Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Posted on 07/14/2008 9:08:20 AM PDT by VeniVidiVici
Catholics consider the consecrated wafer, the Eucharist, among the most sacred objects in the world and believe it becomes the 'Body of Christ' through transubstantiation.
Student Government Senator Webster Cook filed the hazing charges with University of Central Florida administrators shortly after he admitted violating church rules by bringing the Eucharist home from Mass on June 29, then holding it hostage for one week in a plastic bag before returning it.
Cook said his hazing complaint cited a UCF anti-hazing policy banning the forced consumption of any food in which the initiation or admission into or affiliation with a University of Central Florida organization may be directly or indirectly conditioned.
The rule, presumably, was intended to prevent fraternities from force-feeding pledges disgusting food, but Cook said the rule is clear and applies to all UCF clubs, including the Catholic Campus Ministries religious group. He insists the group is guilty because members ordered him to consume the Eucharist to remain at Mass.
The Diocese of Orlando declined to comment about the charges.
"Appropriate officials of the University of Central Florida are investigating the matter and due process is occurring," said a spokesperson.
(Excerpt) Read more at wftv.com ...
No one forced him to take communion. He just stole it.
The little Satan should be kicked out.
Wait till he learns another other catholic (and others as well) belief that if you are unrepentant and take communion with malice, it brings you to death faster.
Student Government Senator Webster Cook needs to have a very long meeting out behind the woodshed with mister great-big hickory switch.
There are no words.
I’d welcome 5 minutes alone in a locked room with this spoiled brat. I’d teach him a thing or two about respect.
Remember the rules that apply in liberal circles, particularly academia. Catholicism has no standing and Catholics have no right to live up to their beliefs nor stand up for same, nor insist that those who voluntarily attend their liturgies abide by the rules of the Church.
I predict a prolonged and acrimonious inquiry in which Cook manages to achieve the impossible of assuming the role of victim of vicious, intolerant Catholics.
In fact, he didn't consume it; he stole it.
The fact that the University is afraid to act shows that they are a bunch of pusillanimous pansies. No wonder this clown feels free to act like this.
That in particular is a true Constitutional, First Amendment issue and one which Ave Maria University's counsel, or any other Catholic legal association, would love to take to a state or federal court.
UCF will wind up handing over well more than the student government budget in damages and further negative publicity.
NZ, can you point to any catechism reference or other teaching that supports what you claim?
For non-Catholics who might read this, there is not “forced consumption” at any mass. You don’t want to take the wafer? You don’t go up and take it.
Nor do Catholics believe, as far as I know, that behaving in this manner hastens one’s death.
What he did was sacrilegious, but that is what he intended. That the charges he filed are still under review and not dismissed is telling, though. Either there are facts not mentioned here (possible) but more likely it is just SOP from left university clods.
That little -
I better not say anything more.
Oh, there are words--but if we use them, we'll need extra time in the Confessional.
The argument he is making is that, having received the sacrement, he spit it out of his mouth. Then, they told him that he either had to eat it, or else he had to return it and leave the service.
So his ARGUMENT is that, in order to stay in the service, he had to eat the bread. If he returned it, he had to leave. Therefore, eating the bread was a mandatory requirement for him to stay in a student-sponsored event.
Whether he can win on this argument is another matter. It seems a bad precedent to require religious groups to meet the hazing requirements (and the drinking requirements), but that might be the downside of having to be a “student organization” in order to have a church.
Really, the school should NOT have churches under any regulation. By trying to force them into the “student group” paradigm, they may well subject a church to undue outside influence.
Maybe churches should just buy property off campus and then they won’t be entangled in the school administration.
Now, when I went to school, we established a Reformed University Movement chapter, so we could then sponsor a Reformed Presbyterian Church which met in McBride hall on Sunday mornings. I even got to put “President” on my resume.
But Virginia Tech never gave us any trouble at all over what we were doing. That was in the late 70s.
I think that the case is that, like at many schools, the students have a Catholic student group, while the actual Mass is offered by the local diocese.
...and snag a book deal, several interviews, and/or possibly the theme of some TV episode. ("The story your are about to see is based on a true story. Only the names and locations have been changed to...")
I hope it has not escaped the attention of everyone that all this could have been avoided if Communion was distributed only on the tongue. In this situation, it becomes impossible to claim hazing because it is understood that by presenting yourself before a minister and opening your mouth voluntarily, you are consenting to consume the sacred species. There is no gray area and the issue of hazing does not arise.
You either open your mouth, in which case you consent to consume, or you keep your mouth closed in which case no Eucharist is given.
By placing the Eucharist in the man's hand, he is now able to argue ( or at least try to) that he should be free not to consume and that any efforts to make him do so should be classified as duress.
Maybe God will be able to work through this evil and good will come out of it. It could turn into one of those landmark cases which acts to stimulate a rethinking of current practice and serve as a turning point for Catholic practice with regard to the dispensing of the Eucharist.
From Mass in Dorm Upheld
NEWARK, De1.-Overturning a lower court ruling, the State Supreme Court has upheld the right of two Catholic chaplains to celebrate Mass on the campus of the University of Delaware here. University officials have contended that allowing use of campus facilities for religious services would violate the First Amendment.
But Delaware's Supreme Court said the university policy "constitutes a legal burden" on the students' right to worship, and that the university would have to prove a "compelling state interest" to continue the prohibition.
A decision on possible appeal by the university was not immediately announced. The case began with an incident on Sept. 23, 1973 when Father Michael Szupper, chaplain of the university Newman Apostolate, and his assistant, Father William Keegan, were prevented from using a dormitory commons room for a Mass. They had celebrated Mass on two previous Sundays without incident.
The location was more than a mile from the Newman Center, and students had asked for a Mass closer to their residences. Raymond C. Eddy, dean of students, confronted Father Szupper and about 75 students and read a university statement which said the priest and his assistant might face arrest if they tried to continue the services.
John E. Wrothen, vice-president for student affairs, said in a prepared statement that the university's stand was based on "the fundamental principle of separation of church and state."
The following spring, the university won a court order barring the celebration of Mass in the dormitory. But the priests then appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court.
Students have been taken by bus, meanwhile, to Mass at the Newman center. Following the State Supreme Court ruling the two priests said that a Mass schedule would be worked out in meetings with William Marvel, vice-chancellor of the university. (RNS)
I was in college when the Iranians seized our embassy, and although I had ditched class on the day this happened, I heard about it later:
One of the foreign students (I believe from Nigeria) was running his mouth either before or after class, saying that Iran had every right to do what they did, evil American Imperialists, etc. A tiny, very shy, little Iranian girl (probably <90 lbs) who was also in the class verbally abused him up one side and down the other, and a bunch of male American students took him out to the parking lot at some point to “explain the matter.” I never saw him again.
This was at the Annandale campus of NOVA.
********************
Amen. Perhaps this is exactly the reason it is happening.
I didn't know that he received it in his mouth. Is this true? If so, his position is essentially untenable. By opening his mouth vountarilyand allowing a minister to place the Eucharist in his mouth, he has consented to consume.
I simply assumed that he was given Communion in the hand and refused to place it in his mouth. Communion in the hand is virtually ubiquitous at Catholic Masses these days.
He did not. Lining up to receive Eucharist is voluntary.
If he returned it, he had to leave.
I don't see that either.
That would never happen.
You don't have to receive Communion if you don't want to, and you don't have to receive Communion when you go to Mass.
It's Catholic dogma that you shouldn't receive the Eucharist if you are not in a state of grace.
Or at least until until 'it' repents.
The only answer is that the asylum is open and the inmates are pouring out into the streets. Remember Michael Savage who said that liberalism is a mental illness.
What's next, putting Catholics on Double Secret Probation?
Where are the riots in the streets, demanding that this infidel be dragged into the streets and stoned to death?
Oh...sorry...
Wrong religion.
Catholics, and Christians in general, are not alllowed the same rights.
He received it in the hand, and then tried to walk away with it.
A Eucharistic minister, saw him and told him to eat it or give it back.
He then put it in his mouth and as soon as he got past her, took it out of his mouth again.
She then went after him and grabbed him by the wrist to make him hand it over, and this 20 year old man then cried that a middle-aged woman was assaulting him, broke her grip and fled.
That’s possible, I don’t remember which way he received it.
I’m not agreeing with his argument, just stating it more clearly than he did (or trying to).
He voluntarily received the sacrament. But then he decided not to eat it. According to his testimony, at THAT time, while still holding the sacrement in his hand, he was given an ultimatum — eat it, or leave the service.
In his argument, that means that, at that moment in time, it was “mandatory” that he eat the sacrement as a condition of being allowed to remain in the service.
I don’t know if that is what he was told. What they could have told him is to either eat it, or return it to them — without telling him he had to leave. They could have then asked him to leave because he was causing a scene, which wouldn’t be the same as being told he had to eat something.
As I said, I’m not defending his argument, or agreeing with it.
I’m not aware I claimed you were defending the argument. I’m just saying his argument is bogus.
Thanks. I figured he got it in the hand.
You think NOVA C.C. was bad then, you should see it now.
LOL! In the midst of this rather unhappy situation, your post made me laugh. Thanks! :)
What a twerp.
What an unmitigated idiot. No one forced him into the line to receive Holy Communion. By freely going up, he is then required to consume the Body of Christ, but only because HE placed himself there. He’s obviously just looking to make trouble, but I sure hope folks there point out just what an a$$ he’s making of himself.
There is no such belief. It will bring you spiritual condemnation, if you do not repent, but it won't make you die any faster than you would have anyway. Please don't confuse 'popular belief' with true Catholic Doctrine.
It would have made no difference. If it were given on the tongue, he could have spit it out, as well. When he raised his hands to receive, it was voluntary. If it were someone who didn't want to receive, but only wanted a blessing, they could have come up and crossed his arms over this chest to make it clear that he had no intentions of receiving the Body of Christ.
No, he was told to consume it or give it back. He refused to do either.
In his argument, that means that, at that moment in time, it was “mandatory” that he eat the sacrement as a condition of being allowed to remain in the service.
It's like the all-you-can-eat Chinese buffet. He is absolutely free to consume the Eucharist as offered to him. He is not free to take it with him.
“Cook is also facing a more public set of charges filed by one of his peers in UCF’s Student Government Association. SGA Officer Anthony Furbush filed an impeachment affidavit against Cook claiming Cook violated SGA ethics when he announced he was an SGA official during Mass and cited that reason, along with the fact Mass was held in a public campus hall, as why he didn’t have to leave when asked.
Cook denied that allegation. Hearings on the impeachment charge could begin Wednesday. If convicted, Cook would be stripped of his SGA position.
SGA officials at UCF are responsible for allocating and overseeing a more than $13 million annual budget, which comes from student fees. The spots are coveted by students, with some candidates spending $10,000 in private funds to win elections for the highest positions in SGA.
The SGA impeachment, overseen by students, is separate from the pending Office of Student Conduct case overseen by UCF administrators. The administrative court could issue punishments ranging from probation to an outright expulsion from school.”
http://www.wftv.com/news/16806050/detail.html?rss=orlc&psp=news
This looks very promising...
Imagine how different this would have been if he had desecrated a Koran. University officials would then be charging him with a hate crime.
I'm sure in the alternative he could have given the host back to the celebrant or eucaristic minister.
I remember the Iranian males begging women to marry them so they could stay in the US.
This young man has a total and thorough lack of understanding of the faith/religion to which he was a part of. And this reflects back upon a survey that American Bishops had conducted several months ago that stated that most American Catholics believe they are still good Catholics even though they do not attend Mass. Again, gross misunderstanding and lack of education about our faith, and that is where the Catholic shcools failed over the years.
The center of the Catholic faith IS the Eucharist. The belief that it becomes the physical body of Christ and that we take Him inside of us is the main focal point. THis man obviously does not consider this at all. He does not consider the fact that in order to be considered a Catholic in good standing one has to first be in a state of grace through confessing their sins, then to accept Jesus as Eucharist to come into full communion with HIM first, and the rest of the community second.
To be Catholic means to take part in the Eucharist. If he does not want to take part, he doesn’t have to. But then, why even bother to attend a Catholic Mass? He can simply renounce his Catholicism and worship somewhere else. No one is holding him there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.