Desecration of the Most Blessed Sacrament has taken place

[Just_Lurking]

How does the Muslim community feel?

From his blog:

Just to be fair, let me mention the current tally: somewhere well above 12,000 hate mail messages from religious people, mostly Catholic; two reasonable messages from Catholics who said that while they are unshaken in their faith, they approve of my opposition to cracker idolatry; and zero comments of any kind from admitted Muslims.

 

[Digitonomy]

And I submit that crimes don’t have to be on the level of murder to be hate a crimes, but they probably wouldn’t all be prosecuted, unfortunately, because the court system wouldn’t be able to handle the load.

This isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech. Just as burning a cross on the front lawn of a black person’s house is a hate crime or painting swastikas on the walls of synagogues or destroying statues in a Hindu temple. These are all prosecuted cases.

Note that they are crimes to begin with, even without the hate: burning a cross in the yard is generally interpreted as a threat, vandalism and destruction of property is also obviously a crime. On the other hand, destroying Hindu statues or burning crosses in your den is protected expression, even if you choose to post pictures on your website.

Della:

Desecrating a host, consecrated or not, is the same type of crime since the intention was to offend Catholics in particular by it, not just religion in general.

It is a common misconception in society and on this board that we have a right not to be offended. You can take offense at whatever protected form of expression you like, whether it be something as serious as this, or something as insignificant as the color socks I choose to wear. But whatever you take offense to, don’t expect the law to discard the offender’s free speech just because you feel victimized.

A case that illustrates this:
National Socialist Party v. Skokie
The courts ruled Nazi protesters were allowed to march through heavily Jewish town of Skokie. I guarantee their intent was to offend.

 

[Digitonomy]

From his blog:

Just to be fair, let me mention the current tally: somewhere well above 12,000 hate mail messages from religious people, mostly Catholic; two reasonable messages from Catholics who said that while they are unshaken in their faith, they approve of my opposition to cracker idolatry

As I read this, it appears anyone who wrote to oppose his actions was sending a “hate mail message.”:whacky:

 

[nobeerinheaven]

Strange that two “Catholics” sent PZ Myers supportive emails to oppose “cracker idolatry.” I would certainly oppose *actual *cracker idolatry, but the consecrated host is God - in his incarnate flesh, but fully God. It is impossible to idolize the consecrated host, hence Eucharistic adoration (which would certainly count as idolatry if the host were not really God). Perhaps PZ was confused about what these Catholics meant, or perhaps these Catholics were confused about the nature of the Eucharist.

 

[vz71]

Strange that two “Catholics” sent PZ Myers supportive emails to oppose “cracker idolatry.” I would certainly oppose *actual *cracker idolatry, but the consecrated host is God - in his incarnate flesh, but fully God.

Perhaps they know something we don’t.
Is it possible that this is a hoax?

Why should we trust anything this man at his word?

 

[GailMac]

I have used the two links provided to send e-mails to both the President of the University and the Chancellor. I have only heard back from the Chancellors office so far. Nothing important, just an acknowlegement of the receipt of my e-mail, no direct response to the matter at hand. I’ll let you guys n gals know if I get anything else. It wouldn’t hurt if a few more folks contacted them to let them know how we feel about their Professors doings. Sending things to the offending person is only going ot fuel his fire. But sending things to those who may be able to stop him is a different matter.

Peace,

Gail

 

[Teelynn]

I agree Gail. I will send the University a letter of protest…civil, charitable, but definitely protest. I sent one at the beginning but not after the actual desecration.

Who is the Bishop in that area that has the jurisdiction? Anyone know? Anyone besides me feel that the leaders of our Church should be making a resounding noise??? I have been watching this pretty closely, and have not heard peep from the leaders in that area. Maybe I’ve missed something? The SILENCE IS DEAFENING!!! Only the laity are protesting. WHERE IS THE BISHOP???

 

[GailMac]

Dear Teelyn - go back in this thread for the links to various places. There are steps being taken by the Church to address this issue. I suggest you read this thread from the beginning, if you can stomach it, and find the links.

Peace,

Gail

 

[GailMac]

Dear Teelyn - Here is one link from the Catholic League. I just sent another e-mail to the President of the University via their website - works fine too. I am an adult student and spoke as one to him. I don’t know if this will help at all, but it is an angle.

Peace,

Gail

catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1465

 

[Teelynn]

Yes, I have already sent a comment to the Catholic League…encouraging them to be relentless with this. BTW, I have also written to the ACLA (American Catholic Lawyers Assoc.) and they finally responded that they are also going to file a formal complaint with the University. (for what it’s worth) The University is not budging. But they should also (and maybe first and foremost) be hearing from the Bishop in that Diocese. In fact, I would think that several Bishops would be making noise! The Clergy is silent. And there is no correlation between silence and charity.

 

[b_justb]

I am having a hard time understanding why people are so incredibly upset. This guy is going to do whatever he is going to do and fanning his flames just makes his desire for it all the more.

If we as Catholics truly believe Jesus is Divine and that He is truly present in the Eucharist, how is it possible to desecrate Divinity? Is human action greater than God’s? Why do we as humans think we can save Christ? The thinking here is all backwards. Jesus doesn’t need us to protect Him, we need Him to protect us.

Should every reasonable effort be made to safeguard the consecrated host? Of course. Should we sit idly by and let people mock our faith? Maybe we should. What did the first Christians do when faced with opposition? Is what we are doing now what they did or would have done then? I’m not so sure our actions and attitudes are cultivating the soil for the growth of the fruits of the Spirit, but rather quite the opposite. It may be understandable why people are behaving the way they are in the situation; but understanding should not be condoning.

I think we might need to really reevaluate what we’re doing, saying, and thinking here.

 

[nobeerinheaven]

I am having a hard time understanding why people are so incredibly upset. If we as Catholics truly believe Jesus is Divine and that He is truly present in the Eucharist, how is it possible to desecrate Divinity?

Yeah, seriously. And why did people get so upset about the crucifixion, while we’re at it?

 

[Teelynn]

IMHO lack of response fosters apathy. And apathy leads to bending and complying with the secular agenda.

 

[b_justb]

Yeah, seriously. And why did people get so upset about the crucifixion, while we’re at it?

Think about it, don’t just knee jerk react. See the bigger picture. Even though Jesus told His followers what was going to happen to Him they did not understand. Did they really believe he would be resurrected when He was and in the manner He was? No, they didn’t. We have the luxury to have the Christian past to look at and look through. We should take advantage of that and see things differently.

 

[nobeerinheaven]

See the bigger picture.

The resurrection did not turn the crucifixion from a crime worth being upset about to virtuous actions on the part of all involved. We shouldn’t pat the Roman soldiers and Sanhedrin on the back, after all. It was a horrible crime that should shock and offend all.

Even understanding the redemption accomplished for us on the cross, there is every reason to be upset with the actions of his persecutors. I would go so far as to say that anyone who is not upset with the persecution of Christ (and his bride, the Church) does not understand central themes of Christianity. We should be upset that the crucifixion took place, even if it accomplished our redemption. We should be upset sacrilege took place, even if that is all the persecutors of Christ and the Church wanted. *If we are not injured at the sight of Christ’s injuries, how can we say he and we belong to the same flesh in the mystical body of Christ? *

 

[OnlyAmbrose]

I am having a hard time understanding why people are so incredibly upset. This guy is going to do whatever he is going to do and fanning his flames just makes his desire for it all the more.

If we as Catholics truly believe Jesus is Divine and that He is truly present in the Eucharist, how is it possible to desecrate Divinity? Is human action greater than God’s? Why do we as humans think we can save Christ? The thinking here is all backwards. Jesus doesn’t need us to protect Him, we need Him to protect us.

Should every reasonable effort be made to safeguard the consecrated host? Of course. Should we sit idly by and let people mock our faith? Maybe we should. What did the first Christians do when faced with opposition? Is what we are doing now what they did or would have done then? I’m not so sure our actions and attitudes are cultivating the soil for the growth of the fruits of the Spirit, but rather quite the opposite. It may be understandable why people are behaving the way they are in the situation; but understanding should not be condoning.

I think we might need to really reevaluate what we’re doing, saying, and thinking here.

I agree with you to an extent. I think the outrage the faithful have toward this man is expected and perhaps even proper. He DID desecrate the Blessed Sacrament, and from my (limited) understanding of canon law, it IS certainly possible to do so.

Nonetheless, I believe you are right in the sense that all these threats of legal action, etc, are probably not going to be fruitful. Obviously the Bible says we’re going to be persecuted, and…

Well, Jesus has had far worse done to him than getting covered in coffee grounds

 

[b_justb]

The resurrection did not turn the crucifixion from a crime worth being upset about to virtuous actions on the part of all involved. We shouldn’t pat the Roman soldiers and Sanhedrin on the back, after all. It was a horrible crime that should shock and offend all.

Even understanding the redemption accomplished for us on the cross, there is every reason to be upset with the actions of his persecutors. I would go so far as to say that anyone who is not upset with the persecution of Christ (and his bride, the Church) does not understand central themes of Christianity. We should be upset that the crucifixion took place, even if it accomplished our redemption. We should be upset sacrilege took place, even if that is all the persecutors of Christ and the Church wanted. *If we are not injured at the sight of Christ’s injuries, how can we say he and we belong to the same flesh in the mystical body of Christ? *

I am not suggesting patting anyone on the back for doing evil. I am suggesting that we take what has happened and possibly make our response to it different. What do we do with our injuries to be united with Christ? Lash out in anger? Did He? No, so that is obviously not the thing to do. File lawsuits, demand apologies, demand this guy be fired? Is that what Jesus did or taught? No. So, that too is obviously not the things to do. What did He tell us to do? Then that’s what we should do. Can we be angry and not sin? I think we can. It’s hard but it is possible.

The only person I have control over is me.

 

[Teelynn]

If we don’t respond with a loud voice, we are in essence giving passive approval of publicly desecrating the Blessed Sacrament. I think sometimes people confuse “turning the other cheek” with apathy and indifference. Freedom of speech is our constitutional right, and I am thankful for that. This was more than free speech, this was free violation. This was CROSSING THE LINE. Oh, I know, desecration of the Blessed Sacrament has been going on since the beginning of Christianity. So…why should this be any different? It is different because it was done for the world to see. It’s almost as if he and his followers were saying, “I will do this whether or not you like it, and whether or not it was right or wrong, and yes, if we want, we can violate your churches any time we want.” And when the leaders are silent, that is perceived justly or unjustly as saying “go right ahead…we don’t need to fight for Christ…He can do that for Himself…we’re just passive observers.” Are we going to be part of His Church or just passive participants? He gave us a voice, he gave us a brain to think with…I think He expects us to use it…HE EXPECTS US TO USE IT WITH TOTAL CHARITY…but He expects some response in His defense.

 

[b_justb]

If we don’t respond with a loud voice, we are in essence giving passive approval of publicly desecrating the Blessed Sacrament. I think sometimes people confuse “turning the other cheek” with apathy and indifference. Freedom of speech is our constitutional right, and I am thankful for that. This was more than free speech, this was free violation. This was CROSSING THE LINE. Oh, I know, desecration of the Blessed Sacrament has been going on since the beginning of Christianity. So…why should this be any different? It is different because it was done for the world to see. It’s almost as if he and his followers were saying, “I will do this whether or not you like it, and whether or not it was right or wrong, and yes, if we want, we can violate your churches any time we want.” And when the leaders are silent, that is perceived justly or unjustly as saying “go right ahead…we don’t need to fight for Christ…He can do that for Himself…we’re just passive observers.” Are we going to be part of His Church or just passive participants? He gave us a voice, he gave us a brain to think with…I think He expects us to use it…HE EXPECTS US TO USE IT WITH TOTAL CHARITY…but He expects some response in His defense.

The question still remains: What is the correct response? Did Jesus respond with a loud voice? No, He didn’t. Is he our example or not? Being a Christian is hard. This is where the rubber meets the road. Will we respond as we should or not? I think it takes a little bit of pondering to discern what we should do. I think threads like this help us in figuring it out as well.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

There is a saint whose name I cannot remember who centuries ago witnessed a pagan invasion of her city. The enemy soldiers ransacked the church and desecrated the tabernacle and altar, hurling the consecrated hosts upon the floor and walked over them. She could not pick up the Hosts with her hands because only the priest could touch the Eucharist. So she got down on the floor and picked each and everyone up with her tongue and consumed them, rather than allow Jesus to be so misused and dishonored.

That is how we must respond to this man’s descration of the Eucharist, by responding to the needs of Suffering Jesus in Eucharist and by making reparation to ease His suffering. We should suffer interiorly to see Jesus so misused and abused, and like the women at the cross, seek ways to minister to His broken body.