# "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:** 38
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/741 "2011-03-27T02:22:06Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > Yes, I do. A strawman is when you misrepresent someone else’s argument in order to rebut it. In this case, you misrepresenting Diogenes’ argument in order to defend it. So…perhaps it’s not the appropriate term in this case, but whatever. You’re still misrepresenting his argument. You said I was wrong and you haven’t shown that I was. How did I misrepresent what **Dio** said? I never reinterpreted his words; I used the exact quotes that you and others provided. ---
**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 27, 2011, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/742 "2011-03-27T02:22:30Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > 1. **Dio** has gone on to say that it’s not the cracker alone, and that’s also correct according to what I’ve found. Does “gone on to say” mean that Dio began to contradict himself? Because then I agree with you. He started with stating that “Eucharist” referred only to the ceremony, period, full stop. He then started the standard Diogenes flailing and deflection–read my chronology earlier on this page for illustration. He was wrong. As he typically does, he went on to argue something completely different to “prove” he was right, always right and had never, ever said anything wrong. Despite the fact that he did. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/743 "2011-03-27T02:28:58Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Does “gone on to say” mean that Dio began to contradict himself? Because then I agree with you. He started with stating that “Eucharist” referred only to the ceremony, period, full stop. He may have somewhere in this thread, but I’m going by what **Ibn Warraq** said in post #175. **Ibn** was wrong, and he’s the one that seemed perturbed that **Dio** couldn’t admit to being wrong. He’s now being a hypocrite. He and two others have gone on to claim I was wrong about something and are failing to point it out. ---
**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 27, 2011, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/744 "2011-03-27T02:34:04Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > I know you weren’t arguing that the host wasn’t consecrated, you were arguing that you couldn’t desecrate “the eucharist” by taking one of the hosts and doing something to it, because it’s “just a fucking cracker” and didn’t equate to “the entire eucharist.” You were trying to downplay the seriousness (according to Catholic doctrine) of what happened. I didn’t say any of this. You are inferring what I did not imply. ---
**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 27, 2011, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/745 "2011-03-27T02:36:34Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > You said I was wrong and you haven’t shown that I was. How did I misrepresent what **Dio** said? I never reinterpreted his words; I used the exact quotes that you and others provided. I provided this quote: > [@](#): > > The eucharist is the ceremony, not the wafer. Nobody “destroyed a eucharist.” Your quote contradicts this. I provided this quote: > [@](#): > > The primary meaning of “eucharist” is to the ceremony, not to the fucking cracker. …which is Diogenes waffling from the quote above. I provided this quote: > [@](#): > > Incidentally, even when the word “eucharist” is used to refer to the host, it is used to refer to the wafers and wine as a collective whole. Individual wafers are not “eucharists.” …which is partially true, it is sometimes used to refer to the wafers and wine as a collective whole, but it’s not always used that way. I provided this quote: > [@](#): > > I didn’t make a mistake. I corrected one. Individual wafers are not individual “eucharists.” This is incorrect, “The Eucharist” can and does refer to one host in common Catholic understanding and vernacular. Most importantly, I provided this quote: > [@](#): > > This is a separate discussion from my entirely semantic nitpick about the specific word “eucharist” being applicable to a single wafer. I’m not saying they aren’t all consecrated. I’m saying they aren’t all individual “eucharists,” just like every french fry on on combo meal isn’t an individual combo meal. I do not believe the entire eucharist is considered to have been desecrated if a single wafer gets taken home without being eaten. This is the crux of his argument, that desecration of ONE host cannot be properly described as “desecration of the Eucharist,” when in fact, this is the exact definition of it. ---
**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 27, 2011, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/746 "2011-03-27T02:36:40Z")
x-ray vision, I think you’re talking past each other. You are reacting to something selected (unfortunately) out of context, and your read of that particular quote (as a starting point) seems reasonable. But I think others in the thread already lived through the whole exchange, so they have a different starting point. It’s not unusual to find crumbs of verifiable facts in a Dio exchange like this, but that would ignore the greater point, which is that it’s part of a larger non sequitur that Dio constructed to obscure the fact that he was wrong and can’t possibly admit that. ---
**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 27, 2011, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/747 "2011-03-27T02:37:05Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > No, he was fundamentally wrong about how the host is perceived. Even if it wasn’t true that the host is often referred to as “The Eucharist,” he was 100% incorrect to say that desecrating the host isn’t the same thing as desecrating “The Eucharist.” That is actually the definition of Eucharistic desecration, which is a mortal sin for a Catholic to commit. Actually, what I said was "I don’t _think_ that the entire eucharist is considered to be “desecrated” if someone takes a host, and I certainly never said “because it’s just a fucking cracker.” I am not disputing anything about how Catholics perceive the eucharist. ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/748 "2011-03-27T02:38:19Z")
Notice how, although Diogenes has continued arguing his case since my last post he has presented no evidence that his view of reality is actually the correct one. All he has done is say that Bricker and others have not proved their case. Even if you grant that (even though I think he has made his case very well), it does not follow that Diogenes is right. Given a false argument for a premise all one can say with certainty is the truth of the proposition is unknown. Bad arguments for a premise do not show that the premise is incorrect. You can still have true premises defended by bad arguments. It seems that Diogenes does not get this simple point of logic in the way he debates. 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 27, 2011, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/749 "2011-03-27T02:43:37Z")
It is up to those asserting that not eating a wafer received during communion is a crime to prove it. Bricker has not done anything but try to present a tortured theory of how it could be prosecuted. I find the real possibility of such a theory succeeding in court to be highly implausible. Furthermore, no one can cite a single example of anyone ever being arrested or prosecuted for it, not even that kid who got jumped in a student union. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/750 "2011-03-27T02:44:32Z")
**Strat** is correct. You can’t expect to be taken seriously in this debate over _exactly_ how wrong **Dio** was, and when, if you haven’t been following from the beginning. :smack: I take it there’s no other content remaining here? ---
**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 27, 2011, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/751 "2011-03-27T02:45:22Z")
I haven’t been wrong about a goddamn thing. ---
**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 27, 2011, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/752 "2011-03-27T02:47:25Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Actually, what I said was "I don’t _think_ that the entire eucharist is considered to be “desecrated” if someone takes a host, and I certainly never said “because it’s just a fucking cracker.” I am not disputing anything about how Catholics perceive the eucharist. These are your words, Diogenes, I’m not paraphrasing here. You are trying to argue that 1) the host isn’t “The Eucharist,” and 2) that it takes more than desecrating the host to desecrate “The Eucharist.” That’s your argument, and it’s completely incorrect, despite whatever it is that **x-ray vision** read on Wikipedia. > [@](#): > > The primary meaning of “eucharist” is to the ceremony, not to the fucking cracker. > [@](#): > > This is a separate discussion from my entirely semantic nitpick about the specific word “eucharist” being applicable to a single wafer. I’m not saying they aren’t all consecrated. I’m saying they aren’t all individual “eucharists,” just like every french fry on on combo meal isn’t an individual combo meal. I do not believe the entire eucharist is considered to have been desecrated if a single wafer gets taken home without being eaten. ---
**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 27, 2011, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/753 "2011-03-27T02:49:28Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I find the real possibility of such a theory succeeding in court to be highly implausible. Well, that’s good enough for me. I didn’t realize you had the weight of your opinion supporting your opinion. That’s completely different than saying, “No, I’m right.” ---
**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 27, 2011, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/754 "2011-03-27T02:50:31Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I haven’t been wrong about a goddamn thing. Like I said earlier, you have become really funny. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/755 "2011-03-27T02:51:14Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > I provided this quote: > > > [@](#): > > > > The eucharist is the ceremony, not the wafer. Nobody “destroyed a eucharist.” > > Your quote contradicts this. Which one of my quotes contradicts that? > [@](#): > > I provided this quote: > > > [@](#): > > > > Incidentally, even when the word “eucharist” is used to refer to the host, it is used to refer to the wafers and wine as a collective whole. Individual wafers are not “eucharists.” > > …which is partially true, it is sometimes used to refer to the wafers and wine as a collective whole, but it’s not always used that way. Nothing is “always” used one way. Some people may call the wafer alone a eucharist, but that’s an unreasonable nitpick. From what I’ve found from reliable cites, he’s correct- individual wafers are not “eucharists.” > [@spark240](#): > > **Strat** is correct. You can’t expect to be taken seriously in this debate over _exactly_ how wrong **Dio** was, and when, if you haven’t been following from the beginning. :smack: Sorry, I do expect to be taken seriously. I have followed the whole thread but I don’t recall everything that was said, and that’s irrelevant. I never claimed **Dio** wasn’t wrong about anything; I claimed a specific claim **Ibn Warraq** made was wrong and so were the claims about me being wrong. ---
**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 27, 2011, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/756 "2011-03-27T02:51:17Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Like I said earlier, you have become really funny. I know, I actually laughed out loud at that last one. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/757 "2011-03-27T02:54:11Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > He may have somewhere in this thread, but I’m going by what **Ibn Warraq** said in post #175. **Ibn** was wrong, and he’s the one that seemed perturbed that **Dio** couldn’t admit to being wrong. He’s now being a hypocrite. He and two others have gone on to claim I was wrong about something and are failing to point it out. Your reading comprehension skills leave a dramatic amount to be desired. If you went to private school then your parents should demand a refund. If you went to public school, you should offer the taxpayers one. ---
**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 27, 2011, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/758 "2011-03-27T03:01:54Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > I know, I actually laughed out loud at that last one. It’s the train wreck aspect of his logic that keeps me coming back to these things, I’ll admit. I want to see just how far he’ll take his denial. It’s like the Jerry Springer show. I know it’s not worthy, and that I should ignore it. But sometimes I can’t help but watch. It really has become amusing (and sad, in a way), and I no longer permit any annoyance at the horribly bad form he shows. His contributions speak for themselves, but I’ll play along if I’m bored. ---
**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 27, 2011, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/759 "2011-03-27T03:04:56Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Which one of my quotes contradicts that? Diogenes said in one post that the “primary” meaning was the ceremony, and in another post that the ONLY meaning was the ceremony. These statements contradict each other. > [@](#): > > Nothing is “always” used one way. Some people may call the wafer alone a eucharist, but that’s an unreasonable nitpick. From what I’ve found from reliable cites, he’s correct- individual wafers are not “eucharists.” This is wrong. Typically, the host is not called “a eucharist,” that’s true. However, it is very typically referred to as “The Eucharist.” I will give you an example of this. The Catholic Church has a tradition called “[Eucharistic Adoration](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_adoration).” The priest will place ONE host inside a frame on a stand, called a [monstrance](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7eam6s4rRUs/R1CTlWnpGsI/AAAAAAAAAS8/50KmUOJSWEk/s1600-R/monstrance%5B1%5D.jpg), and people will pray and mediate before it. If you read that wikipedia page I linked to, you will find several references to this ONE host as “The Eucharist.” Here is just one example of this usage from the article: > [@](#): > > When the exposure and adoration of the Eucharist is constant (twenty-four hours a day), it is called Perpetual adoration. ---
**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 27, 2011, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/760 "2011-03-27T03:14:36Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > These are your words, Diogenes, I’m not paraphrasing here. You are trying to argue that 1) the host isn’t “The Eucharist,” and 2) that it takes more than desecrating the host to desecrate “The Eucharist.” That’s your argument, and it’s completely incorrect, despite whatever it is that **x-ray vision** read on Wikipedia. Those are not my words and that is not my argument. Nothing in what you quoted supports your inferences about them. I said a wafer is not " **a** eucharist, and I didn’t saying anything about what it takes to desecrate a eucharist except that I didn’t “think,” that the rest of a eucharist would be considered desecrated if someone didn’t eat their cracker. I’m still not convinced that would be the case. Yes, I know you’re going to say that it makes no sense to talk about the “entire eucharist,” or the “rest of the eucharist,” but you know what I mean. I’m saying I don’t believe that an action like Cook’s, “desecrates” the consecrated nature of the _rest_ of the collective bread and wine consecrated during that mass or invalidates anyone else’s communion. Moreover, none of this stuff about Catholic perceptions has anything to do with my opinion on whether it’s a crime, or a “hate crime,” or if it is injurious to anyone. As far as I’m concerned, Catholic perceptions of the eucharist are not relevant to that conversation. I do not dispute that they think taking a wafer home is a “desecration.” I just don’t CARE that they think it’s a desecration. I don’t think anyone else is bound to humor that belief or that they’re causing any injury if they take a wafer back to their seat or put a nail in a wafer they got in the mail. I believe that both consecration and descration are completely imaginary phenomena and so cannot be called injurious. Actually causing disruption during a mass would be one thing, but covertly absconding with a wafer harrasses nobody, no matter _what_ kind of religious beliefs they have about it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144.md?page=37) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144.md?page=39)