Brad, you've left a rather important part out of this blog post that is rather inexcusable considering your public condemnation of Bill Donahue. Myers intends to acquire a communion wafer after consecration and publicly desecrate it in in the most offensive ways he can imagine. Do you realize that, according to Catholic belief, this is intentionally urinating on Christ himself? Was this little piece of information somehow irrelevant to your story?

Not that I am Catholic, or agree with calls for the university to discipline Myers. But your omission of this information is misleading and irresponsible. Please correct this omission (and then feel free to delete my comment).

Do you realize that, according to Catholic belief, this is intentionally urinating on Christ himself?

Then by the same token, when a Catholic takes communion, Christ himself is dissolved in stomach acid, then mixed up with feces from Sunday lunch, and eventually flushed down the toilet after a rather undignified rear exit.

That, I think, is the whole point of this stunt: the act of taking communion may be highly symbolic and whatnot, but at the end, the eucharist itself is just a piece of bread.

That, I think, is the whole point of this stunt: the act of taking communion may be highly symbolic and whatnot, but at the end, the eucharist itself is just a piece of bread.

I understand that this is what PZ Believes. It is not what Catholics believe.

I'm curious, Brad and Wonders. Do you think we should also be sensitive to the Muslim belief that representations of Mohammed are blasphemous?

Matthew 26: 26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."

Maybe He was kidding-huh?

I understand that this is what PZ Believes. It is not what Catholics believe.

Funny, in all the pictures I've seen, it looks just like a piece of bread. And if the Catholic version is anything like the Orthodox version, it tastes like bland bread, too.

Catholics are free to believe anything they like. But if they're offended at someone threatening to do violence to a piece of bread, that's their problem.

arensb,
I think most Catholic theologians would hold that the presence of Christ abides in the accidents (appearance) of bread and wine only so long as the bread and wine are recognizable as such. Digested wine and bread are physically different substances, so I don't think the physical presence of Christ would persist after digestion. (That's my educated guess, though, not anything that Catholics would consider authoritative.)

As to the question of Muhammad, I don't think I would depict him out of respect for Muslim sentiments. I see little reason why I should be impolite needlessly.

Lastly, a word on the significance of desecrating "bread": I am not (repeat AM NOT) in favor of using any sort of violence against Myers. The reputed death threats are un-Christian and unreasonable. Just as Jesus told Peter to stay his sword in Gethsemane, so should Catholics today refrain from using violence against Myers or anyone else who would desecrate what Catholics believe contains Christ's presence.
Nonetheless, one cannot speak of merely "violence to a piece of bread" any more than one can call the burning or desecration of Torahs or Korans "violence to stacks of paper" or hate speech "the emission of a series of sonic waves." Actions have symbolic meaning and I would expect an educator to have more tact and respect when dealing with such a sensitive matter. Rather than trying to present his critiques of religion in a rational and appealing way, Myers instead acts like a teenage brat TP-ing a neighbors' house. Stunts like this are why atheists are so often caricatured by believers as angry misanthropes shaking their fists at a Supreme Being they don't believe in. If I were an atheist, I would be embarrassed by Myers' sophomoric behavior.

It's interesting that some feel it's all right for someone who's not a Christian to walk into a Christian Church and take communion which is meant for those who believe. Proof that these people don't get Communion is that Tim is probably turning over in his grave knowing that the woman took Communion "for Ted" when Ted himself took Communion for Christ. And who knows why that guy took home the bread, he doesn't say. Was he a member of the Church because if he is he needs some more lessons in what his Church teaches and believs. Anyway, it is amazing that Christian churches can't inforce their beliefs without people bitching but other religions can inforce their beliefs and its racist if somebody complains even when people are being murdered by "relgious people". There's anti-Christian hate going on in these responses that has nothing to do with what these two people did.

Typical of the Satanic misguidedness of Catholics worldwide, buying into the laughable heresy that a cheap, tasteless cracker, probably manufactured by some Chinese company, physically turns into the body of Christ. One more indication that the Catholic church has become completely useless to the world.

The price of being ridiculous is ridicule. The notion of the eucharist -- that the supreme creator of the universe -- enters a cracker -- invisibly -- and then you eat the cracker -- is ridiculous.

The proper response is to point and laugh and make fun.

"I think most Catholic theologians would hold that the presence of Christ abides in the accidents (appearance) of bread and wine only so long as the bread and wine are recognizable as such. Digested wine and bread are physically different substances"

What if the triscuit in question is whole grain? Parts of it are never digested (thus the recommendation for additional fiber by my family doctor). Will Jesus still make a complete circuit through one's digestive tract and unceremoniously get flushed?

Cook was assaulted during Mass by little old ladies and has since received death threats and calls for his removal from college. Similarly, PZ Meyers has received death threats as well...over people's expectations over how crackers should be treated.

This is reminiscent of the wars that broke between the big-enders and little-enders in "Gulliver's Travels" (which side a hardboiled egg should be opened from). That was satire and yet I'm now waiting for it to be reenacted in Morris, MN.

Better we stop and point and laugh at the absurdity over the whole cracker is Christ thing before the heritics are set ablaze....again.

Jason

Words are words and scripture is Holy. Lots of words from you folks but be careful lest you offend the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 26: 26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."

1 Corinthians 11: 29 "For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself."

BTW-for those of you who believe there is no God-then accept the fact that your mom,dad,relatives,spouse and children are nothing more than "grasshoppers". Smart ones for sure but "just grasshoppers".

Maybe you are more than that and the word for this concept is "Hope".

i personally think this is the kind of thing that makes Christians look rather silly. i consider myself a Progressive Christian but don't see any point to believing that Christ manifests in a communion wafer. my personal belief is that Christ was God's earthly representative and that He is one with God. As such God/Christ are always present everywhere, which means They are no more, or less, present in a communion wafer then anywhere else. To claim that They are denies the Omnipresence of God. In my opinion, this is one of those ideas from the dark ages that was intended to make people think they had to go to church and do what the church told them in order to get to heaven. It also lead people to believe that priests had magic powers, which also encouraged people to submit to their authority. I don't know if Christ actually said, "eat this, it's my body" because the catholic Church had a very long time, prior to the reformation, to change the Bible to say what they wanted it to. I think most progressives feel that communion is a re-enactment of the last supper. [Like spending a final meal with a loved one who is going away for a very long time.]

ha. ha. So you say the catholic church is completely useless, dontcha? You're religioni isn't far off, buddy. If you get cancer, you should reject all treatment and pray. ;)

Bill Roberrson: I don't know what you've been smoking, but I'll take three. We anti-humanists got to stick together, y'know? :D

It makes christians look rather silly? Yes. Yes it does. Very much so. It's why I'm not a christian.

Roman Catholics think of the Host as being the Body of Christ. I will not argue with another's theology. Having said that, what I find truly offensive is the notion that the Eucharist forced to exist in a plastic baggy for a week is akin to taking Christ hostage. What about the priests who took kids hostage and RAPED them? Sorry, the two just do not compare to this survivor of childhood sexual abuse.

spike

While I do not agree that the Lord's Supper actully becomes Christ's body. I still think that we, all being brothers and sisters in Christ should respect the Cathlic faith enough by not putting them, or anyone else down because of what they believe.

What part of: "This is my body" do you not understand?

1 Corinthians 11: 29: "For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself."

I would never take anything that is Holy to someone and desecrate it or make fun of it. That is cruel regardless of what you believe or don't. And so many of these comments have just shown your ignorance of what Catholics and Orthodox and others who ascribe to the real presence in the Eucharist believe. I won't go into detail for i feel my time will be wasted on ignorance and bigotry. It is not about the taste or the bread or the wine. it is about not putting God in a box. Maybe your god isn't big enough for the miraculous but the God I serve is. If he said he can do it I believe him. and if I am wrong . . . meh- who cares. I would rather risk respecting the Body and Blood than risk disrespecting it. I am Orthodox though and unlike the Catholics we have no explanation for it. its a mystery. but we ask God to make it so and trust that he does. I believe God can do exactly what he said he can do and said he would do. if you don't have that sort of faith that is your business but that is no reason to be disrespectful or rude to those who do.

John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times "I AM the bread from heaven." It is He, Himself.
John 6:27,31,49 - the manna was physically consumed, and this "new" bread must be consumed.
John 6:51-52- The Jews take Him literally.
John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct them: eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal. Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood.
John 6:23-53 - Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume."
John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - Jesus here uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch.
John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink INDEED." He answers to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food INDEED. "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body).
John 6:55 - further, the phrases "real" food and "real" drink use the word "alethes." "Alethes" means "really" or "truly," and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus' flesh and blood as being food and drink.
John 6:60 - as many non-Catholics today, Jesus' disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, "Who can 'listen' to it (much less understand it)?" Many disciples do not accept this doctrine and flee. Jesus doesn't stop them. They understood doctrine, but did not accept it.

"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise we have been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

"Funny, in all the pictures I've seen, it looks just like a piece of bread. And if the Catholic version is anything like the Orthodox version, it tastes like bland bread, too."

If Jesus were alive today and you were able to test the DNA in His hair, would it show that He is 100% God? Just as this would only show His human characteristics because that is all you "SEE", it would not prove his Divinity, which you cannot see. Just as a communion wafer would test as bread, once the Holy Spirit enters it upon transubstantiation, it becomes the Real Presence of the Very God Himself.

Nothing is impossible with God. He is bigger than anything we can see or experience or taste or know. If Jesus said this is His Body, that’s good enough.
Matt ,11 How is it that you fail to perceive that I did not speak about bread?
Matt, 26* But Jesus looked at them and said to them, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
John 6:52* The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" 53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56* He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" 61* But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? 62* Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? 63* It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64* But there are some of you that do not believe." …
66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. 67 Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you also wish to go away?" 68* Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God."

Brotherhood has never seemed so close, say some of my Evangelical friends... I won't burst their bubble and show them some of the embarrassing, vitriolic anti-Catholic hate speech here by CT readers, nor point out that the CT editors declined to pull these disgusting comments by so-called Christians degrading the Host, and by extension the holy sacrifice of the Mass. Nice, real nice. Next time, print it out and nail it to the door of your local Catholic church.

Whichever position you take on the matter, it should be stated, for the record, that those closer to Donahue's position are advocating respect for a piece of bread. This is the level of the discourse us adults are having. Look it, you can belong to some extremist Hindu cult if you please, but do not, in the meantime, demand that I do not have the right to deface a Big Mac on that basis. We all probably commit enough unholy-to-somebody acts on a daily basis to damn a thousand souls. The (as yet to happen) decescration in question would not even be distigishable from any other act (holy or unholy) accept that it comes at the expense of offending a numerously powerful religious sect such as the Catholic Chruch.

Granted, Myers' actions are knowingly offensive, but again, armed with the information that the phrase "holy cow" does not come from nowhere, is anyone really going to change their diet? No.

Freedom of religion, my country (the US), goes both ways. If Catholics are free to believe that a waffer becomes a magic waffer with a few mummered sentences then PZ is free to believe that a waffer is a waffer. A greater act of bigotry is the belief that he will burn in hell for not subscribing to such an un-obvious notion, in my opinion.

See y'all in Hindu Hell.

It is not an issue of whether or not Catholicism is correct in theological fact. It is an issue of a crime. Should we tolerate the public burning of a cross by those who hate those of African descent, just because they have some supposed "right" to be hateful and demonstrate that hate? The atheist religion of reason and personal autonomy is just another religion under the guise of science. For those that really believe that the Eucharist is in fact the person of Jesus Christ mystically present, it is unreasonable to imagine that an act of desecration is going to change their minds about the matter.