monsignor and when is the RC church going to step on him for dragging them into this.

Stephen, I appreciate your post. But, to set the record straight . . .

You wrote, "Conservative minded Catholics should hang their head in shame for getting suickered into this and letting their religon be used for partisan purposes."

Please be careful with the stereotypes: I'm a “[c]onservative minded Catholic" and right here, over and over, I've been totally supportive of the PM and, have criticized the RC presiders, the PMO, and, especially the media for this ridiculous swipe at our fine PM.

(I’d be interested to know how people like me can prevent the Liberal loving media from spinning just about anything for partisan purposes. Now, THAT would be a miracle!)

To Kate and all others who are not Catholic but have decided that you have a say as to what happens inside a Catholic church - "None of your business".

It really is as simple as that. You don't belong - you don't have a say. Oh - you can go ahead and spout whatever you want - free country and all that (in spite of the HRC's) but in the end it really is none of your bees wax folks.

What the hell are you talking about, Bob? Kate has decided that she has a say as to what happens in side a Catholic church?

Huh?

Are you hallucinating? Or are you so overcome by a sudden a pressing need to be righteous that you create phantom spectres?

What the hell?

Holy smokes, Bob.

So according to Bob if in the Catholic Church a priest calls a ladybug and eagle every time I see a ladybug I'm supposed to call it an eagle?

If a non-believer sees a cracker being served during communion and not the Body I would hope the non-believer would have the integrity to call it a cracker. No one should call a cracker the Body simply because the priest said it was the Body. Discerning the Body is up to the believer not the priest. In like manner no believer should look down on a non-believer for not discerning the Body.

“Cracker”?

What choo talkin bout Willis?

It’s amazing the amount of thin skin that slithers out of the shadows when religion and race becomes a headline. Even a minor and completely inconsequential one.

The left and right become so confused they start to perversely agree with each other.

> To Kate and all others who are not
> Catholic but have decided that you
> have a say as to what happens inside
> a Catholic church

You need to work on your reading comprehension. Kate hasn't decided what you can say inside of your church, she's simply decided that you can't dictate what she says outside of your church.

Here are her words:

"You find it offensive that a non-believer uses common terminology to describe an aspect of Catholicism.

I find it offensive that a person of faith in a free society would demand non-believers submit their expression to your rules and traditions outside of your places of worship."

I think you owe Kate an apology.

Joe,because the word cracker is almost always used in a denigrating manner. Catholics don't ask, really, that people accept our understanding of the situation. We're not forcing our belief on you, we're explaining why it hurts. It hurts because we "know" (sorry Jesus) that this is Jesus and we have to ask for respect, and it hurts that you want take that poke at us. We ask that you don't deliberately poke sticks in our eyes just because you can. Yes, it is immensely important that you be allowed to make that jab any time you want to, if you're spiteful and disengenuous enough to want to. We can't do anything about it, and THAT'S THE WAY IT SHOULD BE! I don't want to live in the world where you can't say something offensive. But we don't have to like it, and our taking offense doesn't mean you can't say it. IT MEANS WE ARE OFFENDED, AND WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY THAT. Should we just shut up and take it, because you have the right to say it? Oh, free speech for you, but not for me. We don't saw your head off if you abuse or disrespect the Body of Christ. We'll probably just arrange some reparatory Masses and prayers to beg forgiveness for the offenders. The reason for denying communion to non-Catholics is as much to protect the non-Catholic from inadvertantly bringing the results of a terrible sin on their own heads as it is protecting the eucharist from desecration. The Bible says you bring sin on yourself if you eat the Body of Christ without an understanding of what it is. How can we not prevent this if we can?

It's Orangeman's Day, folks. If you can't be offensive to Catholics on this of all weekends, there's something seriously wrong.

Kathy (not Shaidle: As an Evangelical Christian who likewise believes that we consume the Body of Christ and drink the Blood of Christ during communion my point remains. TURN THE OTHER CHEEK!

Or at least pray as Jesus did while being nailed to the Cross, "Father forgive them for they do not know what they are doing".

Its not the unbeliever's job to live up to our standards or beliefs, its our job to bring them into the discipleship of Jesus. We won't do that by running around telling everyone how offended we are by their actions or beliefs.

Back on topic: It should be noted that I have asked many non-bloggers what they have heard about this situation. ALL heard that PMSH pocketed the host, NONE heard his press conference when he defended himself and dissed the lazy, low-life media.(I beleive you can still find it on CTV.ca)
Point..the MSM have once again proved their laziness and bias and Harper-hating agenda. They are fools.
This really wasn't about faith and religion was it?

Any real or imagined insult to Islam sets off such an over reaction that it's almost an act of charity to help desensitize Muslims with deliberate insults. Insulting and offending your Roman Catholic friends and allies is just rude and it serves no purpose.

"Just as I reject the demands of Muslims that I observe their religious laws, I do not recognize demands by Catholics that I conform to Catholic terminology that suggests I believe that a biscuit, wafer, or cracker is the "body of Christ".

I don't".

That is what Kate wrote. Call the host whatever you want to call it. What we Catholics say it is in our Church IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! We don't really care what you call it. That is your perogative but no one is "demanding that you conform to Catholic terminology" on what it is.

What I am saying is what Catholics say it is is none of your business. You are not a member so it is none of your business. Can it be any clearer than that? Your writing to say that you don't agree with this or don't believe that is totally and completely irrelevant. Capeesh?

this thread surely confirms my belief that AGW believers and religious folk have a lot in common, wheather they admit it or not!!!!

BTW; Hi lookout, good to see you back in full contibution mode:-)))) I may not agree with your POV, but do enjoy your delivery of it

AND

ET is significant in her absense:-))))

No, she has an excellent point. People are free to be offended. If she isn't murdering people or committing arson or suchlike, why, she should object as loudly as she likes: it isn't only her right, it is her duty.

I won't give a crap, but she surely should.

> What I am saying is what Catholics
> say it is is none of your business.
> You are not a member so it is none
> of your business. Can it be any
> clearer than that?

Bob, for crying out loud, I've got a seven year old daughter who runs circles around you at reading comprehension.

Re-read Kate's words and you'll see that she said she doesn't care what you call the host/cracker/Christ-crunchies in your church. That's YOUR business. However, not being Catholic, she refuses to allow you to dictate to her what terminology she uses to describe an item outside of your place of worship.

Which is emminently sensible.

Just a rough sum-up of pro and con Kate: Pro 37,
Con 17, somewhere in between, or don't know or don't want to offend anyone, about 10.
Personally, I like those odds, besides the Pro have WallyJ to contend with.

Okay Sean, let's make sure we're clear. You have no right to offense at my referring to your slutty b*t#c wh%r$ cu%t mother in rude terms, right? It says nothing about me, and everything about your self-righteous intolerance. Got it. And don't you dare try to dictate to me, this is America!!

Sean - you are the one with the reading comprehension deficit. Get some tutoring then re-read what I wrote. Its quite clear.

So - once more just for you Sean "What we say it is IN OUR CHURCH is none of your business". Blabber all you want about what you might believe but to Catholics what you believe or don't believe is irrelevant. Now if you are having a problem understanding what I have just written consult a good english teacher to shed some light for you. Or better yet have your seven year old daughter explain it to you.

"Now daddy, what Bob is saying here is......."

Kathy (not the interesting one): You can call my mother whatever you want and I'd support your right to do so. Furthermore, I wouldn't take offense -- saying things like that hurts you more than me, so have at 'er.

Oh, and speaking of not being dictated to, you may want to stop worrying about what Kate called your crackers and start paying attention to the Broadcaster Freedom Act kerfuffle in your own country. You're fussing over the mole hill whilst ignoring the mountain.

Bob: If you want to call it the Host in your church, good for you. If I was a guest in your church (which is damned unlikely -- I'd probably burst into flame), I'd show respect for your beliefs, call the Host by its proper name, and politely defer if the priest mistakenly offered it to me as I'm aware that non-Catholics are not supposed to partake. Outside of your church, I'm calling a spade a spade and a cracker a cracker, even if it tastes more like recycled asbestos.

Which was Kate's point, btw.

It's not intolerance if I don't share your beliefs or find certain aspects of them ludicrous. It only becomes intolerance if I actively try to block you from holding your beliefs or practicing them at church or in your daily lives, which is not the case here. I'm perfectly comfortable with having Catholic neighbors in my community, and feel they make it a better place as a whole.

You're going to have a hard time accusing me of anti-Catholic bigotry given that I've written numerous letters and e-mails in support of Fr. Alphonse de Valk, protesting his treatment by HRCs. I've walked the walk when it comes to supporting the right of those I disagree with to speak their piece. It's a shame that you refuse to extend the same courtesy to Kate and others.

Anyhow, I'm done with this thread. Talking to you is like talking to a dial tone, and only half as productive. Enjoy bashing each others brains in over the finer points of cracker consumption.

"It's not intolerance if I don't share your beliefs or find certain aspects of them ludicrous."

Well put Sean. When people refer to tolerance nowadays they usually mean acceptance.

Now you're getting delusional on me Sean. Where in my postings on this subject did I write anything accusing anyone of intolerance or anti-Catholic bigotry?

Time to go over this material again with your seven year old, Sean.

Kate vs. Kathy?

The winner: Paul.

1 Corinthians 11: 27-29
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20corinthians%2011:27-29;&version=31;

Sean, I know you're probably not here, but to close the circle - why are you so angry? Yes, you are, it's all over your response. I only stated something that was unnecessary, untrue, inconsiderate, inappropriate if consideration for others and manners are at all important, and intended to sting while I claim that if it stings it's because you're trying to dictate my thoughts and censor my words and you resent it because you can't. We're just as bad as the lefties, you know. Like us pro-lifers who KNOW that if we could just get the message across, abortion would stop. They already know. That's what all the cricket chirping is about. They know all the bloody truth and they just don't care. And you already know "cracker" is a slap in the face, but you just don’t care. I wonder why that is.

I'm back! This thread is like a good car wreck that you just can't stop rubbernecking at.

Bob: Go back and tell me exactly where I proscribed what you can and can't say in your own church. If you can prove that I've attempted stifle your speech I'll proudly wear the delusion label.

Kathy (not the libertarian one): Please point out where I'm censoring you?

I haven't told you what you can or can't call the wafer in question. Call it whatever you want. Believe whatever you want about it. All I've denied you is the ability to force me to use the terms you've prescribed for said wafer in the course of my every day conversation.

So it bothers you for me to call it a Christ Crispy, a Believer Biscuit, or a Catholic Cracker?

Not my problem.

Just like it's not my problem if it upsets some devout muslims that my daughter wears a bikini swim suit at swimming lessons. Just like it's not my problem that the Mormon sitting two seats over from me at a restaurant is annoyed by the smell of my cup of coffee. Just like it's not my problem that some of the local Hutterites are bothered when my wife doesn't wear their traditional black clothing, ugly black shoes, and won't take any crap from other males. Ad infinitum.

You're entitled to your beliefs, and to practice them as best you can in your life. You're just not entitled to force me to behave according to your beliefs, particularly ones that I don't share.

It's not that I'm angry -- amused is more the word -- I'm simply refusing to let you tell me how to live my life. There's even a Kathy Shaidle t-shirt to that effect, although I'm guessing it doesn't apply to crackers.