Kathy Shaidle has a point;
“I too have to object to the use of the word “cracker”.
Unlike Protestants, Catholics believe that the communion Host is the actual Body of Christ. We’re touchy about people pocketing the Host because believe it or not, there are weird people into Santeria and stuff who use them in pagan rituals.
Also, er, it’s Jesus.”
It’s just not a very good one.
(Peace Be Upon Him.)
> 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.