# "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:** 36
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2011, 8:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/701 "2011-03-26T08:33:05Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > And I still know just as much as you about Catholicism. No one reading this thread believes that, with the possible exception of you. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2011, 8:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/702 "2011-03-26T08:36:40Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Belief in transubstaniation is beside the point. If the receiver has no awareness of any conditions, then I don’t see how any conditions could be enforceable. That’s the rub - that the recipient has not been made aware of any conditions. And yet, when I suggested before that this might be your sticking point: > [@Bricker](#): > > I have a funny feeling you think that “proof” has to include proof that the Cook kid was aware of the conditions. > > You understand that whether he was aware of it or not is not the dispositive factor, yes? You responded: > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I’m saying no conditions ever existed at all. So I think I’m done talking to you. Bye now. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2011, 8:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/703 "2011-03-26T08:51:44Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Those religionists insulted by attacks on their books and crackers should probably not turn around and insult other people by telling them that terrible things will happen to them if they don’t consider the books and crackers to be holy. Insulting an entire belief system (or lack of one) seems much worse than insulting a thing. This is a really good point. I wonder if there is a class-action suit there? (On behalf of Muslims, or gays, or Jews, or just about anyone who doesn’t believe in the magic crackers.) I’m mostly serious.\* Why shouldn’t all the world’s “heretics” be protected from the harm of a far greater harassment (i.e. ‘you will writhe in fiery agony for eternity unless you join our ridiculous cult!’) than cracker bashing? \*The only non-serious part is my belief that such a class-action suit could never even be seriously considered because of the special treatment enjoyed by big, organized groups of fairy-tale believers. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2011, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/704 "2011-03-26T10:50:06Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I still contend that the recipient has to have some demonstrable awareness of these conditions in order for them to be legally binding. Bricker already explained to you that you are flat-out wrong on this, and he provided a cite that spoke to it. Do you have anything to actually counter that cite, something other than, “No, I was right, by my decree.” BTW, it is laughable that you compare your knowledge of Catholicism to Bricker’s. You’ve never noticed a missal, you spent 2 pages of the thread arguing that Eucharist could only apply to the ceremony, etc. Bricker is a wealth of info on the faith. Stop it. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2011, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/705 "2011-03-26T12:51:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Perhaps – the parishoner would have to have been already authorized to act as an agent for the Church… as might happen in the case of a lay Eucharistic minister, for instance, which is a layperson temporarily deputed to distribute the consecrated host. But a run-of-the-mill parishoner can’t really assert the rights of the church – or to put it more generally, if I give you $1000 to get a car, and you run down to the motorcycle store, Aunt Sally can’t grab the money out of your hand because you’re flouting the conditions of the gift. > > The only point I’m trying to correct here, though, is the sense that the communicant owned the bread, free and clear, to do with as he pleased the moment it was handed to him. I’m not saying that the actions of the parishoners to take it back were lawful. It is true the kid took the host, but if he said, “Amen” when handed it to him, it was understood he agreed that it was the Body of Christ, and the purpose was to consume it, not display or desacrate it in any way, so it was taken under false pretenses. Perhaps he was ignorant of the fact. But I wonder why he went to a Catholic service in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2011, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/706 "2011-03-26T12:52:52Z")
Does ANYBODY here believe that **Diogenes** knows what he’s talking about? With respect to either the law or Catholicism? BTW, in times past, some people have expressed admiration for **Dio** ’s knowledge of religion. I disagreed with that assessment, and this thread is an example of what I mean. **Diogenes** does know a lot of stuff, but he exaggerates the facts, overstates his knowledge, and ignores important nuances regarding religious scholarship. He also frequently bluffs his way through things that he doesn’t know. He also likes to excitedly seize on theories and viewpoints that paint religion in the most embarrassing light possible, with little regard for parsimony or fair assessments. And of course, when caught in an error, he will steadfastly hold his ground regardless of the facts. **Diogenes** , that hole you’re digging is getting deeper. Deeper and deeper. I’d stop if I were you. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2011, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/707 "2011-03-26T13:00:05Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It’s not known as “A eucharist.” > I was raised Catholic, I went to Catholic schools, my wife is Catholic, my kids are Catholic, my kids go to a Catholic school and I have a BA in religion. What makes **Bricker** moreknowledgeable about Catholicism than me? If you notice he didn’t say 'A" Eucharist, but “the” Eucharist, I have a relative that is a Catholic priest and he calls it the Eucharist! ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2011, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/708 "2011-03-26T14:07:58Z")
> [@TravisFromOR](#): > > It’s not “a” Eucharist. It’s “the” Eucharist. There’s a distinction. **Dio** believed that the term “the Eucharist” only referred to the ceremony, not the consecrated host and wine. Both the wine and the host are “the Eucharist” together and separately. > > **Dio** also had never seen a missal in all his years of attending Mass. > > The average seven year old Catholic knows more than he does about Catholicism. Fine. My wife’s experience was different than you assert. But whatever. I was never Catholic, so all I can tell you is that it sounds wrong to me. It really doesn’t matter - the rites and beliefs you describe require such a bizarre and reality-disconnected way of thinking that you could call it a Eucharist wafer, a Eucharist, or a flippity-flappity-floop and it would all be the same to me. Your particular brand of circumscribed craziness and someone else’s sound about the same to me. Seems like that’s part of the original point of the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2011, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/709 "2011-03-26T14:33:02Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Does ANYBODY here believe that **Diogenes** knows what he’s talking about? With respect to either the law or Catholicism? > > BTW, in times past, some people have expressed admiration for **Dio** ’s knowledge of religion. I disagreed with that assessment, and this thread is an example of what I mean. **Diogenes** does know a lot of stuff, but he exaggerates the facts, overstates his knowledge, and ignores important nuances regarding religious scholarship. He also frequently bluffs his way through things that he doesn’t know. He also likes to excitedly seize on theories and viewpoints that paint religion in the most embarrassing light possible, with little regard for parsimony or fair assessments. And of course, when caught in an error, he will steadfastly hold his ground regardless of the facts. > > **Diogenes** , that hole you’re digging is getting deeper. Deeper and deeper. I’d stop if I were you. JThunder, I think you are spot on here. The only other thing that I would add is that Diogenes debating style in this thread is basically just to vigorously assert his own position, claim that the other position is not proven, and that must mean he is right by default. What has been suprising to me is really how Diogenes appears to have no evidence at all for his belief in atheism. Despite repeated questioning of his reasons for atheism, all he seems to be able to come up with is the simply wrong view of the “logical default”. Or more on topic you could see the same mechanism at work in his discussion with Bricker and others about the legal ownership of the host. He didn’t provide any cites or evidence himself, or given any reason why he should be considered correct. All he did was just demand more and more exacting cites that detailed the minutua of his opponents claims, presumably with the hope that they wouldn’t be able to easily present in the information over the internet or would simply not bother and give up. It is a really tedious and sleazy debate tactic to assert that if your opponent can’t prove their case then you must be correct. Either you have reasons and evidence for your beliefs, or you don’t, and in Diogenes case he has shown precious little in this thread. Calculon. ---
**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 26, 2011, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/710 "2011-03-26T15:35:45Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Bricker already explained to you that you are flat-out wrong on this, and he provided a cite that spoke to it. Do you have anything to actually counter that cite, something other than, “No, I was right, by my decree.” > > BTW, it is laughable that you compare your knowledge of Catholicism to Bricker’s. You’ve never noticed a missal, you spent 2 pages of the thread arguing that Eucharist could only apply to the ceremony, etc. Bricker is a wealth of info on the faith. Stop it. I haven’t been wrong about a single thing and **Bricker** has done nothing but posit a stretched and implausible _theory_. We have yet to see a cite that a communion wafer carries any legally binding “conditions” on it. It carries religious conditions for Catholics, and Bricker is trying to pretend those conditions are legal obligations. ---
**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 26, 2011, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/711 "2011-03-26T15:37:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And yet, when I suggested before that this might be your sticking point: > You responded: > > So I think I’m done talking to you. Bye now. Let the record show that you could not show a cite that the communion wafer is a “conditional gift.” ---
**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 26, 2011, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/712 "2011-03-26T15:39:33Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > it was understood he agreed that it was the Body of Christ, and the purpose was to consume it Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2011, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/713 "2011-03-26T18:00:13Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I haven’t been wrong about a single thing and **Bricker** has done nothing but posit a stretched and implausible _theory_. We have yet to see a cite that a communion wafer carries any legally binding “conditions” on it. It carries religious conditions for Catholics, and Bricker is trying to pretend those conditions are legal obligations. Hmm, you know what, I’m finding you funny these days. I am no longer annoyed by you, FWIW–your contributions are just becoming more and more pathetic. Wonder if that’s the progression of your contributions to this board, to the point where you can only poke the newbies? I’m curious, in a medium where your contribution is recorded for all to see, do you really believe no one can discern you were objectively wrong? It’s weird. Do you just figure most people are too lazy to check? Or in your head, is history something that can change to something different by the force of your will? Anyway, just for laughs, you followed a standard Dio progression in this thread, something like this:[ul][li]You inaccurately corrected someone, asserting the the term “Eucharist” referred solely to the ceremony.[_]Several people pointed out that was wrong.[_]You obstinately dug in, in the face of actual cites contrary to your assertion, to state that it was the ceremony alone. As standard Dio evidence, you pointed out that you had never heard it referred to otherwise. And we all know that if you haven’t experienced something, it is an impossibility.[_]At this point you seemed to sense you couldn’t bluff through what was flatly wrong, so you started to change the debate. Suddenly, it referred to something other than the ritual, it must only correctly refer to the bread and wine collectively (without explicitly acknowledging that this post, by itself, must mean you were originally wrong). An individual host could not, according to the Oracle of Minnesota, properly be considered individually as Eucharist.[_]Even you perceived this was becoming a dead end for your refreshingly nuanced position. You then moved this critical debate along so that we could understand that your real objection was, apparently, the use of the incorrect article in referring to an individual consecrated wafer as “a Eucharist.” English pedants the world over erupted in celebration.[_]The next wrinkle: what you clearly meant was that if a single wafer were treated irreverently, that did not mean that the “entire Eucharist” had been desecrated. It was an aspect lost on practicing Catholics in this thread, those without the requisite BAs in religion, anyway. Your point was, I can see now, that the Eucharist had only been reduced; so long as such a healthy stockpile existed, it was whiny to refer to the Eucharist as having been desecrated.[_]Finally, and only with Sarahfeena’s typically firm but gentle guidance, you ultimately allowed that this one gap may exist in your encyclopedic knowledge of all things Catholic, and you conceded you were incorrect to say a host could not individually be referred to as “Eucharist.”[_]This progression contributed to your later conclusion that in a thread where you conceded you were incorrect about something, you simultaneously maintained your unbeaten streak, having been correct on every single thing.[_]This entire exchange was also interspersed with offhand comments that this was a trivial, semantic point, proving the corollary that issues become silly and beneath debate at the same rate it becomes clear that you were wrong. At any point prior to that, it’s good and noble and virtuous when you dig in intractably to enlighten people on the subject.[/ul]Seriously, does any of this ring a bell? I’m responding, of course, to your saying you have not been wrong on a single thing in this thread, that’s all. It’s also to perhaps help you see why people are dismissive of your contributions and don’t take you seriously except as a foil for pointless debate. I’m not saying it was a critical issue in this thread. In fact, the exchange continued only because you refuse to concede a simple point; it would have been over in a post with one “My bad” concession from you. Bricker provided you with a cite that says there is a legal concept that covers conditional gifts, and his explanation made clear that the conditions were not exclusive of religious ones. You were wrong on this, too. The legal concept doesn’t appear to have restrictions on any legal condition the giver might come up with. He also provided the conditions that are universally applied by the Church, and he explained multiple times that the recipient need not be aware of the conditions for the legal concept to be in play. Your unassailable counter to that continues to be, “No, I’m right.”[/li] And finally, in a thread where you couldn’t remember ever seeing a missal in a Catholic church, where they are almost without fail present, where you did your “Eucharist dance,” as outlined above, you conclude your knowledge and experience make you the preferred expert on Catholicism over Bricker, whose credentials and contribution on such matters make that a silly comment indeed. Anyway, I’m bored on a Saturday, so I thought I’d try to the impossible, to get you to see something objectively so. Not expecting it, of course. ---
**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 26, 2011, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/714 "2011-03-26T19:06:51Z")
1. I didn’t say I was an expert on Catholocism, I just said Bricker wasn’t an’t more knowledgable than I am. He’s not an expert either. It’s not an extraordinary claim to say that I know as much as any lay Catholic, which is all Bricker is. 2. I wasn’t wrong about “the eucharist,” vs. “a euchariust.” Each individual wafer is not an individyual eucharist. 3. That really is a trivial point not worth arguing about. 4. Bricker’s “conditional gift” theory regarding communion wafers is not a cite, it’s his attempt to stretch a legal theory to fit a circumstance. He has not produced a cite that any court has ever actually held this theory to be valid with regard to communion wafers, though, or that any prosecutor has ever even tried it. No one has even produced an example of anyone so much as being arrested for not eating their cracker. No one has come closing to showing that it’s a crime to take a wafer received during communion out of a church or out of a student union, much less back to one’s seat, and the very suggestion is, fankly, laughable. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2011, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/715 "2011-03-26T19:15:13Z")
How often do you suppose it comes up? The fact that no case has ever been prosecuted doesn’t mean the argument is without merit. It could mean it happens exceedingly infrequently, or that no one can be bothered to prosecute such a circumstance, or something else. Bricker’s argument was in response to the notion that the jerk described in the OP was blameless, and no legal concept could suggest otherwise. Bricker offered a reasonable argument to the contrary, with the cites that show this argument could be made. The fact that there’s not a case that ever tried it is meaningless. That doesn’t mean a case couldn’t be made. If you think it’s a non-starter, explain why his argument is incorrect. Regarding the Eucharist, yes, you have in fact zeroed in on the one point out of many you made in that exchange that wasn’t flatly incorrect. So? ---
**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 26, 2011, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/716 "2011-03-26T19:18:22Z")
If Bricker’s theory has never so much as been tested, then it can’t be held up as some kind of dispositive cite. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2011, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/717 "2011-03-26T19:25:55Z")
Yes, by definition. It cannot be cited as a precedent, since it hasn’t been tested in court. Duh. That would also apply to your assertion that the courts would presumably dismiss such a notion as being without any legal merit. That doesn’t mean either of your hypotheticals are invalid. I just tend to assign more weight to the guy who provides cites and makes an actual argument, rather than to the guy who endlessly repeats, “No, I’m right.” ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2011, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/718 "2011-03-26T19:40:48Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 1. I didn’t say I was an expert on Catholocism, I just said Bricker wasn’t an’t more knowledgable than I am. He’s not an expert either. It’s not an extraordinary claim to say that I know as much as any lay Catholic, which is all Bricker is. > > 2. I wasn’t wrong about “the eucharist,” vs. “a euchariust.” Each individual wafer is not an individyual eucharist. > > 3. That really is a trivial point not worth arguing about. It’s really not a trivial point, because the reason you argued it in the first place is to try to dismiss the whole incident as not being worth getting upset about, when in fact it’s quite, quite serious. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2011, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/719 "2011-03-26T21:09:03Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > It’s really not a trivial point, because the reason you argued it in the first place is to try to dismiss the whole incident as not being worth getting upset about, when in fact it’s quite, quite serious. It’s really, really not. Not in the least. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2011, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/720 "2011-03-26T21:33:05Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > This entire exchange was also interspersed with offhand comments that this was a trivial, semantic point, proving the corollary that issues become silly and beneath debate at the same rate it becomes clear that you were wrong. 😛 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144.md?page=35) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144.md?page=37)