Blog
Facebook
AIM
Digg
Reddit
Stumble It
Email
Report- Watch The Pacific online now
- Abusive Boss - How To Keep Your Job
- Watch IPL Live Online
- VigRX Plus Most Effective Male Enhancement Pills
- Vimax Pills Male Enhancement On The Market Today
- Top Rated All Natural Penis Enhancement Pills
- Best Penis Enlargement Device - SizeGenetics
- Penis Enlargement Exercises Program & Techniques - Penis Health
- ProExtender - Top Rated Penis Enlargement Device
- #1 Rated Semen Enhancement Pill - Volume Pills Review
This story confirms my firm belief that the Catholics are mobsters for a well connected cult.
University of Central Florida student, Webster Cook, took the Eucharist, a small wafer that represents the Body of Christ during communion, out of the church to show a friend a sample of the wafer. Now the student claims that he fears for his life, reporting that he has received death threats and other disturbing messages from Catholic enthusiasts.
During the news report, with Fox News, the student that accompanied Cook when he "pilfered" the wafer was hesitant to do the interview. He made sure his face was not visible during his televised commentary.
Cook has since returned the wafer, but Catholics are enraged, calling his act sacrilegious and abusive in nature. The Orlando, Florida Diocese is even calling this a hate crime and the Bishop is communicating with University officials on the matter.
Many details aren't clear in this, but the Orlando Diocese did admit, during an interview, that she wasn't 100% clear on Cook's motivation. Yet, the Catholic League site is spewing propaganda, claiming that he "stole" the wafer to prove a point about student fees for religious services.
How can you steal something that was given to you? And I am going to put it out there, I am not Catholic, so do what you will with that information.
Search
Hot Links
Popular Posts
2. Theology. the changing of the elements of the bread and wine, when they are consecrated in the Eucharist, into the body and blood of Christ (a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church).
You must understand that this young man deliberately entered a Roman Catholic church to take the Eucharist. He obviously knew that his actions would be inflammatory or he would have chosen some other way in which to make his point. I think that those persons who tried to stop him were well within their right to do so. They didn't threaten jihad as would have probably happened had he somehow desecrated Muhammed...remember the threats and actions regarding the Danish cartoon?? They did, however, forcefully request that he give the host (other words for Eucharist or the body of Christ) as they should have. I am a Eucharistic minister in my church and have been instructed that no one is to leave without consuming the host at the altar. That is our tradition. Posted 07/09/2008 09:50 AMReply
"Catholics believe that the Eucharist IS the body of Christ, miraculously transformed through transubstantiation."
If I believed that my corn flakes miraculously transformed into the body of Julius Caesar while eating breakfast, I would be called insane. However, if I believe that a cracker miraculously transforms into the body of Jesus while in Church, I am just a Catholic, and this is somehow considered perfectly normal.
The real news here isn't that a person took a cracker from a Church. The real news is that people in the 21st century actually believe that that cracker has magical properties. Posted 07/09/2008 10:17 AMReply
"You must understand that this young man deliberately entered a Roman Catholic church to take the Eucharist. He obviously knew that his actions would be inflammatory or he would have chosen some other way in which to make his point. I think that those persons who tried to stop him were well within their right to do so."
Whatever members of the church may believe, they do not have the right to stop someone from leaving after GIVING him the cracker. Imagine if I had a party with potato chips on offer and I tried to force my guest to dip the chip in salsa (that's my "tradition") before eating it, and then tried to forced him to return it when he refused to dip it in salsa. I would be condemned, mocked, and possibly arrested, and rightly so. And it would not excused me of I claimed that the potato chip is an incarnation of my deceased grandmother and therefore precious to me; nor would it matter if my guest deliberately refused the salsa in order to offend me.
People may believe what they like, but no beliefs are owed any automatic respect. Posted 07/09/2008 11:28 AMReply
Then you live in a world where there is no respect at all.
For your information, the Eucharist is not given to just anyone who walks in off the street. Before First Communion, a person must be baptized, schooled for at least two years in religious education so that he or she may understand their RESPONSIBILITY in receiving the Eucharist and then receive the sacrament of Reconciliation. THEN a person may receive the Eucharist. The Communicant (who is usually, btw, a second-grader) understands that WE BELIEVE it is the body of Christ. It doesn't matter what YOU believe. It is our church and our right to worship in the manner of OUR choosing. Remember...it is America we live in.
Since the Church does not ask for your Catholic membership card at the door, we expect that someone entering OUR home would respect OUR rules. I wouldn't go into a Temple and deface the Torah nor would I, as a woman, enter the sacred spaces of a mosque where women are not permitted. And if I went to your house and you said that your family tradition is to dip the chip in salsa, then that is what I would do or I would politely decline the chip in the first place. That's the way a person acts when they are civilized. That's where basic decency and respect come in.
Sadly, your "chips and salsa" analogy is childish and ridiculous and an intellectual discussion of why this student's actions are wrong is obviously a waste of time. Perhaps when you grow up you'll understand. Posted 07/09/2008 12:20 PMReply
Not at all. I said "no beliefs are owed any AUTOMATIC respect". Repsect can be earned, it's just not automatically deserved.
As for my knowledge of Catholic practice, I was already aware of all that you have just now indicated, but even if I had not been, I don't see how those points bear on the argument, since the arguemtn is not between members of the believing group.
Regarding to your unwillingness to deface a Torah or in other ways deliberately and gratuitously offend a religious grooup, well, I agree wholeheartedly. I wouldn't either. And if I met this student who took the wafer, I would tell him that what he did was childish and rude and that I don't approve of it.
But I condemn more strongly anyone who threatens to use force to stop him from being rude.
"Sadly, your "chips and salsa" analogy is childish and ridiculous..."
Well, that's an assertion (followed by a rhetorical conversation-stopper), but it is merely an assertion, without an explanation to back it up. I'll conisder one if you provide it. As far as I can tell, the logical parallels between the two situations are nearly perfect. But I could be wrong; show me. Posted 07/09/2008 12:44 PMReply
2) Re Force: The so called force was reasonable. A woman grabbed his wrist. And apparently the force wasn't so bad because he made it out the door WITH THE EUCHARIST. He completed the act of defiance.
The reaction to grab the wrist of someone taking something that is not theirs seems normal to me. If someone was in your home and you showed them a trinket from you last vacation and they wrapped their little fingers around it and started to walk out the door I think it would be a reasonable reaction to grab their wrist and ask for it back. It would then be reasonable for the person to give it back. It would be childish to protest with some claim to your right to take it.
Everyone at Mass freely walks up to receive the Eucharist or they freely stay seated. No one is forced. Everyone in the communion line is given the Eucharist with the words, "This is the Body of Christ" to which they respond "Amen." This is a way for them to acknowledge that they know that this is NOT a cracker to be treated like a chip at a party. They then receive and consumes the Eucharist.
There's no mystery about what to do even if you are not suppose to be there (as is the case when guest occasionally get in line without a proper introduction to the sacrament). On the rare occasion when someone walks away without consuming the Eucharist someone will let that person know and ask for the Eucharist back. The person then either consumes the Consecrated Host or they give it back. Usually with a "oh, I'm sorry." All this is reasonable.
To allow people to come into Mass, pocket the Eucharist, to sell on E-bay or use it as a protest is THE part that is unreasonable. They only do those sort of things because the Eucharist IS meaningful to us. If it had as little meaning as a cracker there would be no use to using it as a means to protest. If you go into a bank and help yourself to a mint in a dish at the counter and put one in your pocket there's no problem. Why? Because that's normal behavior. That's what the mints are for. The behavior matches the purpose.
Mr. Cook’s behavior did not match the purpose of the giving.
3) Re the Party: The party analogy seems silly to me too. The Mass is not a party and the Eucharist is not a chip. However, it does prove our point on one level, our religious beliefs are being belittled and Webster Cook acted like he was at a party and not at Mass.
A better analogy would be one that showed someone at a party behaving in an unexpected way. That's what happened in that Mass. Webster did not act in a way that appropriate for Mass. He acted in a way that was disrespectful, rude, and self-serving.
That's one of the hard issues at hand. He took advantage of our beliefs. That's where the charge of desecration comes in. You can't desecrate something that has no religious value.
BTW - great Catholic apologetics above post at 12:20- thanks. Posted 07/09/2008 1:38 PMReply
Secondly, there is respect for beliefs and ideas. The idea behind the whole issue here, that of the Eucharist, is one that does NOT deserve any respect from any rational, thinking person, any more so than a belief that a potato chip is the body of a deceased grandmother. Both beliefs are inherently irrational and absurd on the same level. The only difference is that we call one religion because it has achieved a sort of 'sanity by numbers.' Posted 07/09/2008 2:50 PMReply
It is quite rich for you to describe people ignorant, and then claim to KNOW that the piece of bread magically changes into something else.
Even if Cook can be considered "disrespectful", the practice of communion is still total delusion. Posted 07/10/2008 07:05 AMReply
Why did you go to the church to begin with? Posted 07/11/2008 08:25 AMReply
And being "Blessed" makes no difference to the reality. I wonder, does it make a difference if the wafer was blessed by a priest who has been accused of sexually molesting altar boys?
Incidents like this prove that religious doctrines are insane. Simply batty!! Are we nonbelievers supposed to be impressed that you believers are offended by something so patently foolish?!
I deal with a lot of this in my new book:
Godless:
How An Evangelical Preacher Become One of America's Leading Atheists
by Dan Barker
Foreword by Richard Dawkins
http://www.amazon.com/Godless-Evangelical-Preacher-Americas-Atheists/dp/1569756775/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213202165&sr=8-4 Posted 07/11/2008 11:54 AMReply
Of course it is silly; that's the point. Equating the wafer with Christ is as silly as equating the potato chip with the deceased grandmother.
"The Mass is not a party and the Eucharist is not a chip."
That's why it's an analogy. The specifics are different but the logical relationships between them are the parallel.
" ...our religious beliefs are being belittled."
Yes, that is correct. And no apology is to be made for belittling IDEAS. If you think your ideas are not worthy of derision, defend them, if you can. You are merely whining and trying to avoid such a defense.
"A better analogy would be one that showed someone at a party behaving in an unexpected way. That's what happened in that Mass. Webster did not act in a way that appropriate for Mass. He acted in a way that was disrespectful, rude, and self-serving."
So now the mass IS a party, notwithstanding your previous insistence that it was not. OK, I'll play along... when someone is rude at my parties, I ask them to leave. I do not touch them without their permission. Posted 07/11/2008 8:48 PMReply
Of course I would. Or call the police if they were bigger than me. That is if they did not leave.
HE LEFT. Posted 07/12/2008 02:13 AMReply
I have to quote what you said "The idea behind the whole issue here, that of the Eucharist, is one that does NOT deserve any respect from any rational, thinking person"
Firstly, would you dare to say that to all the other religion practices, or just Catholic because is politically correct)? Believing that an immage is god (Guatemala), that a river in South America is sacred (saw it in Brazil), that a book is holy and that the name of God cannot be uttered (Jews) or that a tree in moonlight can have healing powers (druidic religion) Do you say the same?
And by the way, just a few names come to mind regarding this "idea" that does not deserve "respect from a rational person" Schuman (father of Europe) Mozart, Kepler, Pasteur, Ampere, Pascal, Volta, Galvani, Herschel, Lavoisier, Descartes, Faraday...all so irrational! So silly! You are right, no decent man can think of that! Posted 07/14/2008 4:34 PMReply
Especially well planned disrespect, which this was. Posted 07/21/2008 6:13 PMReply
Personally I believe Christ died for all sinners. He shared meals with Judas and even washed his feet. He loves everyone alike, even those who may steal communion for satanic rituals. He loves each person but does not love what they do. Posted 11/11/2008 3:10 PMReply