O Canada…where pot’s a sacrament…
Kasia August 22nd, 2007
Apparently there’s an organization called the Church of the Universe (founded in 1969 according to Wikipedia – as always, be wary of the Wiki article I’ve linked to, but I didn’t know where one would find a more reliable resource on something so ridiculous) which is trying to sue the government of Canada for their right to smoke pot as a sacrament. I could not make this up – here’s the link.
Right. Read the Star article (the second link)? Let’s look closer.
The article’s author starts off with what I presume is the “church’s” claim: comparing marijuana to the wine that is consecrated into the Precious Blood.
This strikes me as a very problematic comparison. First of all, wine is legal, and with a few notable exceptions, has been throughout the Christian world for the past two thousand years. That’s the first and biggest problem with the parallel.
(Side question: does anyone know whether Catholic and Orthodox churches were permitted to use wine in their liturgies during Prohibition? I suppose it’s possible that there was an exemption for religious celebrations, considering how few people actually consumed any of the Precious Blood during the Tridentine Mass. However, considering that Prohibition ended shortly after Al Smith got spanked in the Presidential race for being a Catholic, I kind of doubt it.)
Anyway. Back to pot and the alleged Church of the Universe. For the moment let’s put aside the question of legality, since that’s part of the issue in the lawsuit. (I say ‘part’ for a reason, but more on that later.) And let’s leave, for the moment, the question of whether this “sacrament” or this “church” are valid.
Is smoking pot really analagous to sipping wine? I think not, and here’s why.
Using, for the sake of argument, the common form of the Mass used in most Roman Catholic churches worldwide – and I start with that simply because that’s what I’m most familiar with – with the exception of the celebrant, no one consumes more than a sip of the Precious Blood. Even that’s a generous measure, because in some parishes the Eucharist is administered by intinction, meaning the Host is dipped into the Precious Blood and placed on the communicant’s tongue. Furthermore, not all Latin Rite Catholics worldwide receive under both species. In many jurisdictions it’s standard practice to receive just the Host, though I believe the priest still consecrates the Blood under those circumstances. (Someone please correct me if I’m wrong on that.)
But OK. In Canada, which is where this lawsuit is being brought, most Catholics probably do receive under both species. So let’s say a sip of the Precious Blood.
Even a baby is not going to get drunk – or even buzzed – off the quantity of alcohol consumed by the average layperson at a Catholic Mass. (And unless you’re in an Eastern Rite, babies don’t receive the Eucharist anyway.) Even the quantity that I’m aware that the priest routinely consumes would be hard-put to intoxicate a child, much less a grown man. The only situation I’ve heard of where a priest might have to consume enough of the Precious Blood to actually have the alcohol content affect him – because the alcohol does remain after consecration, and no one’s saying it doesn’t – is in a situation like Fr. John described to us during one of our RCIA sessions, where he misjudged how much wine needed to be consecrated and consecrated way too much. He found himself in the sacristy after Mass, alone with a carafe of the Precious Blood, which cannot be simply dumped, even down the sacrarium, with less than 10 minutes until the next Mass he had to celebrate. So he downed the alcoholic equivalent of a bottle of wine by himself in 5 minutes. As he somewhat dryly put it (excuse the pun), “That next Mass could’ve been the best Mass I ever preached, or it could’ve been the worst. I don’t know. I don’t remember any of it.”
However, that’s not the intended purpose of the Eucharist, even for the priest. The purpose of the Eucharist is to receive and consume the Body and Blood of Christ, per His specific instructions. Situations like Father John’s unfortunate but one-time occurrence are the exception, not the rule, and are not the point of the sacrament of the Eucharist.
This “Church of the Universe” crowd, however, had this to say on their web site:
“The Sacred Herb, God’s Tree of Life, Marijuana of the Assembly of the Church of the Universe is considered KOSHER which is to say that God’s Tree of Life is a Holy Sacrament in the Church and as such it is imperative that our Holy Church Sacrament, God’s Tree of Life, Marijuana, by all its names and terms of endearment, be grown by our own Herbalists/Farmers, and distributed by our own Church Clergy. “
Keep it Holy – The Assembly of 69’ “
“Special Notice: It is open to each individual to use, maintain and grow The Tree of Life as required for worship, medicine, pleasure, paper clothing, food, fuel etc. etc.”
Putting aside the general inaneness of the verbiage, to say nothing of their cavalier treatment of the word “kosher” (something being kosher does NOT equal its being a sacrament, which even the questionable Judaic scholarship they cite should recognize), it’s pretty obvious that their basic raison d’etre is recreational pot use. The sacrament stuff is window dressing.
Look, people: Getting high is NOT a sacrament! Growing pot is NOT a sacrament!
This is so obviously the product of multiple (stoned) conversations by a bunch of (stoned) people who thought it would be, like, so gnarly if they could, you know, stick it to the Man by claiming a religious right to smoke pot, that I can’t believe I actually devoted this many pixels to it. It’s just so ridiculous that I couldn’t seem to help myself.
(Side question: does anyone know whether Catholic and Orthodox churches were permitted to use wine in their liturgies during Prohibition? I suppose it’s possible that there was an exemption for religious celebrations, considering how few people actually consumed any of the Precious Blood during the Tridentine Mass. However, considering that Prohibition ended shortly after Al Smith got spanked in the Presidential race for being a Catholic, I kind of doubt it.)
Kasia, yes there was an exception for ‘Church Wine” during prohibition, and in fact it had to be specifically labeled as “Altar Wine” and was, I think, sold through church supply stores, which is where most parishes still get their wine for Mass.
Also, for Mass to be valid that priest must consecrate both bread and wine into the Body and Blood, in fact he is also to receive both as well. So that, as happened this week here in Cinci, a priest could not celebrate early morning Mass because he had to fast for a blood test. (I was supposed to cover for him and overslept! DOH!)
And nearly every priest has been in a situation similar to Fr. John’s, you hope the ushers have enough sense to pull back on the amount brought forward, but even that isn’t fool proof. I had a full church for a wedding at one point (300 folks), and I think less than 40 people actually received communion!
Ooh, very interesting. Thank you for the information! So many things we lay people just don’t know or appreciate. I’ll bet mixed marriages and convert marriages give rise to a lot of situations like the one you’re describing; if I got married tomorrow, I’d probably have 100-150 guests and probably fewer than 50 would be Catholic.
Of course, even if every priest has a situation like Fr. John’s, it’s still not the intended purpose of the Sacrament, but rather a secondary or tertiary effect. I still think these guys are stoner clowns trying to pass off their vices as religious obligations…they also advocate nudism…
I’m pretty sure that Fr. Schnippel is correct about the exception for sacramental wine. I believe the exception also extended to “medicinal” alcohol. I wonder if there was a rise in church attendance as a result?
It also gave rise to the use of Welch’s grape juice in some protestant churches. As anyone who grew up in the Campbellite Churches of Christ can tell you–if it ain’t Welch’s then it ain’t the rruit of the vine.
Interesting, there has arisen a theory among some (I know for sure there are Campbellites who subscribe to it) that the wine mentioned in the bible wasn’t “wine” as we know it in that it wasn’t fermented.
The same tactic of attempting to get a religious exemption has been tried in the US regarding the religious use of Peyote. As far as I know it hasn’t been allowed–but Constitutional Law was sooo last semester
To add to the sharing of the info:
Theere is a difference between valid and licit. In the Roman Rite it is not licit to use leavened bread (wheat flour and water only!) while while the Eastern Rite Churches have a valid Consecration using leaven bread. We Latins can’t use any wine which is not naturally fermented grape juice (which drives me bonkers beacuse I love Cream Sherry and Berry Wines). Also, a bishop can grant a priest a dispensation to use natural grape juice, which is commonly done if a priest is an alcoholic “in recovery”.
As a “Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion” I’ve been in the position of Fr. John. Fortunately we learned that we could ask members of the community to help in the consumption of the remaining Precious Blood.
The pastoral considerations for mixed marriages are also numerous. For example, is the non-Catholic spouse -to-be Baptised? If so, is he/she in the RCIA process to become one of the family
the bishop can grant a dispensation.
My former parish in San Francisco had a great custom. When it came time for Communion it was explained to the non-Catholics in the congregation why we didn’t allow non-Catholics to receive. Instead, they were invited to come forward and receive a blessing from any Eucharistic Minister (we lay folk were instrucyrd NOT to do a Benediction, a rite reserved to priests). It was popular, and a humbling experience for us lay folk.
This is going to be a tough one. Short of creating a state religion, it is nearly impossible for legislators to say what constitutes a valid religious practice and what doesn’t. If they do start to legislate religious practices, I shudder where that will lead. Further, The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly- in decisions regarding same sex marriage, legalisation of marijuana, and abortion to name three- shown a complete inability to maintain distinctions handed down to us by hundreds of years of precedent and common law. In short, any time a case goes to them for a decision, I cringe and expect the worst. They have yet to disappoint me.