Wafer madness, part deux: Oh, the kerfuffle of it all

As promised, a few (waaay to many, really) observations and musings about the recent flare-up of the Harper and the Holy Host brouhaha, which most thought we’d heard the last of but which hit the news again this week with a front-page apology to the PM from the paper that broke the story, the New Brunswick Telegraph Journal, the departure of an editor and publisher, and an apology to the reporters that wrote the story.

Apparently, the editor/publisher inserted something into the story that wasn’t substantiated, without the knowledge of the reporters. It’s unclear to me what specifically, but it seems to be the statement of fact that he was indeed witnessed pocketing the host, and the potentially un-sourced claim that a senior NB RC priest was looking to the PMO for an explanation. The apology, though, seems to being taken by many as a complete repudiation of the entire story.

That doesn’t really make sense to me.

*How could the whole story be repudiated? The apology is supposedly for inserting unsubstantiated facts. But a story was still written in the first place which, in theory, the reporters stood by. So what was that original story, and what was inserted?

Remember, this story was written some five days after the state funeral. This is a daily newspaper, so they'd covered the funeral story already. So clearly the original, untainted story the two reporters wrote was more than just “there was a state funeral a week ago.” That’s not a story. The story they wrote had to centre around Harper accepting communion, was that right or not, and when did he consume it? Then some things were inserted to beef that up that were apparently troublesome.

The video shows he did not consume it right away. He appears to bring it down to his pocket, but it’s hard to definitively say if he pocketed it or not. It looks to me like it was pocketed by Harper. Harper eventually said through a spokesperson he didn’t pocket it. I’m inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, despite the inconclusive video. When he ate it, that’s another question.

But the Telegraph Journal’s apology doesn't really change the original story, whether you think it’s a dumb or newsworthy story or not: Harper accepted communion when he shouldn’t have, and took his sweet time consuming it, when he should have consumed it right away. All they're retracting is "senior priest wants answers" and "he pocketed it."

*Looking at the original story and the apology, the TJ appears to retract this part:

A senior New Brunswick Roman Catholic priest is demanding the Prime Minister's Office explain what happened to the sacramental communion wafer Stephen Harper was given at Roméo LeBlanc's funeral mass.

Here’s the part of the retraction dealing with that:

The story stated that a senior Roman Catholic priest in New Brunswick had demanded that the Prime Minister's Office explain what happened to the communion wafer which was handed to Prime Minister Harper during the celebration of communion at the funeral mass…There was no credible support for these statements of fact at the time this article was published, nor is the Telegraph-Journal aware of any credible support for these statements now.

But the original story goes on to quote, on the record, and at length, someone who fits that description:

Monsignor Brian Henneberry, vicar general and chancellor in the Diocese of Saint John, wants to know whether the prime minister consumed the host and, if not, what happened to it.
If Harper accepted the host but did not consume it, "it's worse than a faux pas, it's a scandal from the Catholic point of view," he said.

Henneberry said a statement from the Prime Minister's Office is in order.

"If I were the prime minister, I would at least offer an explanation to say no offence was meant, and then (clarifying) what happened to the consecrated host is in order," he said. "I would hope the Prime Minister's Office would have enough respect for the Catholic Church and for faith in general to make clear whatever happened."

It’s unclear to me whether or not Henneberry is the senior priest being referred to in the lede of the original story, which is being retracted by the TJ, or whether these are two separate clergy members being referred to here.

If it’s two separate people that means Henneberry’s comments are not retracted and would seem to support the thesis of the story, and would back-up the un-sourced comment they’re retracting.

If they are retracting Henneberry’s comments, then why didn’t they name him in the apology, and apologize to him as well? Has anyone called Henneberry on this?

And if it’s Henneberry they’re retracting, are they saying the editor/publisher fabricated quotes at length and attributed them to a real, actual person? That seems unlikely beyond the realm of reason to the point of absurdity. Or did they invent a fictitious clergy member named Henneberry, and write these quotes for their fake priest? Also unlikely. It's too easy to fact-check.

And if Henneberry actually did say these things, why would they retract him? He’s entitled to his opinion, which is quoted as wanting to know if Harper consumed the host or not, and being somewhat perturbed. That’s perfectly legitimate.

*The timing of this thing is also very peculiar, coming weeks after the initial stories. Clearly these reporters must have picked up the paper the next day, read their story, and been all “wtf dude, I didn’t write this stuff!” They must have gone to the editors and said "this stuff you added isn’t accurate, we need to do something here." So why the lag of weeks before the retraction/apology? And were there any phone calls, or legal sabre rattling, from the Harper camp?

The placement of the retraction, and the on the knees grovelling nature of it, is also out of line with standard newspaper corrections/apologies, which even under threat of legal action tend to be grudging, at best.

BigCityLib also raises an interesting connection: the TJ is controlled by the Irving family, whose shipyards rely heavily on federal contracts. And which very recently got a half-billion shipbuilding contract from the Conservative government. Things that make you go hmm.

*CTV’s Bob Fife thinks he has a big scoop, alleging some kind of Liberal involvement in the story. This has CPC poobah Doug Finley into a righteous later and the Con-bots all in a tizzy saying this makes a story they had dismissed as totally lame now the biggest thing since the pita pocket.

A few things, though. What exactly are they alleging? That a Liberal called the TJ and said Hey, there’s a story here you might want to check out? Hate to break it, but that’s what comms people and reporters do every day.

Who do you want to bet called Bob Fife with THIS story?

Exactly.

But it’s not about specific allegations of anything. It’s about whipping up a big lather of “Big Bad Liberal Media” that will no doubt feature prominently in the next CPC fundraising letter.

*Finally, on a lighter note, it looks like the script is coming together nicely for the sequel to Angels and Demons II: Harper and the Holy Host. The conspiracy widens!

If nothing else though, it’s another chance for you to watch the video the Conservatives didn’t want you to see, and some of the resulting media coverage. Oh, the kerfuffle of it all…

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Wafer madness returns, with a vengeance

You know, I'd spent a chunk of my lunch hour today working on a post about the revival of the whole Harper hiding the holy host kerfuffle thing, but then I went and left it on my work computer when I went home. So, maybe tomorrow.

The apology/retraction from the Telegraph Journal is actually very specific, not retracting the entire story at all but just two specific facts, and the whole thing raises several questions. Which I'll get into tomorrow, so I'll ask you to hold your comments for that post.

For now, to the video archives on a story the Conservatives really seem to want us to pay attention to again. Oh, the kerfuffle of it all...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Angels and Demons II: Harper and the Holy Host

It was difficult but I think I, and the nation(s), had moved on from the Harper holy host wafer communion did he or didn't he brouhaha. And then Stephen opens mouth, and, well, the dear leader sayeth:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has blamed the uproar over his handling of the Holy Communion host at former governor general Romeo LeBlanc's funeral mass on people trying to cause embarrassment and create division between Catholics and Protestants.

"People who want to cause embarrassment in religion and drive a wedge between Protestants and Catholics" are driving the controversy, Harper told a Catholic news agency in an exclusive interview after his meeting Saturday with Pope Benedict.

First, this story was dead and buried. Why are you resurrecting it, Stephen, and with wild conspiracy theories to boot?

Because really, Stephen Harper? You're the victim of some kind of religious-themed conspiracy to sow division between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism? Really??

I think someone has been reading too much Dan Brown. But just to be safe, we should really call in Robert Langdon to investigate.

He'll begin at the church in New Brunswick, then find a clue amongst the Gothic carvings of the Parliamentary Hill Library. It's the only part of the original parliament not destroyed by fire, a fire secretly begun by a secret cult of conspirators who came to Canada hidden amongst the United Empire Loyalists, but really trace their lineage to King Henry VIII and Martin Luther, and are determined to destroy the Holy Church once and for all. They're just waiting for the coming of The One.

From Ottawa, Langdon and Chantal, a beautiful young French-Canadian historian from Gatineau, will race to Montreal and Quebec City and then to Charlottetown, birthplace of confederation itself, then to Harper's childhood home in Leaside before the climatic ending in Calgary, at a stampede breakfast, where the truth is finally revealed and Harper can finally come out of hiding and blame it all on Michael Ignatieff, before sending-out Dimitri Soudas to correct him five minutes later.

Watch for it in summer 2010. Harper will be played by Daniel Baldwin.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

And now the Conservatives are bearing false witness?

As if possible desecration of the host by Stephen Harper wasn't enough, it now appears his spokesperson, Dimitri Soudas, may be bearing false witness.

The Toronto Star has more of Soudas' attempted damage control this morning, where Dimitri makes the Conservative position very clear:

Dimitri Soudas, a spokesman for the prime minister, said that Harper "was offered communion, and accepted."

Soudas said he consumed the consecrated host immediately afterwards, within seconds of taking it from the priest, contrary to suggestions a video shows he did not.

"Unfortunately CBC cameras don't stay on the prime minister long enough sometimes," Soudas told reporters in L'Aquila, Italy, where Harper is attending a G8 summit.

Well that's a clear and fairly unambiguous statement. He says Harper didn't pocket it, and instead consumed it "within seconds." Except, as I said, the video evidence doesn't support that at all.

Dimitri mentions the CBC cameras. Maybe they cut sooner, I don't know. Maybe he's just trying to distract his upset base by implying a Liberal media conspiracy. CPAC, however, stayed with the Prime Minister awhile, and it does not show Harper consuming the host "within seconds." Far from it. Rather, it shows him slipping the wafer down to his pocket, standing a bit as people around him consume the host, and then sitting down.

A longer version of the footage has appeared on YouTube. Take a look:



By my count, it stays with Harper at a good 20 seconds after he accepts the host from the priest. That should be well within Dimitri's window for consumption. Yet no sign the host ever left his pocket. There's a fraction of a second he's off when they change cameras, but he'd have to have lightning-quick reflexes to consume it within that window.

And as for why Harper accepted it in the first place:

Soudas explained that while Harper is a Protestant, "who is the prime minister to question a priest offering him communion."

He's Stephen Harper, non-Catholic, that's who he is Dimitri. You can't expect a priest to know the religious affiliation and currency of every person at such a service. It's up to the individual to decline if ineligible, and to do so is perfectly acceptable.

Why he didn't is baffling, and why Soudas is compounding the mistake is even more so.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

When, exactly, did Harper consume the host, Dimitri?

Recognizing a significant scandal brewing, PMO spokesperson with Dimitri Soudas is quick off the mark with an attempt at damage control over Stephen Harper's insult to Canadian Catholics last week, when as a non-Catholic he accepted and then pocket the host wafer at the funeral service of former Governor-General Romeo LeBlanc (h/t):

The Prime Minister's Office moved swiftly Wednesday to refute allegations that Stephen Harper pocketed a sacramental communion wafer at the funeral mass of Romeo LeBlanc instead of consuming it.

"It's totally absurd," the prime minister's press secretary, Dimitri Soudas, said. "The priest offered the host to the prime minister, the prime minister accepted the host and he consumed it."

Unfortunately for Dimitri, though, his explanation is belied by the video evidence, which clearly shows Harper accepting the host and slipping it in his pocket:

Which raises a follow-up for Dimitri, and for Harper who should really man-up and explain this one himself. If he did eat the wafer, when? If it was shortly after he got it, why pocket it first? Or was it later that day or something, did he save it for later? Why?! And is it really appropriate for a non-Catholic to do accept it in the first place? Why not just respectfully pass?

Soudas' explination is deeply lacking on many fronts.

UPDATE: According to the Toronto Star, Soudas is claiming Harper never even pocketed the thing but apparently "consumed it" right away:

"The story today alleges he put it in his pocket and did not consume it which is false. It's totally absurd and ridiculous."

Umm, have you SEEN THE VIDEO, Dimitri? Watch it, and then get back to us with a less idiotic line, please.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: Stephen Harper puts the host in his pocket

Following-up to my previous post, looks like someone has the video of Stephen Harper pocketing the host up on YouTube.

It's ironic that Harper is due to have an audience with Pope Benedict XVI this week while in Europe for the G8. Perhaps the Pope can explain to Harper why his behaviour is so insulting to Catholics.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Catholics want answers: Why did Harper pocket the host at LeBlanc's funeral?

This story almost seems unbelievable, but the Telegraph Journal is reporting that last week, at Romeo LeBlanc's funeral mass in New Brunswick, when Stephen Harper was offered the communion wafer by the priest he slipped it into his pocket.

In Catholic understanding, the host - once consecrated by a priest for the Eucharist - becomes the body and blood of Jesus Christ. It is crucial that the small wafer be consumed when it is received.

Monsignor Brian Henneberry, vicar general and chancellor in the Diocese of Saint John, wants to know whether the prime minister consumed the host and, if not, what happened to it.

If Harper accepted the host but did not consume it, "it's worse than a faux pas, it's a scandal from the Catholic point of view," he said.

Henneberry said a statement from the Prime Minister's Office is in order.

"If I were the prime minister, I would at least offer an explanation to say no offence was meant, and then (clarifying) what happened to the consecrated host is in order," he said. "I would hope the Prime Minister's Office would have enough respect for the Catholic Church and for faith in general to make clear whatever happened."

According to the paper, the slight to the church was visible on the television feed of the event:

On Friday, during the mass, Harper reached out with his right hand and accepted the wafer from a priest.

A television camera lingered long enough to show New Brunswick Lt.-Gov. Herménégilde Chiasson, the next person to receive the host, raise his to his mouth.

But the tape shows that Harper does not consume the wafer before the camera cuts away several seconds later.

Harper isn't even Catholic; he's a member of something called the Christian & Missionary Alliance, an evangelical Protestant denomination. So it's unclear why he would be accepting the host in the first place, instead of politely declining. Even among Catholics, you don't accept the host until you've had your First Communion, and then only if you've kept up with certain activities.

I think Harper owes an explanation, and a sincere apology, to the Catholic community. And one wonders, just what the heck happened with the host he was given anyways? Did it stay in his pocket? This is more than just a wafer in the Catholic community, and Harper's cavalier behaviour seems pretty insulting.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers