Holy Eucharist being "held hostage"

[Digitonomy]

I have a good question: Why is it that this man’s desecration of the Eucharist is not considered to be a hate crime? I guess that anti-Catholicism really is an accepted prejudice in our society.

Generally speaking in the US an act must be a regular crime before it can qualify as a hate crime. Someone with more legal knowledge will probably explain that this is not a hard and fast rule, but I don’t recall any alleged hate crimes that could not also be prosecuted as an offense in their own right, without the hate crime category. I’m not sure what crime has been committed here, other than disorderly conduct in the apparently minor scuffle over the Eucharist in the first place.

But desecration of a religious object is perfectly legal. You are free to urinate on Qurans, use Sikh turbans to wash your car, record sex videos while wearing Buddhist monk robes, etc. It would be best to do this in the privacy of your own home, so that nobody construes your actions as disturbing the peace, and you should try to make it clear that you’re not threatening harm to others, lest someone get the wrong idea.

 

[Steeltemplar]

His removing the Eucharist from the church in a manner which is unauthorized is theft. That is a crime. Since it is related to something which is sacred to the Catholic faith, the action is certainly anti-Catholic in motivation. It is indeed a hate crime which the young man committed.

 

[Nohome]

His removing the Eucharist from the church in a manner which is unauthorized is theft. That is a crime. Since it is related to something which is sacred to the Catholic faith, the action is certainly anti-Catholic in motivation. It is indeed a hate crime which the young man committed.

Since the guy was catholic, I suspect the civil courts would refuse to hear any arguments. They would say this was a matter of the church to be resolved amoung themselves.

Nohome

 

[SenorSalsa]

Not to start a holy war here but I believe the EM is at fault here too. The articicle quotes the guy as saying the woman gave him the Eucharist and he wanted to show it to his friend so he took it back to his seat. This is exactly the reason why people are supposed to make sure the Host is CONSUMED! in my experience the training for (unnecessary) EM"s is poor. Shame on us too for allowing this to happen. Shame on the people that were siting next to him if there were any.:banghead:

I was just talking to someone last night, whos brother was at this very Mass. She also knows the EMHC that the guy went to. I think ill give the insight i got here.

First, this group of people was apparently making a rukus all Mass long, including reading from books about the Reformation out loud.

When he went up for Communion, the EMHC(described as very solid in her faith) said “The Body of Christ” he responded “yes” and grabbed the Host. SHE DID NOT GIVE HIM THE EUCHARIST.

She saw he carrried it back to the pew, and got somebody to go tell him to consume it. They did so, he put it in his mouth, then spit it out. He was told again “consume it or give it back”.

He then started a childish game of keep away, including putting Jesus in his pocket. When somebody tried to physically take it from him, he cried out that he was being assaulted.

And as we pointed out at the young adult thing I was at when i heard this story, every one of us males would have, if we had been there, been fully willing to absolutly deck the guy, and take the Body back. As one put it, he would call the police ahead of time, becuase he would be going to his dorm, and it would be goin down until Jesus was safe. We would have done so in the Church as well. I dont care if Mass was going on or not. A guy who does that is deserving of a good blow to the chest.

Just to reiterate, niether the EMHC nor the people around him can be blamed, they all tried to end the event, and in the case of the EMHC, never actually gave him the Host. he took it from her. And as it was pointed out earlier, communion in the mouth only would not have stopped him, becuase he did put it in his mouth and take it back out

 

[Steeltemplar]

Since the guy was catholic, I suspect the civil courts would refuse to hear any arguments. They would say this was a matter of the church to be resolved amoung themselves.

Nohome

Just because the courts would say something does not make them right about it. The courts in this country have made quite a few immoral decisions.

The Eucharist is in the care of the Church and it is given to the faithful for a specific purpose. To take the Eucharist out of the church without authorization is indeed theft.

 

[Digitonomy]

"Nohome:

Since the guy was catholic, I suspect the civil courts would refuse to hear any arguments. They would say this was a matter of the church to be resolved amoung themselvesNohome

I would question that. There is nothing to prevent the involvement of civil courts if a law has been broken - in this case, theft is alleged.

The Eucharist is in the care of the Church and it is given to the faithful for a specific purpose. To take the Eucharist out of the church without authorization is indeed theft.

I disagree. IANAL, but assuming the Eucharist was in fact given to the recipient (granted there is dispute about this) it is now his property. His property rights allow him to legally to take the host home, or dispose of it in the wastebasket, or consume it, or return it to the EMHC. How he conducts himself during all of this may determine whether he is disturbing the peace, or engaging in disorderly conduct. Here is the relevant Florida law:

877.03 Breach of the peace; disorderly conduct.–Whoever commits such acts as are of a nature to corrupt the public morals, or outrage the sense of public decency, or affect the peace and quiet of persons who may witness them, or engages in brawling or fighting, or engages in such conduct as to constitute a breach of the peace or disorderly conduct, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

As far as I can tell, Florida collects data on crimes determined to be hate crimes, but does not have additional criminal codes directly addressing hate crimes. So if a crime was committed here, it may be fair for you to call that a hate crime. The local authorities who send their data to Tallahassee may even agree with you, or they may not - but it really only matters for statistical purposes, not for the disposition of this case.

 

[dbg]

And as we pointed out at the young adult thing I was at when i heard this story, every one of us males would have, if we had been there, been fully willing to absolutly deck the guy, and take the Body back. As one put it, he would call the police ahead of time, becuase he would be going to his dorm, and it would be goin down until Jesus was safe. We would have done so in the Church as well. I dont care if Mass was going on or not. A guy who does that is deserving of a good blow to the chest.

If your account of what happened (not quoted here) is true, then I find the person’s behavior to be less than stellar, though it’s hard to say with just your side of the story without giving him a chance to respond.

However, your comments here about your desire to commit violence – in a church, no less … I thought that was against your religion as a sin of sacrilege or is that just a Hollywood misconception I have – and your statement that not only yourself but that every one of the male Catholics in your group had the same desire – and that he was deserving of being the victim of this violence, is EXTREMELY disturbing. I used to think that Catholics were different from Muslims in their reaction to perceived blasphemy or sacrilege but now I am beginning to wonder if there is not much difference at all.

 

[dbg]

.I disagree. IANAL, but assuming the Eucharist was in fact given to the recipient (granted there is dispute about this) it is now his property. His property rights allow him to legally to take the host home, or dispose of it in the wastebasket, or consume it, or return it to the EMHC.

Yes I agree with you completely and like you IANAL. I find it admirable that you would be able to see this even though as you have indicated in a previous post you realize this means he would also be able to do other things considered sacrilegous (even more sacrilegous than disposing of it in the wastebasket that is – you mentioned some examples involving other religions IIRC up above). This indicates, if you would allow me to say so, a very clear thinking mind which is able to see truth even when in other men passions may could it.

Just out of curiousity, do you support the law as it stands or do you think such things should be illegal? I support the law as it stands myself and I think attempts to change it would run into constitutional issues and be undesirable for infringing on freedom and cause many more sticky issues, a slippery slope perhaps, than it would be worth (if it is worth anything at all – changing the law that is – I fully understand Catholics hold the eucharist itself in sacred regard)

 

[revelations]

No my friend DBG, there is a difference fear not. Let’s not forget this is the internet. There isn’t much of a filter between brain and words.

For everyone’s information, the sacred host has been returned to the church for proper disposal/consumption.

I am always watching people receive the eucharist at mass to watch out for just this sort of thing, as well as for people with more sinister motives. I would not condone violence or bodily injury in any case, and frankly i think that’s an extreme reaction. No one is different from the muslims my friend, we are all human beings whose passions are stirred by things we are passionate about. I can sympathise with the sentiments of outrage, but i was more upset and saddened than moved to rage. It takes effort to see humanity in the people that really tick you off, but it’s possible.

What i see in this story is a terribly confused young man, as well as another reason for going back to communion on the tongue ONLY (i’m not a trad catholic, i like the NO).

 

[LDNCatholic]

I was just talking to someone last night, whos brother was at this very Mass. She also knows the EMHC that the guy went to. I think ill give the insight i got here.

First, this group of people was apparently making a rukus all Mass long, including reading from books about the Reformation out loud.

When he went up for Communion, the EMHC(described as very solid in her faith) said “The Body of Christ” he responded “yes” and grabbed the Host. SHE DID NOT GIVE HIM THE EUCHARIST.

She saw he carrried it back to the pew, and got somebody to go tell him to consume it. They did so, he put it in his mouth, then spit it out. He was told again “consume it or give it back”.

He then started a childish game of keep away, including putting Jesus in his pocket. When somebody tried to physically take it from him, he cried out that he was being assaulted.

And as we pointed out at the young adult thing I was at when i heard this story, every one of us males would have, if we had been there, been fully willing to absolutly deck the guy, and take the Body back. As one put it, he would call the police ahead of time, becuase he would be going to his dorm, and it would be goin down until Jesus was safe. We would have done so in the Church as well. I dont care if Mass was going on or not. A guy who does that is deserving of a good blow to the chest.

Just to reiterate, niether the EMHC nor the people around him can be blamed, they all tried to end the event, and in the case of the EMHC, never actually gave him the Host. he took it from her. And as it was pointed out earlier, communion in the mouth only would not have stopped him, becuase he did put it in his mouth and take it back out

Wow, thanks for sharing this. I agree with you, I know it is very easy to talk a good fight but if he did that in my presence I’d lay him out flat to get the Body back. I thought the days of the devil’s servants stealing the body of Christ were over.

 

[Digitonomy]

Yes I agree with you completely and like you IANAL. I find it admirable that you would be able to see this … This indicates, if you would allow me to say so, a very clear thinking mind which is able to see truth even when in other men passions may could it.

Please don’t gush.

dbg:

Just out of curiousity, do you support the law as it stands or do you think such things should be illegal? I support the law as it stands myself and I think attempts to change it would run into constitutional issues and be undesirable for infringing on freedom and cause many more sticky issues, a slippery slope perhaps, than it would be worth (if it is worth anything at all – changing the law that is – I fully understand Catholics hold the eucharist itself in sacred regard)

Regarding law on property and theft, I don’t see any way that could easily be changed as it applies to this case. If the guy seized the host before the EMHC actually gave it to him, we can call it theft. If not, the giving of that gift makes it his property. I suppose you could make an argument similar to the bachelor who demands his ring back when his fiancee dumps him a week after the engagement. That isn’t a criminal matter, it’s contract law. But I believe in that case the ring is still the property of the recipient, who must make restitution for not fulfilling her end of the contract - that could be either the ring, or its monetary value. I think I’m missing some finer points here, such as if the ring is a family heirloom, perhaps she could be compelled to give it back - this could be an opening for the Eucharist case - but I don’t know whether the fiancee has a legal obligation to give it back prior to the court issuing such an order.

Regarding law on disorderly conduct, I think there’s plenty of room to make such laws stricter before we risk becoming a police state, and I think there’s plenty of room to loosen them up before we risk anarchy. So frankly it wouldn’t bother me if the law were changed in either direction.

People are going to do truly offensive and inappropriate things, and no matter how tight we make it, the law will never be able to protect us from all of them. At the same time, we don’t want the law so strict that it can capriciously used against our beliefs or practices when they happen to offend others. While it borders on the heresy of Americanism, it also borders on the statements of Vatican II: I believe that our country and our faith are much better served by having separation of church and state, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. We have a right to error in this country, which the Church in the past was not happy about. See the related discussion in a recent thread about this heresy.

 

[LilyM]

Finally figured it out. IANAL = ‘I am not a lawyer’.

 

[dbg]

Finally figured it out. IANAL = ‘I am not a lawyer’.

Sorry, where u the one who asked me what it meant? I forgot to answer. I apologize. There’s also btw, “IANYL”

 

[LilyM]

Sorry, where u the one who asked me what it meant? I forgot to answer. I apologize. There’s also btw, “IANYL”

No it wasn’t me, but it wasn’t an abbreviation I’d seen before, so I googled it.

I wanted to add a point. IANAL either, but I am a law student and paralegal.

Criminal law was way too many moons ago for me to have perfect recall, but I believe at least some jurisdictions have specific legal provisions against inappropriate use of sacred objects, do they not, just as some have specific laws against blasphemy as opposed to other inappropriate language? I’d presume the young man’s treatment of the Eucharist would come under these laws if the jurisdiction has them.

 

[SenorSalsa]

However, your comments here about your desire to commit violence – in a church, no less … I thought that was against your religion as a sin of sacrilege or is that just a Hollywood misconception I have – and your statement that not only yourself but that every one of the male Catholics in your group had the same desire – and that he was deserving of being the victim of this violence, is EXTREMELY disturbing. I used to think that Catholics were different from Muslims in their reaction to perceived blasphemy or sacrilege but now I am beginning to wonder if there is not much difference at all.

You dont mention what religion you are a part of, or if you a part of any at all.

If you are a Christian of any kind, imagine Jesus has returned, and some terrorist captures him and holds a sword to his throat. What wont you do to “save Jesus”, an iffy example, becuase Jesus in Person form could pretty easily save himself

If you arent a Christian, just imagine that it is a family member or loved one being held hostage. What would you do?

Or if it was you being held hostage.

but I should make it clear, I would exhaust all peaceful options before moving on to force, and such extreme force would be the last option. But I would not let him leave the Sancturary with Jesus

 

[dbg]

If you arent a Christian, just imagine that it is a family member or loved one being held hostage. What would you do?

Or if it was you being held hostage.

I don’t understand this. How is Jesus being held hostage? Is he in danger of being injured? No. Is he in danger of being tortured? No. How could he be harmed in anyway? It seems only that he could be dishonored, not that he could be harmed (after all he is on your views in possession of a body incapable of pain now). Then if it is only dishonor that is at issue and not actual harm, then it cannot be called a kidnapping or hostage-taking as these ordinarily involve actual harm and danger of harm. And if it is just dishonor at issue, then I don’t see why a secular society should get involved in a religious dispute here any more than it should get involved in a dispute over whether crucifixes should be worn by singers in “immoral” music videos.

but I should make it clear, I would exhaust all peaceful options before moving on to force, and such extreme force would be the last option. But I would not let him leave the Sancturary with Jesus

Would you kill him or cause permanent bodily injury if that were necessary to that objective? This is extremely disturbing. That Catholics claim to be pro-life (or at least some Catholics do) and yet would support such anti-life violent acts is disturbing. This makes me hope all the more that the Diocese will as this person has requested, meet with him and issue a directive that no Catholics are to use force in such a manner.

I won’t be able to respond for a few days. I hope everything works out and this student is able to forgive all those who have wronged him. It looks like he did that at least partially given his graciousness in returning the bread you believe to be divine. I hope those who physically mistreated him are both able to forgive and have the humility to seek forgiveness.

 

[SenorSalsa]

I don’t understand this. How is Jesus being held hostage? Is he in danger of being injured? No. Is he in danger of being tortured? No. How could he be harmed in anyway? It seems only that he could be dishonored, not that he could be harmed (after all he is on your views in possession of a body incapable of pain now). Then if it is only dishonor that is at issue and not actual harm, then it cannot be called a kidnapping or hostage-taking as these ordinarily involve actual harm and danger of harm. And if it is just dishonor at issue, then I don’t see why a secular society should get involved in a religious dispute here any more than it should get involved in a dispute over whether crucifixes should be worn by singers in “immoral” music videos.

I know I wouldnt want to be put in somebodies mouth, and then put in a plastic bag. Said Eucharist, as someone else mentioned, could be used in Black masses by Satanists. That “blessed wafer” as the article calls it is the Person of Jesus, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. It may not be harm in the sense that you or me can be harmed, but he can be desecrated.

Would you kill him or cause permanent bodily injury if that were necessary to that objective? This is extremely disturbing. That Catholics claim to be pro-life (or at least some Catholics do) and yet would support such anti-life violent acts is disturbing. This makes me hope all the more that the Diocese will as this person has requested, meet with him and issue a directive that no Catholics are to use force in such a manner.

I wouldnt kill him, but I would give my life if it came down to that. I can think of no higher honor than fighting to rescue Jesus Christ. And in this case, im pretty sure I would be morally alowed to do such. If my family is in danger from a robber, i can defend them by attacking the person, I assume the rules are the same for Jesus

 

[Eden]

You dont mention what religion you are a part of, or if you a part of any at all.

I noticed that, too. I do wish non-Catholic forum members would take the time to fill out this information in their profiles. It would be nice to be able to get an idea of the angle some posters are coming from, without having to piece together all of the clues for every N/A that appears on this forum.

 

[Cactus]

It’s a good thing he returned the Host. His little complaint against the “violence” of the woman who attempted to intervene is pathetic. He obviously cannot begin to fathom the depth of outrage and indignation his sacrilege caused. It’s a miracle that he wasn’t pulverized.

 

[masondoggy]

I’m at a loss as to how anybody can call “physically prying something out of somebody’s hand” violence or assault. PUHLEEZE!

Now if the EM knocked him upside the head, kicked him to the ground and then grabbed the Host out of his hands, um yea, that’s violence.



This young man obviously needs prayer. Lots of prayer.