"Desecration" of the Eucharist

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Malthus

No it isn’t.

Bigotry is defined as intolerance of other beliefs. Crazed anger that someone doesn’t share a religious belief is the very definition of bigotry.

Certainly. Being Canadian, I’ll cite our own Criminal Code, where “theft” is defined as follows:

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 - Wikipedia

This is a ridiculous stretch and i think you know it. There is no legal requirement to eat a communion wafer, and I guarantee you can’t cite a single case (at least not in the US) for somebody being charged with theft for walking out of church with a wafer that was given to them during communion.

“Colour of Right” has no application here since (aside from the fact that we’re talking about the US, not the UK) that phrase refers to a legal defense aginst things that are already defined as crimes. walking out with a communion wafer is not a crime, so no “colour of right” defense is required.

[Pazu]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

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.

Well, I think Myers did ask specifically for consecrated wafers, but even so, he would only have the word of whoever donated them. So unless the contributor steps forth, we have no evidence that the wafer was actually consecrated.

Of course, for the purposes of the exercise, it didn’t really matter, since everyone reacted as if it were an actual host (am I using that right? the wafer becomes the host after consecration?), and I think that was the main point.

[Shodan]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Bigotry is defined as intolerance of other beliefs.

Ergo, PZ Meyers is a bigot.

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

@Pazu

Of course, for the purposes of the exercise, it didn’t really matter, since everyone reacted as if it were an actual host (am I using that right? the wafer becomes the host after consecration?), and I think that was the main point.

Ergo, PZ Meyers is a troll.

Regards,
Shodan

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Shodan

Ergo, PZ Meyers is a bigot.

How so? Who has he threatened to kill for having a different belief than him?

[Guinastasia]

@Bryan_Ekers

Well, Catholic Lite, whatever. It’s certainly closer then 20th-century Germany.

The Orthodox Church is not simply “Catholic Lite”. Might want to do some research there.
Edited: Is Meyers that dipshit who goes to libraries and reshelves Bibles in the “Fiction” section? Or is that someone else?

[Shodan]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

How so? Who has he threatened to kill for having a different belief than him?

You have real trouble debating honestly, don’t you?

Regards,
Shodan

[TravisFromOR]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Bigotry is defined as intolerance of other beliefs. Crazed anger that someone doesn’t share a religious belief is the very definition of bigotry.

This is a ridiculous stretch and i think you know it. There is no legal requirement to eat a communion wafer, and I guarantee you can’t cite a single case (at least not in the US) for somebody being charged with theft for walking out of church with a wafer that was given to them during communion.

“Colour of Right” has no application here since (aside from the fact that we’re talking about the US, not the UK) that phrase refers to a legal defense aginst things that are already defined as crimes. walking out with a communion wafer is not a crime, so no “colour of right” defense is required.

In the US, there is something called a conditional gift. It’s when you give someone a gift if they fulfill certain obligations. When the priest gives out Holy Communion, it is on the condition that the recipient consume the host immediately. It is theft. No rational person would argue against it.l

[Malthus]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Bigotry is defined as intolerance of other beliefs. Crazed anger that someone doesn’t share a religious belief is the very definition of bigotry.

The “crazed anger” was not a result of that person’s beliefs, but of their acts - namely, descecration.

This is a ridiculous stretch and i think you know it. There is no legal requirement to eat a communion wafer, and I guarantee you can’t cite a single case (at least not in the US) for somebody being charged with theft for walking out of church with a wafer that was given to them during communion.

No, it is not. It is true and I think you know it.

The notion of “theft” is, at base, taking something from someone without lawful excuse - the lawful excuse being that a person fulfills the conditions for taking that thing imposed by the owner of it. Normally, that “excuse” is payment of an agreed sum, but not always. In the case of the mass, the wafer is given on the condition it be used in the mass. Taking it for some other use is theft.

“Colour of Right” has no application here since (aside from the fact that we’re talking about the US, not the UK) that phrase refers to a legal defense aginst things that are already defined as crimes. walking out with a communion wafer is not a crime, so no “colour of right” defense is required.

No, you have it wrong - please read the statute again. “Colour of right” is part of the definition, not a “defence against things that are already defined as crimes”.

322. (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 …

This isn’t really all that different from US state statutes. See the statute of Texas:

§ 31.03. THEFT.

(a) A person commits an offense if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property.

(b) Appropriation of property is unlawful if:

        (1) it is without the owner's effective consent;                    

        (2) the property is stolen and the actor appropriates the property knowing it was stolen by another; or

        (3) property in the custody of any law enforcement agency was explicitly represented by any law enforcement agent to the actor as being stolen and the actor appropriates the property believing it was stolen by another.

An appropriation is “unlawful” if it is without the owner’s “effective consent”. A consent obtained by deception is not “effective”. Ergo, palming a wafer is “theft”.

The statutes of New York are even more specific.

155.05 Larceny; defined.
1. A person steals property and commits larceny when, with intent to
deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or to
a third person, he wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds such property
from an owner thereof.
2. Larceny includes a wrongful taking, obtaining or withholding of
another’s property, with the intent prescribed in subdivision one of
this section, committed in any of the following ways:
(a) By conduct heretofore defined or known as common law larceny by
trespassory taking, common law larceny by trick, embezzlement, or
obtaining property by false pretenses;
…

d) By false promise.
A person obtains property by false promise when, pursuant to a scheme
to defraud, he obtains property of another by means of a representation,
express or implied, that he or a third person will in the future engage
in particular conduct, and when he does not intend to engage in such
conduct or, as the case may be, does not believe that the third person
intends to engage in such conduct.

http://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2006/penal/pen0155.05_155.05.html

In this case, the “false promise” is that he intends to use “engage in particular conduct” - i.e, use the property as intended, in the mass.

Satisfied?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@TravisFromOR

In the US, there is something called a conditional gift. It’s when you give someone a gift if they fulfill certain obligations. When the priest gives out Holy Communion, it is on the condition that the recipient consume the host immediately. It is theft. No rational person would argue against it.

There is no such legal condition.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

The only serious hate or discrimination that Catholics have ever gotten is from other Christians and even they have never enslaved Catholics, imposed Jim Crow laws on them, lynched them or otherwise persecuted them the way black Americans have been historically persecuted or subjected to violence by hate groups like the Klan.

That statement makes utterly no sense based on your previous posts.

There are huge numbers of Christians in the Islamic world who faced massive amounts of discrimination and persecution prior to the 20th Century and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and in many cases had were treated as badly as blacks were under Jim Crow and in the case of the Armenians were subjected to far more violence than and persecution than American blacks ever faced.

For that matter, to this day, Christians throughout the Middle East face massive amounts of discrimination both in Muslim countries as well as the Middle East’s lone Jewish country.

Now your above statement only makes sense if you were A)ignorant about the treatment of Christians in the Ottoman Empire, the Armenian Holocaust, the treatment of Christians in present day Israel, Iran, and the Arab nations of the Middle East or B)when you use the word “Catholic” you simply mean Roman Catholics, because virtually none of the Christians in the Middle East are Roman Catholics, though many are Eastern Rite Catholics(such as the Chaldeans and the Maronites) and I suppose if one wants to be pedantic one could claim members of Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Coptic church are Catholics as well.

Of course, if when you refer to “Catholic” you mean simply Roman Catholics, then the previous page of posts where you harped on and on about how the Serbs are Catholics wasn’t a genuine expression of your views, but merely an instance of you trying to deliberately insult others.

So, were you A)ignorant of the Armenian Holocaust, the treatment of Christians by Israel, the Ottoman Empire, etc. or B) do you not consider the Serbs to be Catholics?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Malthus

The “crazed anger” was not a result of that person’s beliefs, but of their acts - namely, descecration.

No, it is not. It is true and I think you know it.

The notion of “theft” is, at base, taking something from someone without lawful excuse - the lawful excuse being that a person fulfills the conditions for taking that thing imposed by the owner of it. Normally, that “excuse” is payment of an agreed sum, but not always. In the case of the mass, the wafer is given on the condition it be used in the mass. Taking it for some other use is theft.

No, you have it wrong - please read the statute again. “Colour of right” is part of the definition, not a “defence against things that are already defined as crimes”.

This isn’t really all that different from US state statutes. See the statute of Texas:

An appropriation is “unlawful” if it is without the owner’s “effective consent”. A consent obtained by deception is not “effective”. Ergo, palming a wafer is “theft”.

The statutes of New York are even more specific.

Larceny; Defined. :: Larceny :: Penal :: 2006 New York Code :: New York Code :: U.S. Codes and Statutes :: U.S. Law :: Justia

In this case, the “false promise” is that he intends to use “engage in particular conduct” - i.e, use the property as intended, in the mass.

Satisfied?

No. None of this is applicable to receiving a communion wafer. There is no legal contract or agreement binding anyone who receives one. It isn’t a crime. Sorry.

[Malthus]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

No. None of this is applicable to receiving a communion wafer. There is no legal contract or agreement binding anyone who receives one. It isn’t a crime. Sorry.

None of the statues quoted require a “legal contract or agreement binding anyone”. They do not work that way. Sorry, you cannot ignorantly hand-wave away the cites you have solicited. Deal.

To repeat, Texas:

§ 31.03. THEFT.

(a) A person commits an offense if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property.

(b) Appropriation of property is unlawful if:

(1) it is without the owner’s effective consent;

“Effective consent” is everywhere defined as consent with knowledge (deliberate deception doesn’t qualify)

New York:

A person obtains property by false promise when, pursuant to a scheme
to defraud, he obtains property of another by means of a representation,
express or implied, that he or a third person will in the future engage
in particular conduct, and when he does not intend to engage in such
conduct or, as the case may be, does not believe that the third person
intends to engage in such conduct.

Note “… a representation, express or implied, that he or a third person will in the future engage in particular conduct …”. Attending mass is quite clearly an “implied representation” that the person so attending intends to participate in the ceremony.

[Czarcasm]

Has anyone ever been charged, and convicted, of stealing a communion wafer?

[Skammer]

@Czarcasm

Has anyone ever been charged, and convicted, of stealing a communion wafer?

Who would press charges? I can’t imagine a church doing so.

[Czarcasm]

@Skammer

Who would press charges? I can’t imagine a church doing so.

I can. I can’t seem to find out how the case was resolved, however.

[Malthus]

@Czarcasm

Has anyone ever been charged, and convicted, of stealing a communion wafer?

There has only been a single case easily findable of a person being charged with stealing communion wafers - the 'net is silent as to whether he was convicted or acquitted.

404 Not Found | wtsp.com

Edit: ya beat me - but I posted it upthread, so I beat you!

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

That is not an applicable case. That person was not arrested or charged for walking out with a wafer given to him during communion, but for trying to grab a handful away from a priest. You won’t he able cite a case of anyone charged with a crime for walking out with a wafer they received during communion because that’s flat out not illegal.

[CurtC]

@Malthus

However, that being noted - I’d no more desecrate a New Guinean ancestor-worshipping ceremony than I would a mass; both would be intolerably rude and disrespectful acts.

If a New Guinean invited me to partake in a ritual or ceremony of theirs, I’d do so on their terms - respectfully. To mock them later, or to steal some part of their sacred regalia to mock and desecrate, is simply unacceptable behaviour.

Back to the story of Webster Cook, he’s been painted as someone who was looking to cause offense, but I just don’t think that’s true. From my reading of the incident, he was simply naive - he heard about this Catholic wafer thing, and thought he’d like to see one for himself. So he attended a service, not in a church, but one that was held at his university in a public place, and palmed the wafer. He was shocked when everyone got upset about it.

@Calculon

Firstly, to simply say “there is no evidence” is clearly absurd. Every religion has different reasons for why their religion is true. Some are better than others obviously, and not all are convinving. So for instance in the Christian sphere we could talk about the historical reality of the resurrection of Jesus as evidence for the Christian belief.

The claim of the resurrection of Jesus isn’t itself evidence - it’s the claim. Claims need evidence to support them, and there seems to be none to support the resurrection claim. At least not any that I’ve ever seen, and I have looked.

[Czarcasm]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

That is not an applicable case. That person was not arrested or charged for walking out with a wafer given to him during communion, but for trying to grab a handful away from a priest. You won’t he able cite a case of anyone charged with a crime for walking out with a wafer they received during communion because that’s flat out not illegal.

i agree with you, but that was the closest I could find. If someone can find a prosecutor that would admit that she/he would be willing to try a case of this sort, where the accused took the wafer but left the church without eating it, we could settle this.
Any takers? Any lawyers on this message board willing to take a case like this?