# "Desecration" of the Eucharist **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 18, 2011, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144 "2011-03-18T13:09:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/221 "2011-03-21T16:54:48Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > “Bigotry”? What bigotry? You mean the bigotry he displayed, mocking someone’s religious ceremony, or some other bigotry I’m talking about the terroristic threats and over the top accusations made against a kid for not eating a cracker. > [@](#): > > I will state right away that death threats are a hyperbolic and uncalled-for reaction to a guy acting like a jerk How about accusing him of “kidnapping” and “hate crimes?” > [@](#): > > You aren’t making any sense. He did something that would quite obviously cause offense, had he been caught doing it I doubt it would have caused much of a stir. If he was still in the church he could have just popped it in his mouth. > [@](#): > > ‘I got away with the offensive act’ is not the same as ‘I committed no offensive act’. Particularly where you boast of it afterwards I don’t see how it can be offensive if no one is offended. [quote] You are once again moving goalposts. Crime is not the same as ‘giving offense’ and has no necessary relationship with it. Accusing him of “stealing” is accusing him of a crime. He didn’t steal anything. > [@](#): > > What it it were proved that the wafer-stealer were acting illegally? Would you admit what he did was offensive then? Illegally under what statute? Yes if had hypothetically done something illegal, then it would have been illegal, but he didn’t. There is no law against palming a communion wafer. > [@](#): > > As I started, so I’ll conclude: Desecration of someone elses’ religious ceremonies is pretty well universally frowned upon. It is obvious you do not share this sentiment, but you are, I would say, an outlier. He didn’t do anything to their ceremony. The ceremony is the mass itself. He didn’t disrupt that. What he did was on his on time with his own property. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/222 "2011-03-21T16:57:34Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Calculon, > > The bible may be “broadly” historically reliable. It’s not even that. Some parts accurately reflect some historical details or circumstances, but no hsitorian would call it “reliable” even in broad sense. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/223 "2011-03-21T17:14:29Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > I already did You already cited evidence for sky gods? I must have missed it. What was it? > [@](#): > > This isn’t circular. If the ressurection happened then Christianity is likely true. If not, then it isn’t. And the point is not to show that the resurrection did actually happen. The point is to nominate evidence that religious people present to demonstrate the truth of their view. The claim “there is no evidence of any sort” for religion is clearly false. You may not find the evidence convincing, but that doesn’t make it disappear. You’re are confusing beliefs with evidence. A belief in the resurrection is not evidence. That belief is, in itself, the thing that is to be proven. It’s sounds like you’re conceding there is no evidence for the resurrection, though. > [@](#): > > Let’s start with Plantiga’s ontological argument that the existence for God is about 50/50. Plantinga doesn’t actually say this. He only says that “it’s possibly necessary” that an ominmax entity exists. This assertion is not only unsupported (it’s the weakest part of his OA defense), but is manifestly contradicted by the Problem of Evil. > [@](#): > > If Dawkins is correct that “there almost certainly is no God”, then this argument must be false. Show me how. You’re reversing the burden of proof here and trying to make Dawkins prove that the possibility of sky gods is not 50/50. The deafulkt presumption is non-existence, not a 50/50 chance, but just for the hell of it, Dawkins own conclusion is based on two simple observations: lack of necessity and lack of evidence. Sky gods not only lack any empirical evidence for their existence, it is also not necessary to hypothesize their existence to explain anything. Moreover, their existence would violate the laws of physics and Occam’s Razor. They would be both superfluous and physically impossible, therefore they almost certainly don’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/224 "2011-03-21T17:17:32Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I’m talking about the terroristic threats and over the top accusations made against a kid for not eating a cracker. Hysterical over-reaction to an offensive act is not “bigotry”. > [@](#): > > How about accusing him of “kidnapping” and “hate crimes?” Like death threats, a hysterical over-reaction. > [@](#): > > I doubt it would have caused much of a stir. If he was still in the church he could have just popped it in his mouth. Someone caught deliberately desecrating the host _in a church_ would not have “caused much of a stir”? I beg to differ. > [@](#): > > I don’t see how it can be offensive if no one is offended. Once again, ‘I got away with it’ isn’t the same as ‘I did nothing wrong’. > [@](#): > > Accusing him of “stealing” is accusing him of a crime. He didn’t steal anything. Yes he did. He stole the wafer. > [@](#): > > Illegally under what statute? Yes if had hypothetically done something illegal, then it would have been illegal, but he didn’t. There is no law against palming a communion wafer. People certainly have been charged with stealing communion wafers. [http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2008/nov/10/no-headline---200811091938-10sbriefs/](http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2008/nov/10/no-headline---200811091938-10sbriefs/) > [@](#): > > JENSEN BEACH — Parishioners at St. Martin de Porres Catholic Church stopped a man from leaving Saturday morning Mass after he “attempted to steal a handful of communion wafers from the priest,” according to an arrest report. > > Martin County sheriff’s deputies found six to seven parishioners holding down John Samuel Ricci, 33, of Canton, Conn., when they arrived around 9:30 a.m. at the church, located on Northeast Savannah Boulevard. > > Ricci had tried to leave the church after grabbing the communion wafers, but “the enraged and offended parishioners stood in his way,” the report said. > > Ricci got angry, cursed at the parishioners and even pushed two of them to the ground, according to the report. One suffered minor injuries, while another was taken to the hospital complaining of chest pain. > > Deputies arrested Ricci and charged him with two counts of simple battery, theft and disruption of a religious assembly. He was still being held Sunday afternoon at the Martin County Jail on $2,000 bond. > [@](#): > > He didn’t do anything to their ceremony. The ceremony is the mass itself. He didn’t disrupt that. What he did was on his on time with his own property. He only evaded Mr. Ricci’s fate by not being caught. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/225 "2011-03-21T17:17:44Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I really have no idea how Catholics view the destruction of idols by past saints. If I was forced to guess, I’d say that they would probably mumble something about different rules applicable to persons in past eras - same as what would be mumbled by pretty well every other group facing similar “problems”. > > The more interesting question would be ‘if saint such-and-such was right to destroy idols in Dark Ages Saxony - am I right to take a sledgehammer to my neighbour Mr. Pushpam’s idol of Ganesh today?’ If the official answer is “yes”, you’ve got a great case for hypocrisy. If “no”, not so much. What about figurative “desecration of idols?” What about simply disparaging or mocking other beliefs? If a Catholic mocks Raelians or Xenu, do they have a leg to stand on to complain about people mocking a belief in transubstantiation? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/226 "2011-03-21T17:28:32Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > So what would you consider sufficient evidence? What is the least amount of evidence that you accept? It has to be sufficient to prove the event happened. There is no “least amount.” It’s not a question of degre. A claim can either be proven or it can’t, and extraordinary claimns require extraordinary evdience. You hav a taller hill to climb with a claim like the resurrection because you’re talking about something which is a \*prima facie[/i[ impossibility. ---
**Author:** ![martu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@martu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/martu)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/227 "2011-03-21T17:28:57Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > As I started, so I’ll conclude: Desecration of someone elses’ religious ceremonies is pretty well universally frowned upon. It is obvious you do not share this sentiment, but you are, I would say, an outlier. When your aim is to point out that the very idea of having sacred objects is not only ridiculous but a useful tool in manipulating the rubes: [QUOTE=PZ Myers] Declare something cheap, disposable, and common to be imbued with magic by the words of a priest, and the trivial becomes a powerful token to inflame the mob — why, all you have to do is declare a bit of bread to be the most powerful and desirable object in the world, and even if it isn’t, you can pretend that the evil other is scheming to deprive the faithful of it. Now you could invent stories of Jews and witches taking the communion host to torture, to make Jesus suffer even more, and good Catholics would of course rise in horror to defend their salvation. [/QUOTE] desecration is inevitable. If you are offended by what happens to a cracker I need to tell you something: **Magic isn’t real.** ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/228 "2011-03-21T17:33:33Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > What about figurative “desecration of idols?” What about simply disparaging or mocking other beliefs? If a Catholic mocks Raelians or Xenu, do they have a leg to stand on to complain about people mocking a belief in transubstantiation? When people mock Raelians or Xenu, they tend to be mocking those beliefs because they are spread as a deliberate money-making scam. They are not inherently any more objectively “wrong” than any other religious belief - they are no more “wrong” than the literal religious beliefs of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, New Guinean ancestor worship, etc., from either an atheist perspective, or the perspective of those who are of the opinion they have the one, true religion. However, the fact that all such beliefs are equally lacking in evidence does not mean that all such beliefs are equally deserving of mockery. What attracts justified mockery is the organization behind the beliefs. One is less likely to mock New Guineans for ancestor-worship, because it is a long standing part of their culture. It would be in bad taste, indeed a sort of bigotry, to mock someone’s native cutlure. This is the same whether one, as I do, views them all as equally un-evidenced, or if one is (say) a believing Catholic, and views all of them _except_ Catholicism as wrong. The better Catholic position is ‘you may be incorrect, but I will explain why your beliefs are incorrect in a respectful manner - unless you are spreading those beliefs as part of a deliberate scam’. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/229 "2011-03-21T17:33:41Z")
So the _purpose_ of the doctrine of transubstantiation is to enable the Catholic hierarchy to inflame hatreds of Jews and pagans? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/230 "2011-03-21T17:36:57Z")
> [@martu](#): > > When your aim is to point out that the very idea of having sacred objects is not only ridiculous but a useful tool in manipulating the rubes: > > desecration is inevitable. > > If you are offended by what happens to a cracker I need to tell you something: > > **Magic isn’t real.** I’m not a Catholic. Neither do I believe in any other god. That changes nothing. I’d feel no differently about someone desecrating a New Guinean ancestor-worship ceremony. The mana of such a ceremony “isn’t real”, but so what? The people you are insulting are real. ---
**Author:** ![Pazu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pazu/32/15522_2.png) [@Pazu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pazu)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/231 "2011-03-21T17:39:59Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > A consecrated wafer cannot be obtained without someone descerating the ceremony of communion. So leaving a communion with the host in your hand rather than in your stomach is definitionally desecration? Honest question. ---
**Author:** ![martu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@martu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/martu)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/232 "2011-03-21T17:41:57Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I’m not a Catholic. Neither do I believe in any other god. > > That changes nothing. I’d feel no differently about someone desecrating a New Guinean ancestor-worship ceremony. The mana of such a ceremony “isn’t real”, but so what? The people you are insulting are real. You are missing PZ’s point - he is desecrating the cracker because it has more power than it deserves and this power can be used for harm. There is nothing good that comes out of creating sacred objects, in fact by definition it’s causing harm by limiting critical thinking. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/233 "2011-03-21T17:41:57Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Hysterical over-reaction to an offensive act is not “bigotry”. Crazed anger that someone else doesn’t share a particular magical belief is bigotry. > [@](#): > > Someone caught deliberately desecrating the host _in a church_ would not have “caused much of a stir”? Not eating it s not “desecrating” it. We’re talking about somebody getting noticed holding or concealing the wafer instead of eating it. This is not likely to cause a stir during mass, no, because it’s not somthing the whole room is going to notice, and catholics aren’t going to leap up and disrupt mass whil it’s still going on, but someone might follow him outside and make inquiries. I’ve seen it happen. A nun followed a guy who was still holding his wafer and asked him what wasup. He said his stomach was upset and he was afraid he was going to throw up if he ate it in church (good cover story if nothing else). She told him the host was still consecrated and he either need to eat it or give it back. He ate it. I think he was actually on the level, even though all Catholics know you’re not supposed to walk out with the host. He had the distinct look of someone with a bad hangover. Anyway, the point is that there was no major scene or disruption. > [@](#): > > Once again, ‘I got away with it’ isn’t the same as ‘I did nothing wrong’. I said he didn’t do anything “offensive,” meaning that he didn’t do anything _during the cermony_ to disrupt it or cause _offense_. > [@](#): > > Yes he did. He stole the wafer. Cite for a legal statute which defines his action as theft? > [@](#): > > People certainly have been charged with stealing communion wafers. > > [http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2008/nov/10/no-headline---200811091938-10sbriefs/](http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2008/nov/10/no-headline---200811091938-10sbriefs/) > > He only evaded Mr. Ricci’s fate by not being caught. This is obviously not the same thing. This guy literally did steal a handful of wafers from a Priest. Show me a case of someone being charged with theft for walking out with a wafer that was given to them during communion. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/234 "2011-03-21T17:44:00Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > That I think is a fundamentally intellectually lazy position. Evidence is evidence and needs to be considered individually. I’m happy to do that. I’m still waiting to see the very first shred. > [@](#): > > What evidence do you have for the belief that all religious claims can be treated the same? That seems like an ideological faith-based position than a reasoned argument. All religious beliefs can be treated the same because they all have the exact same amount of evidence - none. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/235 "2011-03-21T17:44:14Z")
> [@Pazu](#): > > So leaving a communion with the host in your hand rather than in your stomach is definitionally desecration? Honest question. Certainly. It is using a part of the sacred regalia of the mass for a purpose not intended. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/236 "2011-03-21T17:46:05Z")
> [@martu](#): > > You are missing PZ’s point - he is desecrating the cracker because it has more power than it deserves and this power can be used for harm. There is nothing good that comes out of creating sacred objects, in fact by definition it’s causing harm by limiting critical thinking. His motives for committing desecration are irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/237 "2011-03-21T17:48:18Z")
> [@Pazu](#): > > At this point I’m completely unsure as to whether you’re referring to Myers or Cook. > > If the latter: Cook didn’t take the wafer home to “desecrate” it; he said he wanted to show it to his roommate. Why this action deserved death threats and hate mail is beyond me. > > If the former: Myers never entered a communion in order to steal a wafer; at least one reader sent him some after he blogged about aforementioned incident. So how did he desecrate someone’s ceremony? If a reader sent him some wafers, they probably weren’t even consecrated, which means that they really were still just bread, even in terms of Catholic belief. You can’t desecrate whate was never consecrated in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/238 "2011-03-21T18:00:31Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Crazed anger that someone else doesn’t share a particular magical belief is bigotry. No it isn’t. > [@](#): > > Not eating it s not “desecrating” it. We’re talking about somebody getting noticed holding or concealing the wafer instead of eating it. This is not likely to cause a stir during mass, no, because it’s not somthing the whole room is going to notice, and catholics aren’t going to leap up and disrupt mass whil it’s still going on, but someone might follow him outside and make inquiries. I’ve seen it happen. A nun followed a guy who was still holding his wafer and asked him what wasup. He said his stomach was upset and he was afraid he was going to throw up if he ate it in church (good cover story if nothing else). She told him the host was still consecrated and he either need to eat it or give it back. He ate it. I think he was actually on the level, even though all Catholics know you’re not supposed to walk out with the host. He had the distinct look of someone with a bad hangover. > > Anyway, the point is that there was no major scene or disruption. > > I said he didn’t do anything “offensive,” meaning that he didn’t do anything _during the cermony_ to disrupt it or cause _offense_. > > Cite for a legal statute which defines his action as theft? > > This is obviously not the same thing. This guy literally did steal a handful of wafers from a Priest. Show me a case of someone being charged with theft for walking out with a wafer that was given to them during communion. Certainly. Being Canadian, I’ll cite our own Criminal Code, where “theft” is defined as follows: > [@](#): > > 1. (1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent > > (a) to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it; > > (b) to pledge it or deposit it as security; > > (c) to part with it under a condition with respect to its return that the person who parts with it may be unable to perform; or > > (d) to deal with it in such a manner that it cannot be restored in the condition in which it was at the time it was taken or converted. The key here is “fraudulently and without colour or right”. Wafers are handed out at mass with the express understanding that they are only given for use in the mass. They are not to be taken away. Deliberately taking a wafer in the mass ceremony for another purpose, such as to mock the mass, is “fraudulent and without colour of right”, since you are lying about the purpose for which you are taking it, and it would not be given had you told the truth. There is no honest belief that the act is justifiable. > **[Colour of right](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_of_right)** > > Colour of right, sometimes referred to as a claim of right, is the legal concept in common law countries of an accused's permission to the usage or conversion of an asset in the possession of another. The concept can also refer to a right, authority or power conferred on an official by way of a relationship between various statutory or regulatory instruments, where the official is granted a position's powers without having to actually occupy the position. > In New Zealand's Crimes Act, colour of r... ---
**Author:** ![martu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@martu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/martu)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/239 "2011-03-21T18:02:18Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > His motives for committing desecration are irrelevant. Education is never irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2011, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/240 "2011-03-21T18:06:31Z")
> [@martu](#): > > Education is never irrelevant. > **[non sequitur - Wiktionary, the free dictionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/non_sequitur)** [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144.md?page=13)