# "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:** 39
**Author:** ![MuleSkinner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/779978/32.png) [@MuleSkinner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MuleSkinner)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/761 "2011-03-27T03:21:17Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > 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. > 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: This thread has turned into the lamest of all the **Diogenes** bashings I’ve read over the months. “Dio said that something was only called something and I’ve found that it’s sometimes called something else. Dio was wrong, neener, neener, neener.” I guess there’s no chance this thread will get back on topic. ---
**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, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/762 "2011-03-27T03:22:55Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > Right, because it’s not a cracker at all, it’s unleavened bread. What do you think a cracker is? Communion bread is [matzo](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matzo). Matzo is a cracker. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/763 "2011-03-27T03:25:12Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > 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. Dial it way back. You are out of line with the insults. [/Moderating] ---
**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, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/764 "2011-03-27T03:26:03Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Those are not my words 😕 Those were exact, direct quotes. > [@](#): > > 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. I DON’T know what you mean, actually. No one is claiming that the communion is invalidated, that’s not at all what this is about. The point is that desecrating the Eucharist is desecrating the Real Presence, the Body of Christ. If you seriously think any Catholic in the world would make the argument that it was invalidating everyone’s communion, then you don’t know the first thing about Catholicism. > [@](#): > > 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, nobody _what_ kind of religious beliefs they have about it. OK, well that’s all your opinion and you’re welcome to it, but it’s also a completely different issue from what I’ve been discussing. ---
**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, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/765 "2011-03-27T03:28:31Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > What do you think a cracker is? > > Communion bread is [matzo](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matzo). Matzo is a cracker. Whatever, it doesn’t matter. **x-ray vision** said that the Wikipedia page didn’t say that the cracker could be referred to as “eucharist,” and that’s because they called it “leavened or unleavened bread” instead of a “cracker.” If you’re going to use the wrong terminology, then you shouldn’t be surprised when you don’t see it on the Wikipedia page. ---
**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, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/766 "2011-03-27T03:29:27Z")
> [@MuleSkinner](#): > > This thread has turned into the lamest of all the **Diogenes** bashings I’ve read over the months. “Dio said that something was only called something and I’ve found that it’s sometimes called something else. Dio was wrong, neener, neener, neener.” I guess there’s no chance this thread will get back on topic. If it makes them happy, I’ll concede that I was mistaken that a single wafer is never referred to by the word “eucharist.” I don’t know how that actually has any bearing on the real topic of discussion, though. My intent was only to make a semantic correction about somebody “taking a eucharist.” That side argument about nomenclature does not have any actual bearing on anything, though. I wasn’t saying, one wafer is not “a eucharist” THEREFORE, anything. The spiritual status of the wafer makes no difference to me since I think it’s all imaginary anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/767 "2011-03-27T03:30:16Z")
> [@MuleSkinner](#): > > This thread has turned into the lamest of all the **Diogenes** bashings I’ve read over the months. “Dio said that something was only called something and I’ve found that it’s sometimes called something else. Dio was wrong, neener, neener, neener.” I guess there’s no chance this thread will get back on topic. I expect the believers are happy; now they get to argue over word definitions instead of trying to justify religious thuggery and the sanctity of magic food products. ---
**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, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/768 "2011-03-27T03:33:29Z")
No one need humor anyone’s beliefs, if by that you mean someone can go about their normal business unconcerned if that activity offends someone. If someone believes that walking down the street on a sunny day is an offense to their god, that’s too bad. I’m still going to walk down the street. This is another thing entirely. It’s a person deliberately going out of his way to intrude upon a ceremony that others hold sacred, so that he could knowingly subject the Eucharist to an act that those people would find a great offense. And he did so understanding fully that the host is offered under certain conditions, ones that he went out of his way to ignore. So he is an asshole and a provocateur, and arguably he is at odds with the legal notion of conditional gifts. There is simply no reasonable argument to be made that this nitwit simultaneously could believe (1) that Catholics consider the host sacred (clearly he did, since that’s the sentiment he intended to exploit), and (2) that these same Catholics would have willingly given him a consecrated host had they know what he intended to do with it. Rail against the intrusion of religious beliefs into society–fine. That’s not what this was. This was someone fucking around with people who weren’t bothering him at all. A complete asshole. ---
**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, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/769 "2011-03-27T03:36:46Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > No one need humor anyone’s beliefs, if by that you mean someone can go about their normal business unconcerned if that activity offends someone. If someone believes that walking down the street on a sunny day is an offense to their god, that’s too bad. I’m still going to walk down the street. > > This is another thing entirely. It’s a person deliberately going out of his way to intrude upon a ceremony that others hold sacred, so that he could knowingly subject the Eucharist to an act that those people would find a great offense. And he did so understanding fully that the host is offered under certain conditions, ones that he went out of his way to ignore. So he is an asshole and a provocateur, and arguably he is at odds with the legal notion of conditional gifts. There is simply no reasonable argument to be made that this nitwit simultaneously could believe (1) **that Catholics consider the host sacred (clearly he did, since that’s the sentiment he intended to exploit)**, and (2) that these same Catholics would have willingly given him a consecrated host had they know what he intended to do with it. > > Rail against the intrusion of religious beliefs into society–fine. That’s not what this was. This was someone fucking around with people who weren’t bothering him at all. A complete asshole. The bolded part was a point I was planning to make before this got sidetracked. Of COURSE he knew exactly what he was doing, I don’t care if he never saw a missalette in his life. If he didn’t know, he wouldn’t have done what he did in the first place. I agree, complete asshole. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/770 "2011-03-27T03:39:07Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > What do you think a cracker is? > > Communion bread is [matzo](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matzo). Matzo is a cracker. Actually, while I would prefer to avoid this thread, entirely, your observation is not correct. The communion wafer is clearly based on some Christian traditions regarding the association of the unleavened bread of Passover and the Last Supper, however communion wafers are not prepared or baked in exactly the same way that matzah is produced and there is a difference between the two. Matzah is very definitely “cracker like” in its thickness and brittle consistency. The wafers are generally thinner and are not nearly as brittle. I am not offended that the communion wafer is called a cracker, (_sticks and stones and yanking chains for the fun of it and all that_), but I have never encountered a communion wafer that would match my definition of a cracker. ---
**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, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/771 "2011-03-27T03:42:22Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > 😕 Those were exact, direct quotes. This: > [@](#): > > 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.” represents exact quotes? From what post. > [@](#): > > I DON’T know what you mean, actually. No one is claiming that the communion is invalidated, that’s not at all what this is about. To me that’s exactly what it’s about. > [@](#): > > The point is that desecrating the Eucharist is desecrating the Real Presence, the Body of Christ. You are free to believe that, but nobody else has to humor it. > [@](#): > > If you seriously think any Catholic in the world would make the argument that it was invalidating everyone’s communion, then you don’t know the first thing about Catholicism. I DON’T think they would say that which is exactly why I said “I don’t think the entire eucharist would be considered to be desecrated.” I’m not sure we’re really hearing each other here. My entire point was that it didn’t interefer with, or “desecrate” anyone else’s sacrament. > [@](#): > > OK, well that’s all your opinion and you’re welcome to it, but it’s also a completely different issue from what I’ve been discussing. I think we’re talking past each other because you appear to be inferring things from my posts that I wasn’t trying to imply. If no one communion is compromised, ivalidated or “desecrated”, and no attempt is made to disrupt a mass or harrass anybody, then I don’t see an injury. Sure, they think that somebody who takes a wafer home is desecrating the body of Christ, but so what? I say that desecration is occurring only in their own imaginations and it would be ridiculus to call it a “hate crime.” I reject the contention that it harms anybody at all. ---
**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, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/772 "2011-03-27T03:57:51Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > This: > > represents exact quotes? From what post. > > To me that’s exactly what it’s about. > > You are free to believe that, but nobody else has to humor it. > > I DON’T think they would say that which is exactly why I said “I don’t think the entire eucharist would be considered to be desecrated.” I’m not sure we’re really hearing each other here. My entire point was that it didn’t interefer with, or “desecrate” anyone else’s sacrament. I guess I was confused because no one said that it did. > [@](#): > > I think we’re talking past each other because you appear to be inferring things from my posts that I wasn’t trying to imply. If no one communion is compromised, ivalidated or “desecrated”, and no attempt is made to disrupt a mass or harrass anybody, then I don’t see an injury. Sure, they think that somebody who takes a wafer home is desecrating the body of Christ, but so what? I say that desecration is occurring only in their own imaginations and it would be ridiculus to call it a “hate crime.” I reject the contention that it harms anybody at all. Well, certainly it’s not going to kill anyone. But I think it’s fairly depraved to treat a culture’s sacred objects with disrespect. This is the kind of thing that leads to the destruction of cultures, which is one of the great evils humans perpetuate on one another. ---
**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, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/773 "2011-03-27T04:07:26Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Actually, while I would prefer to avoid this thread, entirely, your observation is not correct. > > The communion wafer is clearly based on some Christian traditions regarding the association of the unleavened bread of Passover and the Last Supper, however communion wafers are not prepared or baked in exactly the same way that matzah is produced and there is a difference between the two. Matzah is very definitely “cracker like” in its thickness and brittle consistency. The wafers are generally thinner and are not nearly as brittle. I am not offended that the communion wafer is called a cracker, (_sticks and stones and yanking chains for the fun of it and all that_), but I have never encountered a communion wafer that would match my definition of a cracker. They are both baked flour and water. The ony difference is that matzo crackers are pricked to make them more cripsy. It’s true that communion wafers are usually not overly crispy (though they are supposed to at least be brittle enough to break). People can decide for themselves whether this is a meaningful difference, but supposedly, Passover Mazo is exactly what Jesus used at the last supper. ---
**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, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/774 "2011-03-27T04:24:17Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Dial it way back. > > You are out of line with the insults. > > [/Moderating] I was responding to him insulting me by specifically calling me a hypocrite. > [@](#): > > 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:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/775 "2011-03-27T11:59:17Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Cite? When a Catholic goes to communion the priest says’s “the Body of Christ”, then the person recieving it says, “amen”,meaning, “I agree”. I have heard this in many RC churches over the years when people go to recieve communion. That is why only Catholics who have made first communion should go, and are taught how to recieve it! ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/776 "2011-03-27T12:11:36Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No, the reason I mentioned it was just as a semantic correction of Ibn who said the kid “ate a eucharist.” I was not trying to argue that it had not been consecrated. It was just a semantic nitpick. To a RC the bread becomes the Eucharist when consecrated and “IS” the body of Christ, so one would not say 'A" body of Christ, they believe it is no longer bread but truly the Body of Jesus, so one wouldn’t say “a” Body of Jesus. Because neither you or I believe it is,we should not worry about what a believer thinks, just respect their right to believe! It could be just like a parent has a drawing of something the child has drawn,it may tell us something and it looks different to us,why insult the child. Or why insult someone’s beliefs, as long as they don’t harm us? ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/777 "2011-03-27T12:19:19Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > 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. > 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: I can back you up on this as well, I once worked for a Catholic priest and he said,“If I get any calls, when i am gone, tell them I will be back as soon as I can after I bring the Eucharist to an ill parishioner”. ---
**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 27, 2011, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/778 "2011-03-27T13:45:30Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > 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.” That’s been the sum total of the evidence offered by everyone in this ridiculous thread. Even **Bricker’s** legal expertise was “here’s a legal concept, therefore it applies to this situation.” Even better have been “A Facebook page fails to say…” and “There’s some guy on the web with a blog whose opinion supports my position!” ---
**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, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/779 "2011-03-27T15:00:27Z")
No, Bricker offered a specific legal concept, and the cites to explain it, and an explanation for how it could arguably apply. That doesn’t make it authoritative and conclusive, but it is certainly more substantial than an endless repetition of, “Uh uh. I’m right.” And frankly, it’s ridiculous on its face to argue that that nitwit didn’t know full well that he was taking something on false pretenses, an offering that would never have been made if he had made known he did not accept the conditions associated with the offering. Bricker’s argument seems completely consistent with the situation. But if it seems less than convincing to you, the preferred method of responding in this particular forum is to show why his logic is flawed, especially since he offered the particulars that would enable someone to make a focused response. “Nope, I’m right” doesn’t cut it. ---
**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, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/780 "2011-03-27T15:10:07Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > When a Catholic goes to communion the priest says’s “the Body of Christ”, then the person recieving it says, “amen”,meaning, “I agree”. I have heard this in many RC churches over the years when people go to recieve communion. That is why only Catholics who have made first communion should go, and are taught how to recieve it! I’m aware of the words. I was asking for a cite that thy indicate that the recipient undertstands he is necessarily expected to consume it on the spot, or that he knows he is agreeing not to carry it back to his seat before he eats it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144.md?page=38) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144.md?page=40)