Canadian Communion Blunder

by Steve Ray on July 9, 2009

Posted by Canon Lawyer and friend Ed Peter:

“Video tape shows Archbishop Andre Richard (Moncton, New Brunswick) giving holy Communion to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper at a state funeral. It is, of course, inconceivable that Richard did not know that Harper is an evangelical Protestant. Obviously unsure what to do, Harper apparently slipped the Host into his pocket (!), and his office has not said what he eventually did with It.”

Read what it means here: http://www.canonlaw.info/2009/07/canadian-communion-blunder.html

**************************

Dispute rises over Canadian prime minister’s reception of Communion

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=3470

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper precipitated a controversy when he received Communion during a funeral Mass. Early reports suggested that Harper, who is not a Catholic, slipped the Blessed Sacrament into his pocket. But a spokesman has denied those reports, saying that the prime minister actually consumed the Host, and an eyewitness confirmed that account. Questions remain as to why Archbishop Andre Richard administered the Eucharist to a man who is well known to be an Evangelical Protestant.

***************
Archbishop says Canadian leader meant no disrespect by receiving Eucharist

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=3480

Archbishop AndrĂ© Richard of Moncton, New Brunswick has come to the defense of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who has been roundly criticized for taking Communion during a funeral Mass. A spokesman for Harper said that the prime minister, who is Protestant, did not realize that it was improper for him to receive Communion. “In the context,” Archbishop Richard said, “it’s obvious that no disrespect was meant.” The archbishop did not address the issue of his own failure to give Harper proper instruction.

{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }

Tim July 10, 2009 at 11:13 AM

Consider this.

If a member of the public was to enter into the floor of the house of commons and try and take a seat he would have been accosted by security, unceremoniously removed and possibly charged.

The members of parliament would have been indignant that outsider would have the audacity to enter into thier sacred space and defile it.

BillyHW July 13, 2009 at 10:21 PM

I think it’s fair to say that the P.M. was invincibly ignorant of any wrongdoing here, and the good Abp. was astoundingly vincibly ignorant.

Leave a Comment

 

Previous post:

Next post: