<link>

I think the host has been returned.

A couple things worth noting in the article..first equating a piece of bread to the kidnapping of an actual live person certainly shows some misplaced priorities. Clearly having his flesh routinely eaten isn't bothersome so I don't think 1 missing piece is going to somehow harm Jesus/God.

Regardless of the reason, the Diocese says its main concern is to get the Eucharist back so it can be taken care of properly and with respect. Cook has been keeping the Eucharist stored in a plastic bag since last Sunday.

"It is hurtful," said Father Migeul Gonzalez with the Diocese. "Imagine if they kidnapped somebody and you make a plea for that individual to please return that loved one to the family."

But the second one says the faithful need to make reparations? People who had nothing to do with it but are members of that church...So indeed we have those not guilty of a particular sin being punished and having to make ammends for it (contrary to what Truette and JV have claimed)

If it's not returned, the community of faith will have to ask for forgiveness.

"We have to make acts of reparation," Gonzalez said. "The whole community is going to turn to prayer. We'll ask the Lord for pardon, forgiveness, peace, not only for the whole community affected by it, but also for [Cook], we offer prayers for him as well."

And why did nobody mention....Whitley Streiber?

haha

What about "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"? They passed up that title for a news article...feh.

U_S, I think you know that to the Diocese and Fr. Gonzalez, it is not a piece of bread - - it's the Creator of the Universe, really present, really there. On the point of what to do, or perhaps more accurately what the response of the faithful should be, certainly there is the position that proper reverence for the divine requires action to return and care for the host. I think this is a topic (reverence for the divine) that in modern society, particularly our society, with its emphasis on individual rights, has a hard time grasping or getting our minds around (at least I do, and, really, I want to "get it" as a concept). The idea of G_d as our creator and sustainer, and therefore worthy of reverence, is, in a way, I think, foreign to our sensibilities (someone, it may even have been you, U_S, posted on this relationship between creator and created last week, I think). Perhaps it has to do with our conception of ourselves as citizens of the state - - in some sense we acknowledge the state/nation, but only give it the powers we agree on, and conceptually have the same relationship with a creator? I don't know, that was off the top of my head, and I'm sure others have or will treat it more fully.

Anyway, that reverence plays a component in what the response of believers should be, although I think it is also possible to take the position that while it is pious and right for the faithful to be concerned about G_d, is He really being harmed, and by anyone other than an apparently really misguided soul? Essentially to use this incident to instruct the faithful about the nature of the Eucharist, but commit the actor to G_d's mercy?

As to the reparation aspect, again this goes to reverence. It is a colossal disrespect to G_d to treat Him so casually, even if the actor doesn't believe in the Real Presence, within the faith tradition of course. I think this goes more toward "he knows not what he does" rather than "you all are responsible for this offense", and that the reparations are being offered for the injury to the majesty and glory of G_d, regardless of the cause. I didn't get the sense from Fr. Gonzalez's comments that it was the fault of the faith community. Isn't that a fairly standard Christian refrain, Protestant and Catholic alike, that the nation is performing acts offensive to G_d, we must repent, ask forgiveness, etc.?

I guess I place a bit higher value on actual human suffering and the consequences of say kidnapping than on some college kid acting like a putz and don't think the two are anywhere close to being equivalent.

While I understand the belief and think both "sides" acted poorly, I think the kind of hyperbole used contributes to a coarsening of the overall discourse, the claim victimhood and equate the actions to something far far worse .(See Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or Nano for examples)

Best line in that story:

...The Diocese is dispatching a nun to UCF's campus to oversee the next mass, protect the Eucharist...

She'll whack 'em with rulers and tell them The Communists are gonna kill 'em and dispose of their bodies by stuffing them into meat grinders* if they mess with her mass.

*Actual nun threat given to my dad in Catholic grade school in the 1950s.

What about regurgitation of the Host?

NightSwimmer:

What about regurgitation of the Host?

So strange. #32 "If there is fear of an attack by enemies, or of a flood or of the collapse of the building where the Mass is being celebrated...?"

Semi-serious question... if you vomit 'host', shouldn't it come out blood and flesh? Or does the transformation happen later?

Some say it will.

It's just a frickin' CRACKER for christ's sake!

And doesn't it get shit out and flushed in the end?

Sheesh!!