Speaking of being PC...

[Whoosh]

For me, the difference between the communion wafer and the Inuit design and the phrase "peace be upon him" is that one is physical property, one is intellectual property, and one is speech.  Each is dealt with differently under the law and I think each should be viewed differently in terms of the appropriateness or acceptability of what a person is doing.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

The property issue is really interesting and I think one reason Buffy (a believer raised Catholic but somewhat following your own path, right?) and I (a non-believer raised Episcopalian) could have somewhat different reactions to this situation (though I think we actually fairly well agree, but I think the law might work a bit differently than what you described).  I am going to use a pretty silly example to illustrate here, so bear with me on that bit.  Also, I am only going to talk about what I know of the Catholic Church vs. the Episcopal Church (which I was raised in).

As Buffy said, in the Catholic Church, the Eucharist, once consecrated, is seen to be the body and blood of Christ.  You are not to receive the Eucharist unless you are a Catholic in a state of grace.  Buffy, please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is announced when the Eucharist is offered.  If you are a Catholic in a state of grace, you would simply never, ever consider pocketing the Eucharist.  If you would consider it, you are not in a state of grace and therefore were not offered the Eucharist in the first place.  The expectation and understanding of everyone is that you will incorporate the body and the blood of Christ into your own person at the communion altar (unless that is a Protestant way to say it - again, please correct me if I got it wrong).  

For Episcopalians, Holy Communion or the Eucharist, once consecrated, is seen to be symbolic of the body and blood of Christ.  Some congregations invite all who are baptized into Christianity to receive Holy Communion, while others invite all who seek to know God or all who seek Jesus to receive Holy Communion.  I can't say precisely how it is worded, but it should be clear who is being invited to receive Holy Communion.  Here, the expectation of the Church is that the Eucharist will be incorporated into your own person at the communion altar, but that isn't explicitly stated and someone "seeking God", baptized or not, may not have a clue of that expectation.  

So, removing belief and faith and tradition and ritual and getting down to property law, those differences might matter.  In essence, I think the whole thing can be seen as forming some type of verbal or unwritten contract.  In the Catholic Church, the contract seems pretty clear to me - the Church offers the Eucharist in reliance on the fact that the recipient agrees to complete the unwritten contract by actually swallowing the Eucharist.  In the Episcopal Church, despite the likely expectations of the Church, that expectation is not made explicitly clear to the recipient.  The Episcopal Church simply invites people to "participate", but does not explain what "participation" means.  In contract law, one-party expectations that are ambiguous or unknowable to the second party are not enforceable (and for good reason).  If a court is interpreting the contract, they will try to determine what a reasonable person might understand the agreement to be.  

All that is a set-up for my silly example.  In terms of understanding how the law might view pocketing of the Eucharist, consider an all-you-can-eat buffet.  The offer is not "all you can eat for the week so long as you can fit it in your roll-board carry out container".  The law is that it is "all you can eat in this sitting" or whatever.  BUT - that needs to be clear.  Thus you will find eleventy million annoying signs and notices explaining that exact policy (or the terms of the contract for sale).  If you try to walk out with a pocket full of lobster tails, that would be theft.

Back to the Eucharist, it is my opinion that pocketing the Eucharist received in a typical Catholic Church ceremony would be considered theft, while pocketing the Eucharist in a typical Episcopalian Church ceremony would not be.  What it boils down to is "what was the contract or the agreement for the exchange".

ETA - Buffy - I feel ya - I don't believe and I am having difficulty speaking of Holy Communion is such a non-reverent or secular manner.  

ETA2 - well geez louise, apparently I had a word or two to say about that.  Sorry! 

Fascinating - I love this discussion.

The verbal contract is an apt comparison...but imo more akin to an important promise than a verbal contract.  Because of course it's on the honor system and any Catholic in a state of grace who has received the sacrament of their first communion can receive ...and that's about age 7 in my neck of the woods.  Over a decade too soon to be able to be bound contractually with any kind of legal standing.

There are a lot of important promises one shouldn't break, but the injured party has no legal recourse.  Cheating in what was to be a monogamous dating relationship, promising to visit your grandmother and not showing up, promising your mom you'd stop lying...no legal recourse but not everything which is immoral is illegal.

 Buffy (a believer raised Catholic but somewhat following your own path, right?)

Good way of putting it.  I do identify as Catholic, but whether that's non-practicing, lapsed, or C&E depends on how charitable I'm being with myself that day.  And it's complicated because given the choice I would prefer not to believe at all...but I do so to quote Joey from Friends...it's a moo point.

 

Buffy, please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is announced when the Eucharist is offered.

I tried to remember without googling and I truly cannot remember.  Peace be with you...also with you (which is where I ALWAYS go to the ladies room since I avoid interaction with strangers like it's my job) come back to body of Christ, blood of Christ, broken for you...grant us peace, have mercy on us, sins of the world...go and sin no more (wait, that last one is confession...)

I don't know that we're throwing up a criteria list before people file up.  Possible it happens when I'm in the bathroom...but they should, if they don't.  Like those little rulers that tell you you have to be that high to ride a roller coaster...you have to be X, Y, and Z to pony up to the alter.

I'm going to google this as now it's going to bug me.  

 

Back in the day in RC churches  the host was placed on your tongue by the priest, and we were taught that it should dissolve, and our teeth not touch it. I remember the horror of coughing as I left the altar at about the age of 9, and the host flew out of my mouth to the floor. Cue nuns rushing to the aisle, and kneeling to protect it from being trodden on, and the priest descending from the altar to scoop it up. (And cue me )

Now, the communicant takes and places the host into his/her mouth, but I think the reverence for the host remains.

Can't take the RC out of the girl - I kept trying to capitalize the word host.

You can still take it on the tongue - per the RCC it's up to the recipient either palm or tongue.  Last I was in mass it's still a good 30% or more straight to the tongue - mostly older people.

[Whoosh]

It was bothering me, so I did a bit of googling and found the wording used at my growing-up church - "We invite all who have professed faith in Christ to join us (not sure, but I think it ended with "for communion" though it could have been "at the altar").  My cousin's Episcopal church in the town over said something slightly different.

[CyborgKin]

I think it's a really interesting quandary, and with all things, probably just a slippery slope we'll never be able to define. 

I remember when I was in undergrad, a sorority at another college held a Mexican themed party. G-You (my new abbreviation for "general you"!) may remember this as it was all over the news. Their costumes were obviously disrespectful, and inappropriate. As a response, the Greek community locked down, and on a National level, we were told no costumes or culturally-themed parties – at all (except America-themed, because America-themed is always okay in Greek life, lol). Were they dicks? Absolutely. But does banning all themed parties make sense, or is it a stretch? Is it okay to have the themed party if it's respectful, or a holiday? Is it okay to have a Day of the Dead party, or to just dress up? If they had dressed in costumes that weren't intentionally controversial, would dressing up itself still be considered controversial?

Because of that experience in Greek life, I understand the response of administration in warning college kids not to be dickheads. In the case of some of these Halloween costumes, pushing the limits can go too far. If you have gone to great lengths to authenticate your costume and its historical value, I would be inclined to be fine with it so long as you weren't an offensive character in itself. I wouldn't necessarily find that to be cultural appropriation. Say you dressed as an American Indian chief and could explain the details of your costume and were behaving with dignity all night. I find that to be very different than buying a cheapo bag-costume, slapping on some ugg boots, and running around doing a mocking imitation of tribal dances. Unfortunately, it's pretty easy to guess which the college students are more likely to be doing.

That's kind of the difference in Epcot, too. For the most part, you can expect an explanation if you were to ask the history of parts of those exhibits. It's not done in mockery or disrespectfully. That slippery slope, though. 

Sorry for stirring this back up, if anyone had hoped to lay it to rest. I just enjoy this type of conversation. SO MANY QUESTIONS, SO LITTLE TIME! 

(re: the part I bolded)

Did you pick ugg boots merely as an example of people being extremely lazy about depicting something vaguely like moccasins, or was it also a reference to how ugg boots themselves are something borrowed/taken from Australian culture (apparently sheep shearers wore them because the lanolin in the wool causes regular boots to rot.  But then they got into surfer culture and took that route into the UK and USA's surfer cultures and then eventually went mainstream), making it a kind of double cultural appropriation?  (Fairly modern culture, that is.  Such as it is and what there is of it. ;))

 

 

[edit cos we're discussing communion now] last time I took communion (I don't actually remember when that was) it involved passing a loaf of bread around and everyone tearing off a bit to eat.  Yeah it was the 'wrong' type of bread, but like the giving of gifts, it's the thought that counts.

[FundieFarmer]

...I said Ugg boots because that's what I've seen when somebody is doing a slutty, disrespectful Indian costume. No deeper meaning there on my end.

[sockinshoe]

In my opinion, it's still disrespectful to do a Native American costume with feathers and all because a) it distills a culture down to its stereotypes (the notion that all aboriginal people have access to some greater wisdom and spirituality is called the "noble savage" tope and is still problematic) and those feathers/war bonnets are earned for outstanding feats. I'm bothered by it for the same reason that I'm bothered when DPIATR and his ilk dress up as decorated WWII vets-- they didn't earn those medals/feathers and they shouldn't pretend they did.

Edited: signature