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.
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.