I recently wrote about Webster Cook, the college student who walked out of a Roman Catholic service with the eucharistic wafer in hand. A newer devlopment is the blog post by P. Z. Myers who asked readers to send him a consecrated host so that he could commit sacrilege against it.
I’ve read quite a few opinions on the affair, and many of them are just plain rude. I’m not a Roman Catholic, and I don’t believe that the consecrated Host becomes the body of Christ. However, my mother taught me to show courtesty to those whose beliefs are different from my own, and I strive to do just that. Apparently Myers wasn’t taught that.
I respect Myers’s right to write what he did. But I strongly question his character for stooping so low.
We all should be able to understand how deeply offended–even horrified–Roman Catholics were that Cook took a communion wafer with him and “held it hostage.” Based on their beliefs it is a very serious sin, and we should respect their right to be outraged. What Cook did was not an example of free speech but an example of religiously criminal behavior. Taken in light of Catholic doctrine, the woman who “assaulted” him had every right, even a duty, to do so. Cook should have complied with her request that he either consume the wafer or return it.
Some people have said that the consecrated wafer is “just a cracker.” If somebody stole the Declaration of Independence, would people say that it is “just a piece of paper”? If somebody stole Michelangelo’s David, would people say that it is “just a hunk of rock”? No. That piece of paper and that hunk of rock are priceless. Their value comes from what they represent–not from the material they are made of.
To Roman Catholics the Eucharistic bread is much more important than the Declaration of Independence or the staute of David. It is the body of Christ. And people should have the simple decency not to make jokes about it or to dismiss it as inconsequential. Didn’t their mothers teach them anything?
13 responses so far ↓
scaryreasoner // July 13, 2008 at 12:47 am |
The people who think that the communion wafer is worthy of protection are _insane_.
It is the duty of every rational human being to stamp out irrationality.
RG: You are entitled to try to persuade people to give up whatever insanity and irrationality you think they possess. However, courtesy is still a pretty good thing. Don’t forget that one person’s insanity is another person’s truth.
“stealing” a cracker which is given to you — stealing meaning only”not swallowing”, is not stealing at all.
RG: Agreed. I don’t think that anyone should have called what Cook did “stealing.” In one sense, it was, because it is not supposed to be taken out of the church by lay people. It is supposed to be consumed during the Mass.
These people are insane. Their beliefs do not deserve any respect whatsoever. Of course they have the right to believe whatever it is they’re going to believe anyway, but they do not have the right to expect that their beliefs themselves should be respected. They most certainly do not have the right to make death threats against those who trespass against those (obviously idiotic) beliefs.
RG: I agree that respect should be earned, and if you do not think that Catholic people have earned your respect, that’s fine. Before making a final decision on that, you might look into some of the terrific charitable work that Roman Catholic people have done throughout the centuries. Don’t those things deserve some respect?
And even though you don’t think that Roman Catholic people deserve respect, do you think that you should show tolerance and courtesy toward them as fellow human beings? If not, then how do you expect anyone to extend those things to you?
About the death threats. I hope that the people who made them will be dealt with. Nobody in any official capacity has made any, that I know of. Just because some kooks make death threats, it doesn’t mean that Cook or Myers were right in what they did. Almost anyone who says or does something controversial receives death threats.
There comes a time when the retarded idiotic beliefs must loudly and publicly be prounounced as retarded and idiotic. The time when death threats are made in those retarded and idiotic beliefs defense are made is well past the time when those beliefs deserve ridicule.
RG: Yes, because people will really be persuaded by somebody who calls ideas he disagrees with “retarded” and “idiotic.” You keep writing that way, and I am sure that you will win over lots of people.
No, the death threats are crimes and should be dealt with as such. That doesn’t mean that Catholic doctrine is wrong, or that the people who peacefully disapprove of Cooks actions are wrong. Those are completely separate issues. You can receive death threats and be right, or you can receive death threats and be wrong. The threats prove nothing about the underlying issues.
The price of ridiculousness is ridicule. They’ve got what’s coming and more.
RG: Fine. That’s the way you see it. So you apparently disagree with me that people should be courteous, just like mom said.
scaryreasoner // July 13, 2008 at 12:51 am |
“Some people have said that the consecrated wafer is “just a cracker.” If somebody stole the Declaration of Independence, would people say that it is “just a piece of paper”? If somebody stole Michelangelo’s David, would people say that it is “just a hunk of rock”? ”
This is an incredibly, retardedly inept analogy.
There is only one David, there is only one Declaration of Independence.
If there were only one holy communion wafer, you might have a point. But there are millions. One per person, per Sunday, essentially.
To equate the communion wafer, which is a [expletive deleted] cracker, one per person per Sunday, with a unique, singular item, such as the Declaration of Independence, or Michaelangelo’s statue of David indicates to me that you are either stupid, dishonest, or both.
My guess is both.
RG: Good point. Things that are unique have greater value than things that are plentiful.
But you didn’t read carefully. Beyond their uniqueness, the items I mentioned have great meaning to people. Somebody’s grocery list is probably unique, but it would not be an outrage to steal it. A paving stone in a garden might be unique, but it’s not worth as much as the David.
When something has meaning and deep importance to a person, it becomes important. That’s why even a cheap rhinestone broach can be more important to somebody than the rarest diamond.
Oh, and I would never go to somebody else’s blog and call them names or use vulgar language. Your argument would be more worth listening to without those things tacked on.
helenl // July 13, 2008 at 12:03 pm |
I am not Catholic, but I am of the same opinion as you. We have freedom of speech to say what we will, but we do not have the right to go into a church (or other religious setting) and violate the beliefs of the people therein, whether we agree with them or not. The only rights we have in someone else’s church are the rights to refrain from participation and the right to leave.
RG: Exactly. Strangely enough Webster Cook is Catholic. He should have known better.
Matteo // July 13, 2008 at 1:43 pm |
Great post and great rejoinders in the comments. Regarding the argument that “how can it be stealing if the priest gave it to him?”: I have encountered somewhere the following analogy. If someone goes into a restaurant, orders food, eats, then leaves without paying, how would we regard the argument “How can it be stealing if the waiter gave it to me?” It is stealing because the waiter gave the food on the unstated agreement that the patron would pay. It is the same with the Mass. The Host is given with the unstated agreement that the communicant will consume it there. To do otherwise is a transgression against the rules, on a par with stealing (far worse, if Catholic doctrine is true).
You made a very good point when you said “And even though you don’t think that Roman Catholic people deserve respect, do you think that you should show tolerance and courtesy toward them as fellow human beings? If not, then how do you expect anyone to extend those things to you?” Indeed. What does the tiny, intolerant atheist minority hope to reap by any of this?
Incitement to disrupt religious services and publicly desecrate religious symbols or sacraments is a clear first amendment violation, and is a form of harassment. There is a huge difference between “speaking against” and “f*****g with”. I’m surprised that the tiny, intolerant atheist minority isn’t more prudent about avoiding finding this out the hard way. A war of words is one thing. Incitement to desecrate and the carrying out of such acts is quite another. I have no idea how all this might play out, but I am in amazement that these guys want to cross that Rubicon.
The prestige of science has far, far more to lose in all of this than it has to gain. More and more people are concluding that a good deal of what counts as “science” is mere flimsily-supported hogwash and is based on not much more than applied atheism. And these clowns want to go out of their way to further that impression. Well, good luck with that!
RG: I have wondered why Myers and others want to pursue this course as well. It won’t endear anyone to their cause. To me it shows what many believers have posited, which is that atheists aren’t so much rational disbelievers as they are people who have a beef with God. Their anger toward God comes out in attacks on religious people.
Chas // July 13, 2008 at 5:03 pm |
RG, I disagree with you that ScaryReasoner has a good point. Scary reasoner is devoid of any reason whatsoever, as much as I can understand his argument. I do not believe that the consecrated wafer is the body of Christ, nor that it has spiritual significance at all.
But they do.
It is not a matter of reason, but a matter of faith to multiple millions of people. When we get into a culture where “Piss Christ” and “The Last Temptation …” are celebrated, we degrade the culture where nothing is sacred.
A person may have freedom of speech to desecrate something that is sacred, but I condone the offended person’s freedom of speech to bash that person’t face.
I completely agree with helenl, BTW.
RG: Chas, I was only saying that ScaryREasoner had a good point in saying that some things have great value because they are one-of-a-kind. He’s right about that. I don’t think it applies to this case, as I told him, but it is a valid point. I always try to show people where I agree with them in addition to where I disagree.
Chas // July 13, 2008 at 5:38 pm |
I believe that Islam is an evil religion. But I would never take a pig into a mosque. It would serve no purpose at all, except to enrage the adherants.
The town clerk in Ephesus said of Paul. “He has not robbed your temples nor blasphemed your goddess.” Acts 19:37.
Myers evidently has an agenda, the sole purpose of which is to offend someone.
RG: I can’t figure out Myers’s agenda. Could it be simply that he wants some publicity?
Mike Lovell // July 14, 2008 at 9:05 am |
“To me it shows what many believers have posited, which is that atheists aren’t so much rational disbelievers as they are people who have a beef with God. Their anger toward God comes out in attacks on religious people.”
And this thought process would almost disprove their own beliefs. For actively engaging, violently or otherwise, God, they admit to His existence, and therefore nullify their thoughts of “rationality.”
Eve // July 14, 2008 at 11:20 am |
RG, your posts and the ignorant comments of some of your commentators gave me pause this morning. I know you are away, so you’ll find this when you return.
I wrote earlier on this issue without knowing that the young man who took the host was attacked. I think violence over something like this is wrong; his behavior and his attacker’s behavior were both based on ignorance. Love arises from knowledge of the truth, and I see no love in this.
I did check on the Canon law regarding the sacraments. It can be found here:
http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/canon/c0840-1165.htm#par1937
Jesus Christ broke the bread and said, “take this, and eat, all of you, this is my body.” He did not say this is a symbol of my body; he said “this is my body.” Scholars have debated this forever, just as they debate “this is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased,” and “ye must be born again.”
I am a Eucharistic Minister in our local parish, and as I purified the vessels used during communion after mass Saturday, I considered just how carefully we treat the vessels. Many people don’t know that, in the area used for cleaning the cups and the dishes that hold the sacramental wine and bread, there is a special sink that drains directly into the earth. We wash everything carefully so that every bit of the sacraments go down into the earth. Earth, from whence we came (as they say).
The ancient Christian church was Jewish. They carried Jewish traditions of lawful handling of sacred objects into Christianity; if we will all think for a moment about the fact that all of the church fathers we so respect, and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ were all Jews who did a new faith in an old way, we would probably have more respect.
I’m not a cradle Catholic, so I don’t share the cradle Catholic perceptions; instead, I am more of a spiritual orphan, or the spiritual runaway that the protestants were. Regardless of what we all think, there is a church Universal and we are it. We will not be degrading others or their beliefs or any objects we may have in heaven. I read in Revelation that the saints cast their crowns at the feet of Christ; I read that there is an altar in a sanctuary in a holy place in heaven. There is a throne; Christ has a mitre; He has a crown; he rides a horse.
Do we really believe that these symbols that communicate glory, the eternal power and loveliness of God, are meaningless? I am grieved to the bone that so many people called by Christ’s name spend so little time reading, understanding symbols, understanding the great, deep, ancient tradition from which they come. Do you not read Martin Luther, your father? He believed with his whole heart that Christ was present in the sacraments, because Christ himself said he was.
I won’t say what I believe, and I won’t tell another person what to believe; but I would plead for more love, more kindness, and more of the idea that you may be possibly mistaken about your beliefs.
Eve // July 14, 2008 at 3:46 pm |
I also want to comment that a church member grabbed Webster Cook, the young man who took the host, by the hand in which he’d hidden the host. He was asked to give it back several times and refused. He was not “attacked.” He was not injured in any way; nobody struck him. The story is here:
http://www.wftv.com/news/16798008/detail.html
Supposing someone takes something from your home or your place of business, and you see them do it, and the item is in their hand. They make as though to leave; do you have the right to try to get the item back?
This is the stuff that the law determines; but when a non-Muslim desecrated a mosque a year ago by rolling a frozen pig’s head into the front door, he was arrested; when two women disrupted a worship service at a Jewish synagogue simply by talking loudly and refusing to be quiet after being warned, they were arrested. Why is it that the Catholic woman in this situation, who took a vow and was appointed by the Bishop to serve communion, isn’t supported? Why is the Catholic church defamed? Is it because Catholics are Christians? Because it’s a hate crime, not to mention as serious as a felony, in other settings. Interesting that in this situation, the church is the one being blamed, not the individual taking a sacramental item by force.
Murder of Ravens // July 19, 2008 at 9:41 am |
Ahh, the joys of New Atheist reasoning. According to the recent Pew study, atheists make up 1.6% of the U. S. population. People like PZ Myers and “Scaryreasoner” aren’t doing anything to change that. All they’re doing is perpetuating the stereotype of the atheist as arrogant jerk. The mantra seems to be, “It’s okay for ME to be rude and disrespectful, because I know I’m right.”
That sounds strangely familiar. Where have I heard it before? Oh, yes, from the very same religious fundamentalists people like Myers and “scary” claim to abhor.
-smith
RG: Yes, it’s a form of religious fundamentalism no different from any other, I think.
Murder of Ravens // July 20, 2008 at 7:22 am |
I had a comment up here but it appears to have been deleted. Have I somehow given offense?
RG: No. I was away. I insist on approving all comments of first-timers. Sorry I couldn’t get to your comment right away.
Eve // July 24, 2008 at 9:00 pm |
This was a good topic of conversation and seemed to fizzle out. I spent about a week on this one issue over at my blog, so would like to read any final thoughts you have on this. And also anything Murder of Ravens said. Unless it was dumb. ;o) Haha, just kidding, just kidding.
I’ve just become deletable, making that dumb joke!
RG: Do you want me to delete it? I’ll post some final thoughts in a day or two. I did follow your posts on the subject. Thanks for the request.
Concluding Thoughts on the Webster Cook Affair « Significant Pursuit by Renaissance Guy // July 25, 2008 at 4:18 am |
[...] 25, 2008 · No Comments In my post on Simple Courtesy I wrote my thoughts on the Webster Cook Affair and my thoughts on P. Z. Myers’s initial [...]