Desecration of the Most Blessed Sacrament has taken place

[nobeerinheaven]

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.

This is not exactly right, as Mark Shea helpfully points out:

St. Paul likewise forgave his persecutors but was absolutely ingenious in making use of everything (including civil law) to fight them and advance the gospel.

We are seeking to advance the gospel. We must do that, of course, by being virtuous. And there is virtue in being persecuted. There is also virtue in using every means available to the Church to prevent further persecution. This is often what Popes have resorted to, in the past, through diplomacy and other means: preventing further persecution of Christ and his Church. There is nothing wrong with it, even though Christ freely accepted the persecution that he received. After all, we want to see the triumph of the Church over the world - and justice (including justice in this case, e.g. Myers being fired or otherwise censured) is a sign of that triumph. We would certainly not want to stand in the way of such a triumph because we think it is better to be persecuted than be victorious over the forces of evil in the world.

 

[Christophorus72]

Mark Shea’s blog is spot on.

As for my e-mailing said university presidents or board of regents, at no time did I ask for anything to be done to Myers. I didn’t ask for him to be fired, or for them to coerce an apology from him. I didn’t even demand they have him return the Eucharist. I simply pointed out what he was doing was contradictory to the university’s stated mission, and that is a fact. What they do as a result is up to them. Not me… If that’s considered being incredibly upset, oh well. I’ll answer to God for it. Somehow, I think I’ll be okay

 

[b_justb]

This is not exactly right, as Mark Shea helpfully points out:

We are seeking to advance the gospel. We must do that, of course, by being virtuous. And there is virtue in being persecuted. There is also virtue in using every means available to the Church to prevent further persecution. This is often what Popes have resorted to, in the past, through diplomacy and other means: preventing further persecution of Christ and his Church. There is nothing wrong with it, even though Christ freely accepted the persecution that he received. After all, we want to see the triumph of the Church over the world - and justice (including justice in this case, e.g. Myers being fired or otherwise censured) is a sign of that triumph. We would certainly not want to stand in the way of such a triumph because we think it is better to be persecuted than be victorious over the forces of evil in the world.

This is the first sentence from the link you provided:

For those who may have missed it, P. Z. Myers, a washed-up academic

at a third-tier school who takes out his bitterness on Christians and calls it “science blogging,” claimed that some human toothache named Webster Cook had received death threats for stealing a Eucharist and threatening to desecrate it. (emphasis added)Well, name calling and attempting to demean where Myers works is NOT THE THING TO DO. I didn’t read any further, no reason to.

I don’t see ranting, name calling, and / or demanding censure as seeking to advance the Gospel.

I don’t think that examining our motives and attempting to do the right thing is something that should be taken lightly. Especially in cases like this that are easily seen as inflammatory. It’s easy to be Christian when we’re sitting down to Sunday dinner and the fried chicken is oh so tasty and the company at the table is friendly. It’s not so easy when we deal with those that are vehemently opposed to our most sacredly held beliefs. I think it’s far more important to do the right thing when faced with the kind of adversity we’re seeing here. I think it’s worth a second or third look at our own consciences.

Maybe there is a middle ground.

 

[anon52328184]

i sent 2 e-mails to the university and i was polite. i feel i had every right to send the e-mails. the university needs to know that people were offended by what he did. there was nothing threatening in my e-mails. i did not see this as something i wanted to remain silent about.

 

[nobeerinheaven]

It’s not so easy when we deal with those that are vehemently opposed to our most sacredly held beliefs. I think it’s far more important to do the right thing when faced with the kind of adversity we’re seeing here

Of course it is hard to be persecuted by others. That is beside the point (as is the implicit ‘poisoning the well’ you work in highlighting Shea’s shortcomings - as he is right about St. Paul and that is all that mattered).

It is beside the point as you are trying to argue that people should not be upset or call for justice in the case of Myers’ desecration and ridicule of the Christian faith. We all should accept our crosses, including persecution, and we should do so with a spirit of thanksgiving and joy to God that he enjoins our suffering with the suffering of Christ. This is true, but it does not imply that we should not work to prevent such persecution and be upset with the actions of those who persecute us - calling on them to seek real virtue and calling on others to enact the justice God offers to the world, in his moral law. When Christ is struck by the Jewish guard, for instance, he boldly questioned the man’s actions: “If I have spoken wrongly, testify of the wrong; but if rightly, why do you strike Me?” It is thus not wrong to speak about the injustices done to us by others in our loving acceptance of persecution.

We aren’t going out looking to be persecuted, clearly, and this should make obvious the point that persecution is a real evil that God works to make a good, by uniting the suffering we offer to him to that suffering offered to him by Christ. If we fail to see the evils of persecution, seeing only the good God brings about through it, then we make a serious error of judgment and fail in our love of others - since this love ignores the great harm set to befall our persecutors if they are not quickly brought into line with Christ’s moral guidance. Likewise, it is a spiritual act of mercy to warn the sinner and instruct the ignorant. Sometimes those warnings must be given using the strong “language” of official censure (even firing) - warnings that a sinner may take more seriously than a slap on the wrist and finger wagging. We must pray these measures can wake the sinner up, as that sinner’s redemption would be a great good in addition to the good found in the justice of censuring one who opposes the Church.

 

[Della]

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.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.

Prof. Myers has boasted that he desecrated a consecrated host. The only way he could get his hands on one is by someone stealing it instead of receiving it. Since consecrated hosts belong to the Church and not to those who receive them, a crime of theft with the intention of committing a hate crime was committed here.

 

[Digitonomy]

Prof. Myers has boasted that he desecrated a consecrated host. The only way he could get his hands on one is by someone stealing it instead of receiving it.

This is simply not true. Among other possibilities, a priest who sympathized with the professor could have come by the house and consecrated some hosts. Or delivered some previously consecrated.

Della:

Since consecrated hosts belong to the Church and not to those who receive them, a crime of theft with the intention of committing a hate crime was committed here.

If we accept your premise that consecrated hosts belong to the Church (which I find legally doubtful), then we can say that a crime of theft may have occurred. It would be a difficult crime to prove in court, since there is no way to distinguish consecrated from unconsecrated hosts. Regardless, I’m still skeptical that such a theft would qualify as a hate crime under Wisconsin law. If I thought it was a reasonable possibility, I’d look it up, but since it seems far-fetched and I’ve had other work erased when threads like this were deleted, I’m content to be pretty sure, if not 100% certain.

 

[revelations]

Why not all of us just say a prayer for this man, perhaps a divine mercy chaplet. Getting all in a rut over this isn’t the right thing to do, we’ve all been thrown off focus on this one.

Love will triumph over all. Letters and criticism of this man only further cement him in his error, and in his condemnation. It is up to us to pray for his conversion, and to pray for the Father’s mercy that he be saved from the abyss.

One important thing we should focus on is the amount of attention that these incidents have received. God allows everything to happen, he is in control of every last thing! Think about it, every horrible thing, all suffering, He knows about it. He allowed himself to be killed years ago for a greater good, and I am sure now there is a good reason for these incidents to be happening. To me, the amount of secular media attention high lights the deep ravishing hunger for God that is lacking in our society.

Our duty is to trust God our Father, to pray for all who have such hatred in their hearts, and to demonstrate the practice of our faith to those who have none.

The evil one wins when we are led astray debating trivial things.

 

[kristie_m]

Why not all of us just say a prayer for this man, perhaps a divine mercy chaplet. Getting all in a rut over this isn’t the right thing to do, we’ve all been thrown off focus on this one.

Love will triumph over all. Letters and criticism of this man only further cement him in his error, and in his condemnation. It is up to us to pray for his conversion, and to pray for the Father’s mercy that he be saved from the abyss.

On the whole, I agree with your post. But having prayed for him each morning, I was struck with the thought that I too should send him a note. Nothing hateful. In fact I just offered four simple words. “What if you’re wrong?”

Sometimes all it takes is a little niggling doubt to change a person’s entire perspective. (Heaven know’s we’ve seen the devil use the same tactic, haven’t we???)

Let us continue to pray for his conversion…and that of those so eager to applaud what he did.

 

[Della]

This is simply not true. Among other possibilities, a priest who sympathized with the professor could have come by the house and consecrated some hosts. Or delivered some previously consecrated.If we accept your premise that consecrated hosts belong to the Church (which I find legally doubtful), then we can say that a crime of theft may have occurred. It would be a difficult crime to prove in court, since there is no way to distinguish consecrated from unconsecrated hosts. Regardless, I’m still skeptical that such a theft would qualify as a hate crime under Wisconsin law. If I thought it was a reasonable possibility, I’d look it up, but since it seems far-fetched and I’ve had other work erased when threads like this were deleted, I’m content to be pretty sure, if not 100% certain.

No priest participated in this folly. If it was a consecrated host it was stolen. Now who’s putting forward far-fetched ideas?

Consecrated hosts belong to the Church. That is a fact. It is one a good lawyer could use to prosecute the case, if it ever came to that.

And the crime didn’t take place in WI, but in MN. And as a MN I can say with out reservation that we seriously frown on hate crimes. All the ones I cited were committed in MN and successfully prosecuted in MN.

 

[Digitonomy]

No priest participated in this folly. If it was a consecrated host it was stolen. Now who’s putting forward far-fetched ideas?

I don’t doubt that it’s probably stolen. But in criminal prosecution, you have to establish that beyond a reasonable doubt. And there are certainly cases, albeit far-fetched ones, where consecrated hosts could with legal certainty become someone’s personal property. More importantly, I don’t think that in more run of the mill cases like what we saw in Florida, that the law is clearly on the side of the Church.

Della:

Consecrated hosts belong to the Church. That is a fact. It is one a good lawyer could use to prosecute the case, if it ever came to that.

A good lawyer would know better than to accept your “fact” at face value. Among other things, what church are we speaking of? Under US law, each diocese is a separate legal person. There are also churches not in communion with Rome that consecrate the Eucharist. So do we know with certainty that this host did not come from one of the parishes of the Polish National Catholic Church? These other churches may also take a different view as to who “owns” the host once it has been distributed.

Della:

And the crime didn’t take place in WI, but in MN. And as a MN I can say with out reservation that we seriously frown on hate crimes. All the ones I cited were committed in MN and successfully prosecuted in MN.

Sorry, my mistake. Perhaps you can track down the relevant statutes on hate crimes and we can see whether theft can be prosecuted as a hate crime in Minnesota.

 

[anon52328184]

kristie m - good point to put in those 4 words. maybe they will they will stick in his mind. i believe i read that he was raised a Christian. i might be wrong.

 

[Aramis]

continue to deluge the chancellor with emails.

Sooner or later she’ll cave.

 

[b_justb]

Of course it is hard to be persecuted by others. That is beside the point (as is the implicit ‘poisoning the well’ you work in highlighting Shea’s shortcomings - as he is right about St. Paul and that is all that mattered).

It is beside the point as you are trying to argue that people should not be upset or call for justice in the case of Myers’ desecration and ridicule of the Christian faith. We all should accept our crosses, including persecution, and we should do so with a spirit of thanksgiving and joy to God that he enjoins our suffering with the suffering of Christ. This is true, but it does not imply that we should not work to prevent such persecution and be upset with the actions of those who persecute us - calling on them to seek real virtue and calling on others to enact the justice God offers to the world, in his moral law. When Christ is struck by the Jewish guard, for instance, he boldly questioned the man’s actions: “If I have spoken wrongly, testify of the wrong; but if rightly, why do you strike Me?” It is thus not wrong to speak about the injustices done to us by others in our loving acceptance of persecution.

We aren’t going out looking to be persecuted, clearly, and this should make obvious the point that persecution is a real evil that God works to make a good, by uniting the suffering we offer to him to that suffering offered to him by Christ. If we fail to see the evils of persecution, seeing only the good God brings about through it, then we make a serious error of judgment and fail in our love of others - since this love ignores the great harm set to befall our persecutors if they are not quickly brought into line with Christ’s moral guidance. Likewise, it is a spiritual act of mercy to warn the sinner and instruct the ignorant. Sometimes those warnings must be given using the strong “language” of official censure (even firing) - warnings that a sinner may take more seriously than a slap on the wrist and finger wagging. We must pray these measures can wake the sinner up, as that sinner’s redemption would be a great good in addition to the good found in the justice of censuring one who opposes the Church.

What I am saying is that we should examine our motives and actions to see if what we think and do is the best thing to think and do as Christians. I am asking for us to examine our consciences. Are we reacting out of anger? Is that OK? Can we be angry and not sin in our responses? Clearly you have thought about it a lot and have taken the time to write about your examination, which I think is awesome. I have seen other posters here that have talked about offering prayers and others that have given the testimony of Saints that got down on their hands and knees to consume desecrated hosts - also all VERY awesome stuff. The only thing I am advocating is an examination of what we are doing and thinking in this case. When anger flares up in me, I know that sometimes, if not most times, I react in a way that is not best.

All that said I do not think the actions by Myers can be equated to persecution, especially to the persecution experienced by St. Paul. Myers is not stopping us from preaching Christ Crucified. He is in no position to stop anyone from spreading the Gospel anywhere or at anytime. Attempting to equate the two scenarios is very incorrect (IMO of course).

 

[Della]

I don’t doubt that it’s probably stolen. But in criminal prosecution, you have to establish that beyond a reasonable doubt. And there are certainly cases, albeit far-fetched ones, where consecrated hosts could with legal certainty become someone’s personal property. More importantly, I don’t think that in more run of the mill cases like what we saw in Florida, that the law is clearly on the side of the Church.

Establishing that a crime took place is a matter for the police. If they wanted to bother they would investigate. And we are talking about this case, not probable cases, aren’t we? As to FL, I assume you are referring to the Terri Schiavo case? That had nothing to do with Church jurisdiction over property, so I don’t get the connection. Or are you saying in all cases dealing with the Church the courts are ipso facto against the Church?

A good lawyer would know better than to accept your “fact” at face value. Among other things, what church are we speaking of? Under US law, each diocese is a separate legal person. There are also churches not in communion with Rome that consecrate the Eucharist. So do we know with certainty that this host did not come from one of the parishes of the Polish National Catholic Church? These other churches may also take a different view as to who “owns” the host once it has been distributed.Sorry, my mistake. Perhaps you can track down the relevant statutes on hate crimes and we can see whether theft can be prosecuted as a hate crime in Minnesota.

Of course a good lawyer would know to establish the fact that the consecrated host belongs to the Church and not to the one to whom it is distributed. One support for it, although not the only one, is any member of the Church has the right to prevent someone from taking a host out of the church building without consuming it because it belongs to the Church.

And, once again, we are discussing this case not hypothetical cases dealing with other churches and how they view their communion. It’s the Catholic Church’s understanding of what is under it’s jurisdiction we are discussing. We’ll get nowhere if we go around and around chasing hypothetical cases.

I don’t have to “track down” statutes. Just go online and look them up yourself, if you are interested. I’m not saying this crime will be prosecuted, I’m saying there are grounds for it being looked into by the authorities based on the information I have supplied. But, it seems our bishops aren’t interested in doing so, probably because it would only feed this man’s desire to mock the Church. And in that I cannot fault them.

If there were a general move to shut down Catholic churches and throw Catholics into concentration camps then it would be vital to bring charges. And believe me, it could come to that some day, even in America. We have to be vigilant or we will lose our freedoms as people of faith, especially now days when people who hate our Church and hate us are pushing to see how far they can go and still be protected by the law. It is a warning to those with eyes to see and hears to hear.

 

[Digitonomy]

Establishing that a crime took place is a matter for the police. If they wanted to bother they would investigate. And we are talking about this case, not probable cases, aren’t we?

Yes, and we’re talking about a case where you’ve only established that the host was probably stolen, not stolen beyond a reasonable doubt. Without knowing where it was stolen, and who it was stolen from, there is no way to know for sure.

Della:

As to FL, I assume you are referring to the Terri Schiavo case?

No, the student who walked out of mass with the Eucharist a few weeks ago.

Della:

Of course a good lawyer would know to establish the fact that the consecrated host belongs to the Church and not to the one to whom it is distributed. One support for it, although not the only one, is any member of the Church has the right to prevent someone from taking a host out of the church building without consuming it because it belongs to the Church.

I don’t think anyone except the professor, and probably not even he, knows the circumstances under which the host was obtained.

Della:

And, once again, we are discussing this case not hypothetical cases dealing with other churches and how they view their communion…We’ll get nowhere if we go around and around chasing hypothetical cases.

The facts of this case ARE hypothetical until you can establish them. And you haven’t established that every consecrated host belongs to the Archdiocese of St Paul and Minneapolis, because it’s simply not true. Thus we don’t know that a crime was committed in the case of this particular host, much less a hate crime.

Della:

It’s the Catholic Church’s understanding of what is under it’s jurisdiction we are discussing.

This may be the point of misunderstanding. The Catholic Church’s position on this is pretty clear (although I’m not sure even the Church would claim legal ownership of hosts consecrated by a schismatic church). What I was commenting on, and what I assumed you were responding to me about, was your original contention that a hate crime had taken place.

Della:

I’m not saying this crime will be prosecuted, I’m saying there are grounds for it being looked into by the authorities based on the information I have supplied.

That’s all fine and good. What you were originally saying was that he committed a hate crime, and that failure to pursue that was evidence of political correctness that would not have been present had he desecrated an item of some other faith.

 

[GailMac]

I don’t know if this was the “right” response someone was looking for, but I sent e-mails to the President and Chancellor’s offices stating that being a student at a school, my concern was for the Christian students attending the University. I said that since Mr. Myers has demonstrated his obvious disdain for all things Christian, how can the University guarantee that his disdain will not effect his objectivity in instructing and grading those students in his classes who are Christian? That to me, is very key as a student. I don’t want to sign into a class where I know the Professor has an pre-conceived hatred for me because of my religious affiliation. Maintaining an objective response to the students ensures that grading will be fair.

No student wants to be in a classroom with a bigot especially if that bigot is open about it. How do you think things were and sadly still are in some places, for the black students in predominately white schools? This is really no different. I feel that this is an effective way to address Mr. Myer’s actions and hold a promise of action if persued.

Anyway, that was my response.

Peace,

Gail

 

[mommyof4]

I don’t know if this was the “right” response someone was looking for, but I sent e-mails to the President and Chancellor’s offices stating that being a student at a school, my concern was for the Christian students attending the University. I said that since Mr. Myers has demonstrated his obvious disdain for all things Christian, how can the University guarantee that his disdain will not effect his objectivity in instructing and grading those students in his classes who are Christian? That to me, is very key as a student. I don’t want to sign into a class where I know the Professor has an pre-conceived hatred for me because of my religious affiliation. Maintaining an objective response to the students ensures that grading will be fair.

No student wants to be in a classroom with a bigot especially if that bigot is open about it. How do you think things were and sadly still are in some places, for the black students in predominately white schools? This is really no different. I feel that this is an effective way to address Mr. Myer’s actions and hold a promise of action if persued.

Anyway, that was my response.

Peace,

Gail

I like your slant on this issue.

 

[Veronica7978]

I don’t really know if this is helpful but since my grandmother lives in Minnesota, I wanted to know how much public funding goes to pay salaries of teachers at public universities (I know she would be aghast knowing she’s funding this university). So, anyway, here are the numbers from a member of the Minnesota state legislature:

"Dear V.,

Your question is a very difficult one to answer with any precision, but I’ll do my best. It is somewhere around 50-51% of all revenue provided to a public college or university is from the taxpayers. If about 60 to 70% of all expenditures go to salaries, one could hypothesize that anywhere from 30 to 36% of the teacher’s salary is taxpayer subsidized. If the professor makes $150,000 per year, then his/her cost to the public is between $45,000 and $54,000. Thanks my best “educated” guess.

Mark Buesgens
State Representative, 35B
Room 307, State Office Building
(651) 296-5185"

I emailed approx. 70 reps requesting the $ amount and explainign that I believe this is a hate crime. Only 1 replied. Maybe if enough of them get emails, one is a Catholic and they will look into it. I haven’t finished the list yet (it’s time consuming as you have to complete a form). Here’s the website if you’re interested and live in Minnesota:

house.leg.state.mn.us/members/housemembers.asp

 

[Veronica7978]

Another thought I had (that may have already been addressed) is that this consecrated host was stolen from Mass. This is a crime, the same as if somebody went into a university lab and took computers and destroyed them. Couldn’t the diocese do something about this on a legal level with the District Attorney in the area? I don’t know…it just appears a crime to me on many levels.