I’m glad you at least say they would be inappropriate but then you in the same paragraph say that “Internet Tough Guy” – which I assume is referring also to death threats – is only “probably in the wrong” … how can it not be as certainly wrong, on your values, as what the person who took the bread did?
It was a weasel word, meant to cover the fact that I don’t know all the facts about the death threats.
The “Internet Tough Guy” reference was to the idea that someone in Seattle emailing threats to a man in Florida accomplishes absolutely no good, since that person is probably just venting.
Also, why is there such vehemence on the part of many in condemning the person who took the bread yet condemnations of any death threats are not likewise made or if made are made with much less vehemence. No one in this thread or any other who was Catholic said that what the person did in taking the bread was merely “inappropriate” – they all used much stronger language. So death threats are only deserving of the “inappropriate” label but taking the bread is deserving of vitriolic moral condemnation?
The news reports that I read said that Mr. Cook was Catholic. If, in fact, he was, then that adds a few layers to the story: He should have known better than to do what he did; he should also have known to comply with parishioners’ requests to consume or return the host; he shouldn’t have waited a week to return it; and, most of all, he should not have acted like an apology was owed to him and him alone. If he was indeed Catholic, nominal or not, then I would expect far more from him in terms of his behavior and personal responsibility.
Personally, I can understand curiosity, and I can see the possibility that someone who didn’t know any better would take the host back to fulfill that curiosity. But Mr. Cook’s subsequent actions, including keeping the host in a bag for a week and his subsequent attitude about the incident, suggest that he wasn’t merely curious, but acting with a significant level of malice towards the Church and its believers.
Whether this level of malice was enough to justify some Catholics’ responses is, to my mind, an open question, because the only data I have about what was done and said is from a pair of news reports that do not appear to have anything approaching the full story. Knowing everything I know, the answer is “No,” especially if some of those threats were from people who were merely expressing their offense without actually intending to do anything about it – they need to reread Matthew 5. But there may be things I don’t know.
Please clarify the “probably” part of your last statement and if it is in reference to death threats or something else. I must say that I am glad I left the Church. This kind of reaction from Catholics – “worldwide” according to the article, it said Catholics “worldwide” were outraged, that is … and I assume this website is representative of how Catholics would express their outrage … any this kind of reaction makes me glad to be out of the Church.
See my previous comments. I’ve refrained from a word stronger than “inappropriate” because I can understand the motivations of the Catholics involved much better than I can understand Mr. Cook’s motivations. With the data I have available, Mr. Cook’s actions look positively malicious. His fellow Catholics’ are not much better, but they were responding to something they found extremely offensive and may well have responded in the heat of the moment. That doesn’t make things morally right, or even acceptable, but it does explain why I’m less inclined to be incensed at them.
