Why? Because there is a very good chance that their priorities are such that telling me, or anyone else, the truth on a day to day basis is just not as important as certain other things. Like like this ...
PZ has this covered, but I just had to chime in and put this up front. It is both hysterically funny and deeply disturbing.
The headline:
'Body Of Christ' Snatched From Church, Held Hostage By UCF Student
Huh?
A University of Central Florida student, upset religious groups hold church services on public campuses, is holding hostage the Eucharist, an object so sacred to Catholics they call it the Body of Christ.
On his blog, at this point, PZ intones "It's a cracker!" But you know, it's not a cracker. It's a flat dried up piece of bready stuff. Crackers are round and brown and have a little salt. This thing is not a cracker. Too chewy.
Church officials say UCF Student Senator Webster Cook was disruptive and disrespectful when he attended Mass held on campus Sunday June 29. It was during that Mass where Cook admits he obtained the Eucharist.
Well, the early Christians were disruptive too, if we believe their stories...
...According to Catholics, the wafer becomes the Body of Christ once blessed and is to be consumed immediately after a minister passes it out to churchgoers.
This is not strictly true. The transmogrification does happen during the ceremony and normally the cannibalizing of the Son of God happens then and there, but there are special circumstances where certain individuals (men, not women) can carry the holy Eucharistic being to deliver it, say, behind enemy lines or into Muslim areas.
I know this because as an Altar Boy I was trained in this area.
In addition, it often happens that the entire mass of little Christ Bodies is not consumed by the congregation. In many cases, the priest scarfs them down at the end of the communion phase of the ceremony (washing them down with a slug of sacred grape juice). Seriously, I'm not making this up. But other times, the hosts (as they are called) are put in a special container called the Tabernacle. They may remain in the Tabernacle indefinitely, but if the Tabernacle is opened up by the wrong person, death rays come out of it and skeletonize anyone watching. Unless the person watching is not Baptized, then, they are turned into a pillar of salt.
You probably think I'm making this up, but I swear to you, I am not. This is what I learned during my training as an altar boy.
There is another circumstance in which the host is not consumed after consecration. This is during certain periods of time, like Lent, when a little Body of Christ fragment is placed in a special device called the Monstrance. The Monstrance is a big flashy thing with a round bit in the middle and rays of gold plated spines coming out a all angled to make it look like a sunburst. It holds the consecrated Eucharistic Body. (There is a picture of one at the top of this post. I hope you didn't look at it if you are not baptized.)
Cook claims he planned to consume it, but first wanted to show it to a fellow student senator he brought to Mass who was curious about the Catholic faith.
Funny. Those Catholics always freak out about youthful curiosity, of all sorts.
"When I received the Eucharist, my intention was to bring it back to my seat to show him," Cook said. "I took about three steps from the woman distributing the Eucharist and someone grabbed the inside of my elbow and blocked the path in front of me. At that point I put it in my mouth so they'd leave me alone and I went back to my seat and I removed it from my mouth."A church leader was watching, confronted Cook and tried to recover the sacred bread. Cook said she crossed the line and that's why he brought it home with him.
"She came up behind me, grabbed my wrist with her right hand, with her left hand grabbed my fingers and was trying to pry them open to get the Eucharist out of my hand," Cook said, adding she wouldn't immediately take her hands off him despite several requests.
That makes me laugh.
Diocese of Orlando spokeswoman Carol Brinati said she was not aware of anyone touching Cook. She released a statement Thursday: "... a Catholic Campus Ministry student representative filed a complaint with the Student Union regarding the behavior of the two young men. A Student Government Representative called Catholic Campus Ministry to apologize for this disruption."
Probably lying. This is what we expect.
Cook filed an official abuse complaint with UCF's student conduct court regarding the alleged physical force. Following that complaint, Brinati said church members filed their own official complaints of disruptive conduct. Punishment for either offense could result in suspension or expulsion."The church feels that I'm the problem here," Cook said. "The problem is actually that this is a publicly-funded religious institution. Through student government here, we fund them through an activity and service, so they're receiving student money."
Cook is upset more than $40,000 in student fees have been allocated to support religious organizations on campus for the 2008-2009 school year, according to student government records. He denied he is holding the Eucharist hostage to protest that support.
Everybody's got an agenda...
Regardless of the reason, the Diocese says its main concern is to get the Eucharist back so it can be taken care of properly and with respect. Cook has been keeping the Eucharist stored in a plastic bag since last Sunday."It is hurtful," said Father Migeul Gonzalez with the Diocese. "Imagine if they kidnapped somebody and you make a plea for that individual to please return that loved one to the family."
Gonzalez said the Diocese is willing to meet with Cook and help him understand the importance of the Eucharist in hopes of him returning it. The Diocese is dispatching a nun to UCF's campus to oversee the next mass, protect the Eucharist and in hopes Cook will return it.
Yea, I think I know that chick. Sister Maria Gonzo Godzilla.
Cook said he'd consider returning the Eucharist if he gets an apology and a meeting with the Bishop's office to discuss the Diocese's policy on physical force.Gonzalez said intentionally abusing the Eucharist is classified as a mortal sin in the Catholic church, the most severe possible. If it's not returned, the community of faith will have to ask for forgiveness.
You see, this is my point. The point I started out with. If kidnapping a piece of bread is a mortal sin ... the wost thing you can do, including killing a person ... then what will the average Catholic do to protect the Eucharist? Commit a venial sin? In other words, tell a "white lie?" Of course!
"We have to make acts of reparation," Gonzalez said. "The whole community is going to turn to prayer. We'll ask the Lord for pardon, forgiveness, peace, not only for the whole community affected by it, but also for [Cook], we offer prayers for him as well."
Too late, padre. You dropped your guard, your' going to hell in a handbasket.
Comments
They let women be eucharistic ministers now (lectors too!). Scandalous, I know.
I have to say: of all Catholic beliefs, the ones concerning the Eucharist are probably the least harmful to the world at large, if for no other reason than that no one else can quite grok exactly what Catholics believe about it.
Posted by: Em | July 8, 2008 11:04 PM
If one counted how many times I held the damned thing in my mouth only to spit it out in the pew I'm damned to the worst level of hell.
And as far as the whole transubstantiation thing, what utter bullshit. It's bread, always will be bread and saying a hocus pocus over it doesn't do jack shit to it.
Posted by: Tony P | July 8, 2008 11:36 PM
Posted by: llewelly | July 8, 2008 11:39 PM
Oh, I can feel the panic and horror of the Catholics as they face the agony of this situation. It is real, it is palpable.
When I was an altar boy, I was helping to clean the Chorch one day and found a host stuck to one of the missals. I took it straight to the priest and he nearly fainted at the idea that someone was abusing our Lord. He flushed it in Holy Water in the baptismal font. He didn't know if it had been consecrated, so he couldn't put it in the tabernacle. He couldn't discard it, because it really might have been Jesus. I wish it had been Jesus... I had so many questions to ask it...
I think it's silly, but have mixed feelings on his actions. I am all about pointing out how silly the transsubstantiation is, but it is almost a vandalism for Cook to have taken the thing. Like painting a swastika on a synagogue, for the disregard of someone else's symbols. It''s hard for me to laugh at this one.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | July 8, 2008 11:43 PM
Man this one had me laughing out loud. Even when I was catholic I didn't believe this shit. Maybe Australian Catholics are a bit more skeptical? Stupid enough to believe in the crap and stupid enough to fall for a publicity stunt that only makes the church look more asinine.
Kudos to Cook - maybe he should have wiped it up his arse crack. Then they would have really had something to complain about.
Posted by: Sean the Blogonaut | July 9, 2008 12:03 AM
Former alter boy here to testify, those wafers taste the same before or after consecration. I liked them, although God'S Blood tasted like acetone.
But I don't see anything here to laugh about. The church people physically attacked this guy for not behaving in church (a la catholic school). When he filed a complaint, instead of denying their guilt the church filed a counter claim against his "behavior(i'd love to see the wording), then they ignored the attackee and apologized to the attackers(sound familiar?)
Worse, the University totally took the church's side, finally posted armed guards--not to protect people from getting roughed up again, but to protect "the body of Christ". WTF?
This could be connected to the University subsidizing the attackers to the tune of 40 grand, d'ya think?
Posted by: watercat | July 9, 2008 1:58 AM
Damn cannibalistic church devoured cultures for centuries; It's no wonder that they have such convoluted belief structure. The Catholic church is the most corrupt governing body ever to exist. Granted, they don't govern much anymore.
Posted by: GORGO | July 9, 2008 3:43 AM
Another recovering cathoholic here. What can I say, everything's already been said. Just one thing. Greg, I've enjoyed previous posts of yours, but please tell me it was a mistake, and you're not of those people who write "definately"!
added: who me?
Posted by: andyo | July 9, 2008 3:48 AM
Hardly. Painting a swastika on a synagogue is a direct reference to fairly recent mass murder on an unimaginable scale, and is therefore a threat of violence against real, live people. Stealing a consecrated host is much closer to pointing and laughing than it is to threats of murder.
And if people don't want other people to point and laugh, then perhaps they shouldn't make such a public show of being laughable.
Posted by: Dunc | July 9, 2008 5:44 AM
I just read PZ Myers article Greg linked to and stumbled over his final paragraph:
"So, what to do. I have an idea. Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? [...] I won't be tempted to hold it hostage [...], but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web."
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/its_a_goddamned_cracker.php
Seriously - as strange as the overreaction of the Catholic community to the "stolen cracker issue" may seem to any Non-Catholic - this is the wrong way of dealing with it. Imagine if anyone would annouce that he would flush a Koran down the toilet and post the pictures on ScienceBlogs. This would surely not be welcomed by most ScienceBloggers and their readers. So why is it, that the idea of desecrating something that is sacred to most Catholics, is not equally revolting but draws laughter instead? I am not a Catholic myself, but I do not enjoy seeing their symbols of faith desecrated for entertainment...
Posted by: Christian | July 9, 2008 8:02 AM
Christian, I don't think the point is entertainment. I think the point is to provide some perspective. When you throw everything you have at a kid who walked out without swallowing, what do you have left for the person who deliberately sets out to commit blasphemy?
Not that there aren't people who would be entertained.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | July 9, 2008 8:24 AM
Christian, this is an American thing. Here is where German and American culture differ in some very important ways. In Germany (and I think France) at various time post WW 2 it was illegal or difficult to purchase toys that looked like guns for kids. Nazi symbolism is outlawed in Germany and France. This all makes sense.
In the US, the way our constitution is written, freedom of expression (from a liberal or moderate or even libertarian perspective) is allowed no matter what. We liberal defend the right of the Klu Klux Klan to march in front of City Hall displaying swastikas, as long as they have a permit.
There was a parallel case a while ago where a school boy (high school) ripped apart a bible at school to express his opinion about religion. At first he was expelled or suspended or whatever, but very quickly the emotional reaction was overruled by lawyers pointing out that this was his first amendment right.
Posted by: Greg Laden | July 9, 2008 8:41 AM
@StephanieZ: And since the Muslim community reacted so negatively to the relatively tame Danish cartoons, would it also be considered "providing perspective" if PZ would throw some extra blod pressure raising blasphemy in their face?
I think not. So why is it ok to desecrate Catholic symbols of faith? Is this the right way to "provide perspective"? I always thought that perspective is best provided to intelligent debate and not through provocation.
Again, the reaction of the Catholic community to this "incident" is way to serious. But is this really the right answer or is it just provocation based on "because I can"?
Posted by: Christian | July 9, 2008 8:43 AM
Dunc wrote: "Stealing a consecrated host is much closer to pointing and laughing than it is to threats of murder."
But he didn't even steal it; he was given it by the magician (or what-ever they are called). As far as I know, he didn't sign any contract to eat the damned thing.
Posted by: MH | July 9, 2008 8:55 AM
Well, PZ clearly thinks so. If you're going to use the "why don't you ever pick on Islam?" gambit, you might want to check that your target hasn't frequently and publicly done exactly that.
Posted by: Dunc | July 9, 2008 9:03 AM
Beautiful story - I hope it has a happy ending.
I recommend nailing that sucker to a wooden cross - That's what they think happened with the body of christ, right?
(Sending back little bits in a box - priceless!)
Posted by: J-Dog | July 9, 2008 9:06 AM
The point of desecrating the host isn't to make people angry -- it's to demystify and desanctify nonsense. It's how we wake people up -- by showing that their beliefs are powerless.
I've already got a bunch of offers to mail me kidnapped communion wafers, so look for something in the next two weeks. As for the false argument that I am not critical of Muslims…I'm planning to have a day of sacrilege, in which I'll also piss off Mohammed.
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 9, 2008 9:41 AM
If the Catholics had just tutted under their breath and carried on then this really would not be a story. It became a story when the Catholic hierarchy had a collective seizure and started to compare it to kidnapping. Quite frankly the comments made by Gonzalez indicate he has mental healh problems. Rather than having people apologise to him they should be doing all they can to ensure he gets evaluated by an appropriate mental health proffesional.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 9, 2008 9:53 AM
Indeed. I'm perfectly happy to admit that Cook may have been rude, but when you start equating rudeness with kidnapping or hate crimes involving either credible threats of physical violence or actual physical violence, you've lost the plot.
Posted by: Dunc | July 9, 2008 10:14 AM
It doesn't turn into flesh. There are Catholics with ciliac (sp) a disease that makes eating wheat if not fatal a major health event. They can't eat the host. The Catholic church refuses to allow them to use a host made of rice flour for example.(the magitians don't have the proper mumbo jumb to turn that into flesh)
Posted by: Jim | July 9, 2008 10:51 AM
I think grade school religion classes that discussed the transmogrification of wine in to Christ's blood was one of the early ideas that led me to atheism. In my grade school mind I had to ask: if this stuff is now blood, why can't they use it for blood transfusions? Seemed like a perfect solution to blood shortages to me. Alas, I never asked that question because I had gotten such dirty looks from the nuns when I asked when the book of Genesis was going to be updated to match the reality that they taught us in science class.
Oh, and if the church is sending a nun to guard the place so the incident doesn't happen again, Webster Cook had better watch out. There are some really mean nuns out there who are fully capable of kicking some heathen ass.
Posted by: Salad Is Slaughter | July 9, 2008 11:43 AM
Wait, I have to go back to the beginning. If you swallow or don't swallow, you're still taking it out of the building. So basically, not swallowing is a mortal sin?
Posted by: Mister Almost | July 9, 2008 12:48 PM
When I have leftover baked goods, I put them in a special container called the Tupperwarenacle.
However, for something moist like banana bread, I'll wrap it in a flashy Monstrous Piece of Aluminum Foil.
But then, I'm an utter heathen.
Posted by: Barn Owl | July 9, 2008 1:02 PM
The Christian Dictionary:
Taking a cracker out of a church instead of eating it and crapping it out later... = hate crime/kidnapping/mortal sin/and it really pisses off the omniponent creator of the universe to no end
Burning someone alive for blasphemy... = justice
Posted by: LakeGeorgeMan | July 9, 2008 2:56 PM
That's no joke. People on a strict gluten-free diet have nearly died before anyone realized that the person went to Mass every day, and even that miniscule amount of gluten was completely tearing up their intestines.
Celiac is a truly nasty condition, and even many doctors don't realize that it can strike at any age. A friend of mine in her late 50s found out the hard way when she suddenly stopped being able to absorb any nutrients from her food. She lost about 50 lbs. and developed severe osteoporosis before they figured out what the problem was.
Posted by: themadlolscientist | July 9, 2008 3:32 PM
Mr. Laden,
I beg to offer some exceptions, the most prominent being that you cannot overtly threaten another person or "entity" (church, corporation, government, etc.). You can be as obnoxious as you want (within the boundaries of slander and libel laws) but you can't threaten anyone, like these Cath-tards are doing.
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | July 9, 2008 3:47 PM
If it happens in a church, apparently you can physically assault someone-to obtain what they have in their possession, as here, or,
as a recent court case decided, to hold them down and perform unwanted exorcisms on them while they struggle to get free. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080628/ap_on_re_us/exorcism_lawsuit
Posted by: watercat | July 9, 2008 5:11 PM
Greg- if you were raised a Catholic, you should know that not all mortal sins are considered equal by the Church. Breaking one of the 10 Commandments ("Thou shalt not murder") is worse than not properly consuming the Host. The former would require a heck of a lot bigger penance than the latter in order for someone to be considered forgiven.
And you should also remember that lying is also a mortal sin since it's breaking the 8th Commandment (according to the Catholic numbering).
Anyone can look at the monstrance, BTW. In fact, attendance at Eucharistic Adoration is highly encouraged for catechumens who are preparing to be initiated into the Church (regardless of whether or not they were baptized into another Christian denomination).
If Mr. Cook had disrupted the worship services at a synagogue, mosque, Hindu or Buddhist temple, etc. and desecrated an object considered sacred by one of those faiths I seriously doubt you and your commentators would feel entitled to mock the situation in highly offensive languge. But anti-Catholicism is one of the few remaining acceptable prejudices in the modern U.S. :-(
Posted by: Crimson Wife | July 9, 2008 6:54 PM
Crimson Wife, if anyone in those other faiths decided they needed to wrestle with Mr. Cook to keep him from leaving with something they'd just given him, particularly a bread puck, they'd be just as roundly mocked. And really, do you want to stand among atheists to try to claim the mantle of persecuted religious minority?
Posted by: Stephanie Z | July 9, 2008 7:18 PM
How do we know what the actual physical contact was between Mr. Cook and the Eucharistic Minister? Does he have any corroborating witnesses to back up his allegations? Sounds like a classic "he said/she said" situation to me and given his subsequent actions, I'm not particularly inclined to believe his side of the story...
And since when is Greg Laden's blog for atheists only? I see a domain of "scienceblogs.com" NOT "atheistblogs.com". I happen to have an interest in biology and, in fact, studied it in college (believe it or not, plenty of Christians are NOT Creationists).
Posted by: Crimson Wife | July 9, 2008 7:49 PM
Regarding your second post, please refer to the first sentence in the first paragraph of my post.
Regarding your second point, well, all else being equal, I'm not going to believe the crazy chruch people. Not off hand.
Posted by: Greg Laden | July 9, 2008 8:18 PM
Paul: Yes, you are absolutely correct. So, painting a swastika on the front door of a jewish family's house is a threat, not allowed, illegal in several ways. Marching in a permitted parade carrying a swastika flag is OK.
In Germany, the logic behind the first instnace here is taken to the second instance. As, in my view, it should be with certain symbols.
Posted by: Greg Laden | July 9, 2008 8:20 PM
Crimson Wife, I did not in any way suggest that you, as a non-atheist, shouldn't read or comment on this blog. However, if you are concerned about being offensive, you might want to consider the experiences of the people around you before you speak about acceptable prejudice.
As far as whom I believe, wrestling in the church aisle is much more in keeping with a group making death threats and sending bodyguards into the church than lying is with standing up to say, "I went in the church to find out what was going on, and I still have this. See?"
Posted by: Stephanie Z | July 9, 2008 10:24 PM
Just try us and see.
Posted by: Dunc | July 10, 2008 6:01 AM
heh. Her don't know us vewy well, do her?
Credibility? Based on history, allow me to offer this:
Catholic church = none
random dude who makes claim of violence over silly superstition = more than none
Posted by: JanieBelle | July 10, 2008 11:24 AM
Crimson Wife, laughing at Catholics getting irate because a magic cracker left a church is not persecution; it's sanity.
Posted by: MH | July 10, 2008 12:52 PM
One thing I can't get my mind to accept, is that the Catholic Church, in effect, condoned/condones pedophilia amongst their clergy, but goes insane whan it comes to a piece of bland bread?
The wife and I went to a Mass this morning instead of our usual brunch with friends...and, we were not impressed to put it mildly. (I have to admit the wife snuck out the snack, and it now has an honoured place amongst my collection of "Strange Things that I have Found")
So, accordingly to Crimson Wife, my wife has committed a sin a magnitude or two higher than the priests that have abused children entrusted in their care. Say nothing for the leadership of the church that have protected them.
Honestly, I think that the US is turning into Iran 2.0. And, it does not make me happy at all. I spent a few years there in the '80ies, and I really loved the experience. But, I really can't imagine me going back there. Well, maybe except for shopping, as the dollar is so horribly cheap compared to the Euro.
Posted by: Michael Bo | July 13, 2008 8:50 AM
The basic problem here is a belief that it is even possible to "desecrate" something.
To desecrate something first requires HAVING something sacred that is then made less sacred or has its holiness excised through some action or word or thought.
What is the prerequisite for declaring something sacred? Nothing whatsoever. The declaration itself *creates* the hallowedness of the thing by fiat.
Since the whole "sanctity" thing is just arbitrarily invented by someone who then recruits accomplices in its defense, I say desecration is not a real thing. Therefore, this kid didn't hurt anyone and should be compensated for his assault.
Posted by: LetUsRatiocinate | July 18, 2008 7:15 PM
The basic problem here is a belief that it is even possible to "desecrate" something.
To desecrate something first requires HAVING something sacred that is then made less sacred or has its holiness excised through some action or word or thought.
What is the prerequisite for declaring something sacred? Nothing whatsoever. The declaration itself "creates" the hallowedness of the thing by fiat.
Since the whole "sanctity" thing is just arbitrarily invented by someone who then recruits accomplices in its defense, I say desecration is not a real thing. Therefore, this kid didn't hurt anyone and should be compensated for his assault.
Posted by: LetUsRatiocinate | July 18, 2008 8:47 PM
(Computer glitch caused double post. Sorry.)
Posted by: LetUsRatiocinate | July 18, 2008 10:54 PM
"They may remain in the Tabernacle indefinitely, but if the Tabernacle is opened up by the wrong person, death rays come out of it and skeletonize anyone watching. Unless the person watching is not Baptized, then, they are turned into a pillar of salt.
You probably think I'm making this up, but I swear to you, I am not. This is what I learned during my training as an altar boy."
Now - who, again, is untruthful?
Posted by: Deep Thought | July 21, 2008 12:30 PM
DT, presumptuously rude much? Why not ask Greg how he learned it before assuming he's lying? I can think of a couple of different ways without even resorting to the idea that his local church officials weren't well versed in their theology.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | July 21, 2008 12:43 PM