- Germany's national conference of bishops has staked out an approach that would allow the non-Catholic spouses of Catholics to receive communion, if the circumstances are right. Here is Anthony Ruff, OSB at the Pray Tell Blog:
[Bishops conference president Cardinal Reinhold] Marx said that the decision is meant to be “a support in order to look at the concrete situation in pastoral conversation and come to a responsible decision on the possibility of reception of Communion by the non-Catholic partner. It is indispensable that the minister discuss the faith of those concerned and to ascertain that both share the Catholic eucharistic teaching.”
- Springfield, IL bishop Thomas Paprocki has announced that Illinois Senator and Assistant Minority Leader Richard Durbin, who is Catholic, is not welcome to receive communion. It seems that Bishop Paprocki disapproves of Senator Durbin's vote on a recent abortion bill in the Senate. From the Washington Examiner's news article:
“Fourteen Catholic senators voted against the bill that would have prohibited abortions starting at 20 weeks after fertilization, including Sen. Richard Durbin, whose residence is in the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois,” Paprocki wrote in a statement.
- Also at Pray Tell, Fr. Ruff reports that Cardinal Robert Sarah of Guinea, the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, has come down strongly in favor of one particular sacramental discipline: receiving communion directly on the tongue while kneeling. In the preface of a book, Cardinal Sarah precedes his endorsement of this method of reception with some fairly apocalyptic observations:
[W]e can understand how the most insidious diabolical attack consists in trying to extinguish faith in the Eucharist, sowing errors and favoring an unsuitable manner of receiving it. Truly the war between Michael and his Angels on one side, and Lucifer on the other, continues in the heart of the faithful: Satan’s target is the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Real Presence of Jesus in the consecrated host.
That is the news. Now for some views:
The German bishops and communion for non-Catholic spouses: It's worth noting that the German bishops seem to have built some qualifiers around the permissions: it is to be preceded by a process of accompaniment by, and discernment with, a pastoral minister (such as a priest). In this respect, it is similar to Francis's process, in Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia, for a divorced and remarried Catholic to determine that s/he is eligible to resume receiving communion. And it presupposes that the non-Catholic spouse adheres to the Catholic church's understanding of the Eucharist - that would be what is to be discerned.
I have a couple of thoughts on this development:
- The pastoral reality is that the church's disciplines around communion are not widely observed already: many people receive who haven't been to confession in years, various non-Catholics already receive, etc. etc. It seems that the German bishops are trying to bring church discipline one or two steps closer to pastoral reality, while showing due regard to tradition and existing discipline. I applaud that intention. That said, I have no particular reason to suppose that replacing one widely-disregarded set of disciplines with a new set will result in the new set being zealously adhered to. People who wish to go to communion will continue to do so.
- I expect that Francis will look benignly on this development. But it's at least possible that an immediate or future successor of Francis won't be so inclined. The German bishops may even be asked some day to rescind this permission, and in effect to stuff the toothpaste back into the tube. It strikes me that it would be desirable for there to be process, as there is now for liturgical translation, for the Holy See to provide a confirmation or at least recognition of what the German bishops are looking to permit.
Bishop Paprocki's barring of Senator Durbin from communion: I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I happen to think it's very difficult to draw a straight line from a vote on a particular bill to the state of the voter's soul. Legislation in Congress is an enormously complex topic. Even a single bill is far from simple in its details. There could be a variety of prudential reasons for a Catholic legislator to vote a particular way on a particular bill, and some of those reasons might have little or no connection to matters of faith and morals. On the other hand, Durbin's track record for supporting abortion rights is very long and consistent, and I'm sympathetic to those who think that the church can't just stand by and do nothing when these public-official disciples flout the tenets of our faith for political reasons.
Should Durbin have the bad manners to continue to present himself in a communion line, it puts the communion minister, who may be a volunteer layperson, in a very difficult position. That's one practical reason that bishops should be extremely cautious about going to these lengths to call out or punish recalcitrant politicians. Ideally, Bishop Paprocki and Senator Durbin would address this disagreement by doing what the German bishops are looking for their pastors to do with mixed-marriage couples: engage in a process of accompaniment and discernment. That presupposes a relationship based on good faith and mutual trust. It doesn't seem likely that a public communion ban fosters that kind of a relationship. But I acknowledge that there are situations when a harsh punishment is called for.
Cardinal Sarah's support for communion on the tongue while kneeling: I'm not aware that Francis has ever commented on the questions of kneeling vs. standing, or receiving in the hand vs. on the tongue. But his papal record of celebrating public masses certainly indicates that he has no issues with communicants standing and receiving in the hand. There is no reason to think that Francis would agree with Sarah that standing and receiving communion in the hand is "an unsuitable manner of receiving" it, - and in fact, ample reason to expect that Francis would disagree. Francis has a right to expect that his prefect's focus is to advance Francis's liturgical policies, and it's doubtful that Sarah's public statement about this non-agenda but highly contentious issue will be helpful for Francis's pontificate.
UPDATE: Speculating that canon law professor Dr. Edward Peters may have written about one or more of these cases, I popped over to his canon law blog, In the Light of the Law, and see that he has posted a triptych on communion himself today, providing commentary on two of the three cases I've written about here (the Durbin communion ban and the German bishops on non-Catholic spouses), plus one more development from the German bishop's conference, on offering communion to the divorced and remarried.
Peters analyzes the cases according to his usual approach, which is to use canon law as a window into the moral tradition of the church. His scorecard reads: Paprocki is right; the German bishops are wrong regarding the divorced and remarried; the German bishops are technically right on non-Catholic spouses, but only because of a canon that, he argues, probably serves no useful purpose and perhaps should be revised:
UPDATE: Speculating that canon law professor Dr. Edward Peters may have written about one or more of these cases, I popped over to his canon law blog, In the Light of the Law, and see that he has posted a triptych on communion himself today, providing commentary on two of the three cases I've written about here (the Durbin communion ban and the German bishops on non-Catholic spouses), plus one more development from the German bishop's conference, on offering communion to the divorced and remarried.
Peters analyzes the cases according to his usual approach, which is to use canon law as a window into the moral tradition of the church. His scorecard reads: Paprocki is right; the German bishops are wrong regarding the divorced and remarried; the German bishops are technically right on non-Catholic spouses, but only because of a canon that, he argues, probably serves no useful purpose and perhaps should be revised:
Canon 844 § 4 allows baptized non-Catholics to receive holy Communion if “grave necessity urges” the local bishop or (here) the conference of bishops to allow such reception, provided further only that those seeking holy Communion claim (as most can) to satisfy some practical and minimal credal criteria. Effectively, then, the canon expects the “grave necessity” requirement to keep the Communion rite at Mass from turning into a free samples line.
The problem, obviously, is about when (besides, one might concede, at the time of death, an option already allowed under a different part of the canon) is it ever gravely necessary for non-Catholics to receive holy Communion? Not, when might it be helpful or decorous or embarrassment-squelching to receive holy Communion, but when is it necessary for them to receive, and gravely necessary to boot?
I feel that it is disrespectful to the Eucharist to use it for either a carrot or a club. Of course people should be properly disposed, but the bottom line is that people are on their honor. If they receive when they are not in the state of grace it is on them. That is even scriptural. Other people can't know the state of their soul.
ReplyDeleteAbout Durbin, did his pastor or bishop talk with him about his reasons for voting the way he did?
About the kneeling and on the tongue, vs standing and in the hand, don't even get me started. As long as you approach with a reverent attitude, who cares? For people like Sarah to try to force their point of view creates divisions in the Church.
As an EMHC, I have never been instructed to refuse Communion to anyone. That isn't my place. It shouldn't be anyone's.
It surprises me a bit that Cardinal Sarah, who is from the Republic of Guinea, is pushing some customs which are very European in origin.
DeleteAnyone being denied Communion for taking the NRA's money and violating the First Commandment with an AR15?
DeleteDidn't think so. First Commandment doesn't get anywhere near enough attention.
Tom - to the best of my knowledge, the USCCB does not call out the NRA by name. It's statements tend to condemn gun violence rather than guns. Nevertheless, its overall position on firearms seems pretty sensible. It is stated here in this document from 2014, which seems to have been issued in the wake of the San Bernardino shootings.
Deletehttp://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/criminal-justice-restorative-justice/backgrounder-on-gun-violence.cfm
An excerpt:
"We call on Catholics and all people of good will to urge their Senators and Representative to support policy and legislative measures that: a) promote mercy and peacebuilding in our communities by implementing reasonable regulations on firearms such as: Require universal background checks for all gun purchases; Limit civilian access to high-capacity weapons and ammunition magazines; Make gun trafficking a federal crime, and; Improve access to mental health care for those who may be prone to violence, b) promote restorative justice by passing legislation to support important reentry programs that help people avoid re-offending, c) improve access to health care and treatment for those with addiction and mental health needs. "
The USCCB also issued a statement from conference president Cardinal Daniel DiNardo in the wake of the Douglas High shooting.
http://www.usccb.org/news/2018/18-037.cfm
Jim (and I do not want to hijack this thread; the other issues are equally interesting and I am still thinking about them but...) the USCCB statement is a prudential approach to a political issue. My point is that for some Americans (to whom the elites say we have to "pay attention," cf. Frank Pasquale's rebuttal on the Commonweal site, "Strange Elegies,") -- those folks who would privilege the right to bear arms over the rights to life and safe environments and who judge their friends and enemies by where they stand on the Second Amendment -- those folks; they have made a steel god out of an Armalite and hope to die not with a prayer on their lips but with a Smith & Wesson in their cold, dead hands. That is classic idolatry. Commandment No. 1, no prudence called for in naming the sin (although prudence will be needed to deal with the sin without getting one's head shot off).
DeleteIf I identified as Catholic, I suppose I would be a very liberal Catholic, but even so, it seems to me if a "non-Catholic" spouse of a Catholic professes a belief in the Eucharist that is in conformity with what the Catholic Church teaches, then the spouse ought to simply become a Catholic. (The only exception I see is for the Greek Orthodox, and I believe they already are permitted to receive communion in Catholic churches.)
ReplyDeleteDavid - right. I think the situation with regard to Greek Orthodox and communion is that the Catholic church would permit members of Orthodox churches to receive communion, but the Orthodox churches themselves wouldn't wish their members to do so. If that's not exactly right, I'd welcome more accurate information.
DeleteSuppose I am a Catholic legislator who believes a legislative ban on abortion at 20 weeks is unconstitutional (which, it seems to me, it would be). How can a bishop presume to punish me for voting against such a ban on constitutional grounds?
ReplyDelete... especially in view of your oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Bishop Paprocki, istm, is taking oaths very lightly indeed.
DeleteRegarding Cardinal Sarah's hotline talk with Satan, EMHCs tell me Communion on the tongue is dangerous to the fingers and spitty for the next recipient. Although it's the recipient's option, the givers would rather not engage in dentistry.
ReplyDeleteThere is that. And while I once would have said "no-brainer, kneeling is more respectful," after I hit about 75 I rethought kneeling completely and decided a reverent bow has to do.
I am glad to accommodate the tongue receivers and try to do so carefully so I don't get spit on my fingers for the next person. But my layperson fingers aren't any more holy than theirs, so I don't quite understand. I think it's just what they're used to. In our parish out of a lineup of about 50 people, one or two will receive on the tongue.
DeleteBack when our kids were little, my husband used to laugh when I was feeding them baby food with a spoon, because I would open my mouth too when I was aiming for theirs. I catch myself doing that when giving the Host to people receiving on the tongue.
About kneeling, I had to quit doing that years ago because of recurrent bursitis. I feel bad because my nearly 90 year old dad still kneels. His daughter is kind of wimpy.
Ha! I used to open my mouth for the baby, too. Some kind if weird symbiosis.
DeleteOur Church Ladies printed some rules for receiving in the tongue in the bulletin and how to practice with a cracker at home to make sure you have made a "table" out of your tongue. They would love Cardinal Sarah.
Only time I received in the tongue was at a Melkite church, and the priest dipped the host in wine and used that little spoon.
As an Anglican, everyone intincted, but for reasons that elude me, Catholics eschew that.
I used to receive on the tongue back in pre VII days because everybody did, and also when I was carrying a child, and when my arm was in a cast. But prefer in the hand. One priest said that people commit way more sins with their mouth than they do with their hands, and anyway you have to consider the whole person, it's what's in your heart that counts.
DeleteI think the reason we don't intinct is because of the likelihood of dripping the consecrated wine.
I, too, opened my mouth when I aimed the Gerber at little mouths. I suspect we are hard-wired to do that. Does anyone have a different experience?
DeleteI did the mouth thing, too. So did my wife. Even for the Gerber green beans and that rice cereal that gets mixed up with formula. It's been 15 years or more since we've had to feed that stuff to our children, but sitting here thinking and typing about it, I can still smell that rice cereal and formula concoction. It's very distinctive.
DeleteJim, yes, very distinctive! Especially if you had one who was on soy formula.
DeleteOnce down in Orlando for work, I attended an eastern rite Catholic mass and received communion via intinction. I thought it was cool but required some skill on behalf of the priest. They must practice.
ReplyDeleteMy Melkite friend told me not to try to "help" the priest; just pretend you're at the dentist and open wide!
DeleteRegarding Dr. Peters' analysis, I guess canon lawyers gotta do canon law. But the whole process has always seemed rather Pharisaical to me. I feel badly for the people that are excluded from the Sacrament. It often been said that Catholics need to be better at hospitality. But to a large degree our hands are tied. We are like the hosts trying to make a guest feel welcome, while not inviting them to the table.
ReplyDeleteThe Eucharist is, among other things, food for the journey, and I think ways should be stretched to get it to people who are knowingly on the journey. I think, for example, of a married couple, she is Catholic, but he is the son of a Methodist minister. He has thought it through and decided his father missed something and knows that, when his father is no longer around to be hurt, he will cross the Tiber. But he does not want to stick his finger in the old man's eye. (Would you want to marry someone who would?) So for the interim part of the journey he both is and isn't Catholic.
ReplyDeleteBrother Roger (Schutz) of Taize, by the end of his life, called himself a Reformed Protestant (by birth) in communion with the Roman Catholic Church. Wiki handles it delicately: "Brother Roger thus appeared to have undertaken a step without precedent since the Protestant Reformation: entering progressively into full communion with the faith of the Catholic Church possibly without a formal "conversion" that would imply a break with his origins." At Pope John Paul's funeral, Cardinal Josef Ratzinger personally gave the Host to Brother Roger, causing excessive scandal among a certain group of Roman Catholics. Ratzinger nevertheless was elected pope (more scandal!!) a few days later. (I wouldn't know any of this if I didn't know personally one of the highly scandalized.)
These are times when the Eucharist may not be "necessary" but would be highly appropriate. The problem with trying to codify the times, as the German bishops are trying to do, is the difficulty of telling someone else "Sorry, Charlie, you don't make the cut." I suspect our president would be highly honored to receive the Host from, say Archbishop Chaput, and if the archbishop put in writing that it is OK for the Methodist spouse and Brother Roger, how would he keep Donald J. Trump from doing what the loves to do -- accepting the honor? Some things are better done than talked about.
I remember that story about Brother Roger. He was a saint. I love the Taize hymns. Wonder if Taize is still going?
ReplyDelete"There are times when the Eucharist may not be " necessary" but would be highly appropriate." I agree with that, Tom. An example was when my husband's Presbyterian cousins, who drove three hours to be present for his diaconal ordination, showed up in his Communion line. His solution? Give them Communion and go to confession later. The archbishop's homily had been on the Discourse of the Eucharist in John 6. Apparently the cousins were fine with the Catholic take on that.
Taize seems, from its Web site to be very much still going: https://www.taize.fr/en
DeleteDefinitely. There is a regular Catholic Mass at 7am for those who want it, then during the day at one of the prayer meeting there is interfaith communion for all, thanks to a special authorization of the local bishop since the 1970s. Brother Roger of Taizé saw communion not only as the climax of unity but also as the way to unity, and proposed opening it to those who desired unity and believed in the real presence of Christ.
DeleteHi Claire, I'm glad to hear that Taize is still going, and that they have that interfaith Communion. We need more of that spirit of unity. We have so much fragmentation, and polarization, even among people who believe the same thing.
DeleteBesides Catholics, the most numerous denomination in our town are the Lutherans (LCMS). For what it's worth, I think they have us beat for strict and starchy rules about Communion. Some friends have talked about their customs with me; they have some sort of card system which I don't fully understand. I guess you fill out the card when you take Communion, not sure if it's before or after. I do know that they believe in the Real Presence similar to us, but they don't keep a reserved Sacrament. However their pastors do bring Communion to the sick. The ELCA are a bit leass strict about closed Communion. This is an interesting discussion on Lutheran customs regarding Communion. Good to know we aren't the only ones who have a little insider baseball going on the subject.
ReplyDeleteWe have a WELS congregation nearby. The pastor gave a series of Friday morning Lenten talks on the radio some years ago. I happened to tune in on the way to work. I enjoyed them very much. He had a good sense of humor and there was a lot of spiritual nourishment. The only thing I really found off-putting was the notion that salvation is a matter of correct belief and that our good works are foul in the eyes of God. I understand that Catholics and Anglicans believe that we are saved by faith aline, but I still fall back in the Anglican line that "faith without works is dead."
DeleteThe WELS using color-coded tags for everyone to ensure the Eucharist doesn't fall into the "wrong hands" (see Katherine's link), should make folks think a little more about how welcoming their parish is to outsiders.
I like the idea of having a card in the pew that encourages visitors AND Catholics to consider their beliefs and fitness for receiving. Perhaps the communion line would be shorter and the Confession line longer? Perhaps this would also dispose of the need for bishops to make public proclamations banning high-profile political figures from communion?
Jean, Salvation by faith alone was Luther's line. Holy mochurch always said faith AND works. Luther was right in saying nothing we can do will so awe God that he'll say, "Hey, fella, come up to the head of the line, and walk right in." But, as James's epistle (which Luther didn't like) said, you show me your faith -- if you can, -- and I'll show you my good works that confirm my faith.
DeleteJean, it was my understanding that Catholics also believe we are saved by both faith and works. In fact we are sometimes accused of being Pelagians at heart.
DeleteThere is one rural WELS congregation around here. Word is they think the LCMS are too liberal.
I seem to remember some detente was reached with Lutherans and Catholics along the faith/works line about the time I went through RCIA. Yes, here: https://www.firstthings.com/article/1999/12/two-languages-of-salvation-the-lutheran-catholic-joint-declaration
DeleteBrother Roger of Taizé saw communion not only as the climax of unity but also as the way to unity, and proposed opening it to those who desired unity and believed in the real presence of Christ.
ReplyDeleteBrother Roger was wise and insightful and, obviously, a true follower of Jesus. Jesus himself had a "policy" of open communion. It's sad that human beings have too often turned it into a "members of our club only" practice.
We attended a local Lutheran church mass several months ago. I think it was ELCA. At any rate, they did not have cards of any kind, and the order of service indicated it was open communion for all christians. According to Wiki, there are different practices for the different branches of Lutheranism in the US
ReplyDeletePractices in American Lutheran churches
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and its congregations practice open communion—meaning that Holy Communion is offered to all baptized Christians who have confessed their sins and received absolution.[16] Congregations in the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod practice closed communion, meaning that Lutheran catechetical instruction is required for all people before receiving the Eucharist, though some congregations in these synods simply either ask that one speak to the pastor before the service to confirm their common faith or acknowledge this on their attendance card. For Lutherans in general, confession and absolution are considered proper preparation for receiving the sacrament. However, the historic practice among Lutherans of preparation by private confession and absolution[17] is rarely found in American Lutheran congregations.[16][18] For this reason, often a brief order or corporate rite of confession and absolution is included at the beginning of Lutheran liturgies.
A growing number of congregations in the ELCA, offer instruction to baptized children generally between the ages of 6-8 and, after a relatively short period of catechetical instruction, the children are admitted to partake of the Eucharist.[16] Most other ELCA congregations offer First Communion instruction to children in the 5th grade. In other Lutheran churches, the person must have receive confirmation before receiving the Eucharist.[16][19] Infants and children who haven't received the catechetical instruction (or confirmation) may be brought to the Eucharistic distribution by their parents to be blessed by the pastor.[20]
More info on the Lutherans. The service we attended did have different "station" for wine or grape juice, poured into small paper cups held by the communicant.
ReplyDeleteManner of reception
Communion setting at an ELCA service: an open Bible, both unleavened bread and gluten-free wafers, a chalice of wine, and another with grape juice
A congregation kneeling during the Eucharistic distribution
The manner of receiving the Eucharist differs throughout the world. In most American Lutheran churches, an older Latin Rite custom is maintained, where a cushioned area and altar rails sit at the front of the altar where the congregation can come to kneel down and receive the sacrament ... Traditionally, only those within the holy office of the ministry distributed both of the communion elements, but it is now the prevailing practice that the Pastor distributes the host and an assistant then distributes the wine. The congregation departs and may make the sign of the cross.
In other Lutheran churches, the process is much like the Post-Vatican II revised rite of the Roman Catholic Church.[21] The eucharistic minister (most commonly the pastor) and his assistants line up, with the eucharistic minister in the center holding the hosts and the two assistants on either side holding the chalices. The people process to the front in lines and receive the Eucharist standing. Following this, the people make the sign of the cross (if they choose to) and return to their places in the congregation.
The bread is commonly a thin unleavened wafer, but leavened wafers may also be used. Some parishes use intinction, the dipping of the host into the chalice.[22] Placing the host in the hand of the communicant is commonly practiced, but some people may prefer that the pastor place the host into their mouth in the pre-Vatican II Catholic tradition. The wine is commonly administered via a chalice, but many congregations use individual cups.[23] These may be either prefilled or filled from the chalice during the distribution of the Eucharist. Some ELCA congregations make grape juice available for children and those who are abstaining from alcohol and some will accommodate those with an allergy to wheat or grapes.[24]
Adoration and the Corpus Christi
Lutheran Eucharistic adoration is not commonly practiced, but when it occurs it is done only from the moment of consecration to reception.[disputed – discuss] Many people kneel when they practice this adoration. The consecrated elements are treated with much respect and in many areas are reserved as in Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Anglican practice.[25] The Feast of the Corpus Christi was retained in the main calendar of the Lutheran Church up until about 1600,[26] but continues to be celebrated by many Lutheran congregations.[27] On this feast day the consecrated host is displayed on an altar in a monstrance and, in some churches, the rites of the Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament and other forms of adoration are celebrated.[28]
Wow, a monstrance! The articles of religion in my BCP say the sacraments are not to "be gazed upon or carried about," though doctrinal stretching to move a bit closer to Rome has occurred over time.
DeleteHave never seen an adoration in the Episcopal Church, and, while many Anglicans believe in transubstantiation, there is a perceived danger of "totemizing the host. It's all explained here. https://conciliaranglican.com/2011/07/22/ask-an-anglican-eucharistic-adoration/
The quotes from Wiki are about Lutherans, not Anglican/Episcopalians!
DeleteWhen we lived in Ft. Collins, CO, back in the 80s, the rather high church Episcopal church there used to host an annual Bach concert which I liked to attend. I noticed that they had a small side chapel with a sanctuary light, and also Stations of the Cross. So a lot of crossover.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteKatherine, I have attended an Episcopal church for about 8 years. It is an historic parish, founded in 1726. The current church was built in 1822, and rebuilt and added to in 1887. There is a crucifx over the door from the narthex to the nave. There are stations of the cross on the walls, and a sanctuary light in the sanctuary, next to the altar. There is a very large painting of the Madonna in the main church, and several smaller paintings of Mary in the hallway just outside of the nave. Lots of stained glass, but no statuary. Catholics might think it is a Catholic church if they stumbled in from the street. However, a look at the bulletin makes it obvious that this is not a RC church. Not only does this parish have open communion, it does not confine the invitation only to those who are baptized christians - it is open to "all who seek Christ".
DeleteI believe (with Brother Roger of Taizé) that this invitation to receive the Eucharist is truly in imitation of Christ. Jesus did not demand baptismal certificates of the Jews at the Last Supper - he invited all those who sought him, all who wished to follow him, to share bread and wine in memory of him.
Delete
As interesting as this discussion is, and as much as I agree with most of it, there are problems with y'all-come Communion. For one thing (there are others),ushers in this area must be on the lookout for Santarians who take the Eucharist back to their pantheistic cult gatherings. What they use it for I don't know, but in the immortal words of a Miami mayor who paid $300 to import a Santaria priest and a chicken as a campaign expense, "That chicken was alive when I left."
Delete