Media & Liberal Party Supporters Abuse Eucharist as Political Play Thing

On Wednesday, July 8, 2009, the Telegraph-Journal published a story about the funeral mass celebrating the life of former Governor-General Romeo LeBlanc that was inaccurate and should not have been published. We pride ourselves in maintaining high standards of journalism and ethical reporting, and regret this was not followed in this case.

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. The story also said that during the communion celebration, the Prime Minister “slipped the thin wafer that Catholics call ‘the host’ into his jacket pocket”.

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. Our reporters Rob Linke and Adam Huras, who wrote the story reporting on the funeral, did not include these statements in the version of the story that they wrote. In the editing process, these statements were added without the knowledge of the reporters and without any credible support for them.

The Telegraph-Journal sincerely apologizes to the Prime Minister for the harm that this inaccurate story has caused. We also apologize to reporters Rob Linke and Adam Huras and to our readers for our failure to meet our own standards of responsible journalism and accuracy in reporting.  (Source)


“Lisa, most of us will remember the story that went all around the world about the prime minister apparently not eating the host when he was at the funeral of former governor general Romeo LeBlanc. That story was first published in the St John Telegraph Journal which is owned by the billionaire Irving family. The prime minister hit the roof. Well, today, a grovelling apology from the paper. They said the story was not true. So what happened? Well, I’m told that the Liberals passed the story to young Jamie Irving who was the publisher of the paper. He passed it to the editor who put it in the paper without checking it out, and today the editor has been fired, and Jamie’s father has suspended his son for thirty days, and I’m told the prime minister is pretty thrilled with that.” (Source)

As I mentioned in an earlier blog post shortly after this so-called “scandal” broke, this was an insider job from the beginning

There are three things worth noting here. 

Dirty politics is never an honourable profession, but it seems today that you can’t get elected without resorting to it.   It should be no surprise, therefore, when the political media hackery, cut loose from any sort of ethical restraint, begins to use sacred objects as some kind of political play thing to advance its socially liberal agenda.  The Liberal Party lost its majority because it lost the Catholic vote when it sold out to the Gay lobby.  Now it is desperate to regain that constituency in order to regain power.  It is trying to wrench away Catholic votes from the Conservative Party by ramping up the “outrage barometer” among Catholics.  It can’t appeal to religious conservatives through its policies so it has to resort to fabricating a story of religious scandal.   The problem with the strategy is that liberals have been so successful these past 40 years in watering down morality and religious understanding that only a minority of Catholics understand what the Eucharist is in the first place, and fewer still would get too uptight over its profanation.  Liberals have so bled the Faith out of Catholics over the past 40 years that there is very little outrage to spend as political currency.  Of the conservative Catholics who do know what the Eucharist really is and would indeed be outraged by its profanation, there are a number of factors that make this concocted scandal hardly worth the effort: (1) our numbers are so few it could hardly justify the attention; (2) we can make the elementary moral distinction between someone accepting the Eucharist with full knowledge of what they are doing and someone who is genuinely ignorant; and (3) most religious conservatives knew the political game that was being played from the start. 

Secondly, I find it extremely distasteful but typical that the media is now so concerned with religious sacrilege.  Folks, does that make any sense?  After spending the past 40 years prostituting themselves in promoting anti-religious, anti-Christian bigotry and sacrilege and inculcating it into the very fabric of our society, the media and the political hacks all of a sudden “find God” and “get religion”? 


I understand if they don’t respect our Faith, but do they not have some respect for our intelligence? Apparently not.  Far from fraudulently showing how the Prime Minister is a supposed disrespectful and belligerent fool, they’ve only showed themselves to be completely ignorant of the religious landscape of the country, as well as demonstrating to us that they think  religious conservatives are mindless fools who will jump when our strings are pulled.  How do the Liberal political hacks think that this exercise is going to play out at the ballot box during the next election?

And finally, what else can we say about liberal media distortions?  It’s been so obvious for years, but now it’s right there in the open for everyone to see.  The Telegraph-Journal, like most of the papers and other media in this country, is one big, fat, pravda-style propaganda machine for the Liberal Party and social liberalism.  It was bad enough when they restrained their political savagery to the secular sphere, but now they act like wild dogs, stopping at nothing to secure a cheap political advantage, even if it goes so far as to profane and politicize the most sacred element in Catholicism.

It’s sick.

6 thoughts on “Media & Liberal Party Supporters Abuse Eucharist as Political Play Thing

  1. I viewed the video on Kinsella’s site, and there is no evidence that supports Kinsella’s assertion that the PM tucked the Host “in his pocket or a booklet”. At :32 of the posted video, he takes the Host in his right hand between his thumb and index finger. His right hand begins its descent, and at :34 disappears behind whatever it is he’s holding in his left hand.

    1. It most certainly does not show him tucking it in to whatever he’s holding in his left hand (presumably a booklet). His hand does not pause as it passes by the top of the booklet. Furthermore, given where his hand passes by the top of the booklet (towards the (his right) end), he could not have tucked it in between the pages: if the spine of the booklet was on his right, he would have had to open the booklet a bit to slip the Host in, as the pages would have been too close together near the spine for him to slip it in without doing so; if the spine was where he was holding the booklet, he would not have tucked it in where his hand went, as the Host would have fallen out almost immediately (there is nobody on the video at any point making any motion towards the floor).

    At :36, the priest moves past the PM and obscures his hands from view until :42. When his hands are visible again, he is holding the booklet with both hands. Perhaps Kinsella thinks this means the PM slid the Host in the booklet while off camera, and is holding it in place there with his right hand. This also is not supported by the video, for under close inspection, the PM is holding the booklet between his pinkie, ring, and middle finger on the camera side, and his index and thumb on the other (enlarge the video to screen size, and positions of his fingers are clear at :41). There is not a single reason I can think of where someone would hold a booklet in that manner, other than because he is holding something between his thumb and index finger (which is precisely how he received the host).

    2. His hand makes no move toward anywhere a suit jacket pocket would be (do suit jackets even have front pockets anymore?), so unless his pants have a pocket on the crotch, he did not slip the host in his pocket, either.

    So the PM walks off camera with a Host. According to one of the priests at the Mass, he consumed it ( OK, so he shouldn’t have taken it. Another confused non-Catholic doesn’t know what to do when handed a Host….this is supposed to elicit outrage from Catholics, when a simple “Um, sir, you’re not supposed to do that” will suffice?

    So, liberals consider Catholics who get upset at intentional abuses of their faith to be “ignorant reactionaries”, and then demand that they get upset at a (likely unintentional) abuse of it?

  2. To answer the question those who read the above post are undoubtedly asking themselves right about now: Yes, I am a big enough nerd to do a frame-by-frame parsing of an online video, but no, I don’t live in my parents’ basement and I have kissed a girl or three in my lifetime.

  3. I was more shocked at “staunch Catholic” PM Paul Martin demanding that his ministers vote in favour of same-sex marriage.

  4. The word Catholic is used very lightly by pagan politicians who pretend to be Catholics, and make a good living doing so. They ought to be held accountable for this by the Catholic citizens who elect them.

  5. – The main faults in this debacle really lie with Archbishop Andre Richard!
    – The PM`s staff should, very obviously, have been alert to prevent such a serious protocol break-down; (Some discipline should take place in this instance.)
    – The PM, as an experienced & educated Christian should have declined to receive a Catholic Holy Communion; (Was he not in attendance at the funeral of Pope John-Paul II ?)
    – The use of the phrase “communion wafer” by the New Brunswick Telegraph-Journal (and unhappily also in the Socon write-up) is a poor & denigrating substitute for “Sacred Host” !

  6. Desecrating the image of God has become commonplace for the liberal-minded citizens, governments, media, and education establishments, Genesis1:27. It only follows that they would desecrate the Eucharist, Romans 1:28, but we do not do this. If we (social conservatives) do not stick together they (the liberal-minded) wil lynch us separately. That is what the liberals and their media is trying to do. We all ought to know this by now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Solve : *
30 × 12 =