Man Bites Blog

PZ Myers and his acolytes like to point out that that point of the Eucharist desecration stunt wasn’t to offend Catholics, but to draw into relief the absurdity of transubstantiation, which is what motivate Bill Donahue and others to hyperventialate over Wesley Cook.

So, we’re about a week in — how’s that workin’ for ya?

Has there been anyone who’s said something like, “Geez, I had no idea that Catholics believed that a ‘cracker’ was the actual Body of Christ!  Man, they sure are goofy.  I’ll never listen to a Catholic again!”

Mostly, I’ve seen people who were already convinced that Catholics were stupid defending Myers, but also atheists distancing themselves from Myers and his stunt.

So far, I’d have to say it’s a failure.

I’m glad I got involved in the Myers debate, if only because it’s been a while since I was a kid and had a little sister, and thus was a bit rusty about how to respond to arguments like the following:

• But I’m not touching you!
• But you hurt me first!
• <Rips head off toy doll/action figure>  Why are you crying over a stupid toy?
• I know you are, but what am I?

In any instance, after a week of dealing with the faction of Dr. Myers’s acolytes who are inclined to defend obtaining a religion’s more sacred items under false pretenses and then desecrating them, I feel I an now equipped to handle any first grader.

Didn’t Jesus teach about turning the other cheek, walking the extra mile, and loving one’s enemies?  How is that compatible with what has rained down on Dr. Myers?

I guess this notion explains why atheists were slow to criticize the Church’s handling of the pedophilia scandal.  After all, Christians shouldn’t act against evil; they should turn the other cheek.  I still fondly recall all the brave writings by atheists that although the rape of minors was unfortunate, it was admirable for the hierarchy to remain true to their prinicples, and not act against those who were comitting evil.

Oh, no, wait a second –  that would have been absurd.  There were no such outpourtin of support, and atheists still use the pedophilia scandal as a trump card against Catholics.  So, apparently, under some circumstances it’s OK for Chrisitans to confront evil.  In fact, their failure to do so in the case of pedophile priests was a derelection of duty.

But that was raping kids; this is “a frackin’ cracker”

Yes, this is the fundamental disagreement.

The argument was that for a Christian to protest Dr. Myers’ stunt was in violation of Christian principles.  You disagree that the Blessed Sacrament should be treated with reverence, but believing that it is is not a violation of Christian principles.

Why are you more concerned about “a frackin’ cracker” than how Wesley Cook was treated or the death threats that have been received?

Why are you and Dr. Myers more concerned about a college student geting treated a little roughly than the children who will starve today or be killed by genocidal gangs throughout the world?

I wasn’t there when Wesley Cook was confronted, and stories conflict.  It appears the sitution should have been handled with a bit more pastoral skill.  But yes, on the list of injustices in the world crying out for my attention, it’s not near the top.

As for the death threats, anyone with a large audience who writes about controversial things receives them.  It is an unfortunate feature of our national discourse.  That a professor outlining a plan to directly offend the world’s largest religion would result in a handful of them responding this way is disappointing, but should not be surprising.  There are violent unhinged people who are part of any movement.  That they exist among Catholics does not prove anything on one side of the other. 

But the Hosts are freely given…

When one walks up to receive communion, the minister says “The Body of Christ,” and the communicant responds “Amen.”  By saying “Amen,” the communicant is affirming her belief that Jesus is physically present in the Eucharist, and in the Church gathered around them.

You might call that “free;” I’d say it’s a high price indeed. 

OK, you still haven’t said why this is such a big deal for you.

Admittedly it’s my oxe that’s being gored, and I am being personally offended.

But regardless of that, I don’t want to live in a society where stunts like this are a regular feature.  Think through what would happen if desecrating what others believe is sacred was seen as a valid form of protesting if you didn’t like what someone in that religion did.  There would have to be increased security around all religious services and places.  Any stranger would need to be regarded with suspicion. 

If this is the kind of society you want — and arms race over who can find the vilest way to insult other groups, and the groups must build greater walls of security around what they consider sacred, go for it.  But as things stand right now, I don’t think you’ll win.

A few notes to PZ Myers and his supporters:

• Yes, we Catholics regard the Eucharist with reverence that appears foolish to those who don’t share our faith.
• Yes, we expect even those who don’t share our beliefs not to desecrate it.
• Therefore, we make it pretty hard for them to do so.  We keep the Eucharist locked up in tabernacles in Churches, and only take it out during Mass.  We treat it with extraordinary reverence ourselves.
• It would be extraordinarily difficult for someone to accidentally desecrate the Eucharist.  A non-believer could quite easily live his entire life without coming into contact with it.   In fact, he would need to go out of his way to acquire it, hence the need for Prof. Myers to solicit volunteers to “score” him some of the Blessed Sacrament.  Even if one attends Catholic Mass, one must also go up to communion in order to receive the Eucharist.In short, we are not asking non-believers to walk on eggshells to avoid being, in Dr. Myers’s words, “rude to a cracker.”  One must go out of one’s way in order to encounter a consecrated hosts.    I am not terribly insulted if you fail to get out of my way in the street and bump into me.  But if you come to my house and punch me in the nose in front of my family, I’ll get  a bit more upset.
• Thus, it is not a stretch to conclude that if someone is desecrating the Eucharist, he is doing so with malicious intent, not making an innocent and ignorant mistake.  Prof. Myers’ post makes such a conclusion even more difficult to escape.
• Yes, Bill Donahue is a blowhard.  That doesn’t mean he’s always wrong.
• That Prof. Meyers has received death threats is unfortunate, and I condemn them.  Nevertheless, a professor at a public university should be held to a higher standard than a sampiling of those on the internet who send e-mails in response to a provocation.  Prof. Myers meant to be provacative, and he was.
• It does not take particular talent to provoke an angry response.  We hold the Eucharist sacred; we have never pretended otherwise.  That we would respond angrily to someone publicly and deliberately planning to desecrate the Eucharist is utterly unremarkable.   I could go around stepping on people’s fifth toes, and then laugh about how stupid it is that people are so attached to stupid limb that doesn’t serve much of a purpose and may evolve away in a number of generations.  I would not consider that an intellectual accomplishment I should be proud of.

My normal reaction to Myers’ stunt would be to ignore it, but a number of people seem to think that because Bill Donahue is on the other side, and Myers has received death threats, it’s all good.

No, it’s not.

Obviously, the First Amendment gives Myers the right to say and do as he pleases without criminal prosecution.  I have no particular brief for or against academic freedom and tenure, and figure it’s the University of Minnesota’s call wheter they wish to continue to employ Dr. Myers; I’m not inclined to write them to pressure them one way or the other.

But can’t we agree that our public discourse is not improved by these childish, immature, intentionally insulting stunts?  And responding to them with “support” for the person making the insults because some people on the other side are really mean is going to generate more of the same.  (BTW,  I would say the same thing for Mark Steyn).

I think we can stand against death threats and for the principles of free speech without “supporting” Prof. Myers.

UPDATE: It now occurs to me that this post would have worked better in “Conversations with a Strawman” format.

SECOND UPDATE: Corrected the spelling of Dr. Myers’s name, after it had been pointed out to me.