The hostly controversy seems to be abating but you can’t help but wonder, how exactly did Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper handle the Catholic host? Did he put the body of Christ in his pocket? Did he truly consummate the consumption of said body or was it but a partial communion at best?

To eat or not eat Christ, what’s a non-Catholic to do?

The above CBC News report seems to be having as much trouble as I am figuring out what’s the appropriate protocol. And I ask these questions with great interest because:

1. My hometown of Montreal is roughly 74% Catholic as per Statistics Canada, and
2. I was confronted with this holy issue myself, years ago.

I was eight years old, enthusiastically preparing to become a late-blooming Catholic, of my own volition and initiative no less, while living in a household of atheists—long story. It was Christmas and my now ex-step-grandmother and I were the only ones who wanted to go to mass out of eight plus doberman at the now ex-family gathering. And I was thrilled, honored, even tickled pink that I could attend.

When the time came for the Holy Communion at mass—when it’s time to line up for the priest to hand a round paper-thin wafer representing the body of Jesus Christ—I didn’t think twice about eating or not eating the host. Even though I wasn’t baptized yet—apparently the rites of baptism and First Communion are required to safely consume the son of creation—I felt ready to eat Jesus.

Besides, I had already practiced with unblessed wafers.

So I marched to the altar and consumed the unleavened bread—the body of Christ, the “host”—and I finally felt like I belonged to something, blessed, at home as the wafer stuck to the roof of my mouth.

(By the way, in Quebec,the host is called l’hostie, a versatile word not so much employed to express communion with Jesus Christ in these parts as it is to indicate frustration or call someone a jerk.)

Then I got back to the Christmas gathering. And as I was beaming with pride digesting my moment of communion, my now ex-stepmother revealed to now-ex-step-grandmother that I was not baptized. I didn’t even undergo the First Communion rite yet.

Now-ex-step-grandmother went pale, then red. I, apparently, unknowingly, and in good faith, committed a sacrilege worthy of damnation. A not-yet-Catholic daring to eat the host was likened to a walking abomination, doomed in the best of circumstances to live the afterlife in limbo, a supernatural dimension scrapped since 2007.

So if a non-Catholic eating the body of Christ risks eternal damnation, why the knicker-twist over Prime Minister Harper? Shouldn’t the Church be thrilled Harper narrowly escaped a supernatural dimension scrapped since 2007?

Nope.

According to that CBC report, Catholics are deeply offended that he might not have eaten the host, with the PM’s press attaches working overtime to convince the masses Harper did consume the body of Christ, effectively putting his soul in grave danger.

My understanding—after my now-ex-grandmother blew up on me and from cross-referencing anecdotes with a few Catholic and non-Catholic friends on what they did for years at mass—is that non-Catholics don’t even walk up to the altar. Non-Catholics stay behind out of respect, at their seat, with no priestly interaction. And yet others don’t appear to be bothered with either approach.

The Catholic Church’s allegedly official policy—walk up, cross arms across chest to show one is not Catholic and then ask for a blessing without eating the host or maybe partake in an occasional host if one respects the holiness of the bread—is brand news to me. There’s an arm-crossing/do-you-believe-the-bread-is-holy host consumption loophole?

So let’s get real.

How was Harper supposed to know what to do with the wafer if Catholics aren’t even sure what he should do?