From their press release, I learned that University of Minnesota Professor P.Z. Myers, author of the Pharyngula blog, has deliberately destroyed a consecrated host (and, Myers' post says, apparently a Koran as well), apparently as a protest against what he sees as the irrationality and magical thinking of religion (or at least of some religions).
Now I wouldn't have heard of this, and wouldn't be telling you about this, were it not for finding the Confraternity's press release:
The Confraternity of Catholic Clergy (a national association of 600 priests & deacons) respond to the sacrilegious and blasphemous desecration of the Holy Eucharist by asking for public reparation. We ask all Catholics of Minnesota and of the entire nation to join in a day of prayer and fasting that such offenses never happen again.
We find the actions of University of Minnesota (Morris) Professor Paul Myers reprehensible, inexcusable, and unconstitutional. His flagrant display of irreverence by profaning a consecrated Host from a Catholic church goes beyond the limit of academic freedom and free speech.
The same Bill of Rights which protect freedom of speech also protect freedom of religion. The Founding Fathers did not envision a freedom FROM religion, rather a freedom OF religion. In other words, our nation's constitution protects the rights of ALL religions, not one and not just a few. Attacking the most sacred elements of a religion is not free speech anymore than would be perjury in a court or libel in a newspaper.
Lies and hate speech which incite contempt or violence are not protected under the law. Hence, inscribing Swastikas on Jewish synagogues or publicly burning copies of the Christian Bible or the Muslim Koran, especially by a faculty member of a public university, are just as heinous and just as unconstitutional. Individual freedoms are limited by the boundaries created by the inalienable rights of others. The freedom of religion means that no one has the right to attack, malign or grossly offend a faith tradition they personally do not have membership or ascribe allegiance.
The Chancellor of the University refused to reprimand or censure the teacher, who ironically is a Biology Professor. One fails to see the relevance of the desecration of a Catholic sacrament to the science of Biology. Were Myers a Professor of Theology, there would have been at least a presumption of competency to express religious opinions in a classroom. Yet, for a scientist to ridicule and show utter contempt for the most sacred and precious article of a major world religion, is inappropriate, unprofessional, unconstitutional and disingenuous.
A biologist has no business 'dissing' any religion, rather, they should be busy teaching the scientific discipline they were hired to teach. Tolerating such behavior by university officials is equally repugnant as it lends credibility to the act of religious hatred. We also pray that Professor Myers contritely repent and apologize.
This is of course quite wrong in its statement of the law, and in its application to the law. I take it they use "unconstitutional" to mean "constitutionally unprotected," rather than its more normal meaning of "violative of the constitution"; only government actions can be unconstitutional (with very few exceptions that can be relevant here). But "hate speech which incite[s] contempt" is fully constitutionally protected.
In narrow circumstances, speech that incites violence is unprotected, but these circumstances (intent and likelihood that the speech will cause imminent violence against its target) are not applicable here. Lies about factual matters are often unprotected, when they're about particular people. But it's hard to see any "lies" in Prof. Myers' action, unless one stretches the term to mean "expressive behavior that I think are contrary to the Truth as revealed by God," but there's nothing constitutionally unprotected about that broad category.
The analogies are also logically weak, and undefended: Inscribing a swastika on a Jewish synagogue is a trespass to someone else's property. Burning one's own copy of the Bible, the Koran, or a consecrated host is not. Perjury and libel are punishable as false statements of fact; blasphemy is offensive expression of opinion.
And the assertion that "A biologist has no business 'dissing' any religion" takes a mighty narrow of view of "business." A biologist is also a citizen, who is entitled to participate in theological debate just as are nonbiologists. I take it that the clergy believe that commenting on moral, social, and religious questions is part of their "business"; I would think that the rest of us have the same rights on this score that they do.
But beyond that, while one could operate on the view that science and religion inhabit different realms and thus aren't contradictory, one could also take the view that certain views of some religions (whether about supernatural forces generally or the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, transsubstantiation when taken seriously, and the like) are unscientific and undermine the progress of science -- just as one could take the view that certain views of some scientists (for instance, the insistence on material explanations for phenomena, or the endorsement of the theory of evolution, or the rejection of the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, and the like) are antireligious. There's an important debate out there about religion and science, and neither the criminal law nor government universities ought to suppress it.
But more broadly, this further illustrates that "blasphemy must be punished by the government" thinking is alive and well in America. I hope that the Confraternity is a fringe group, but I'm afraid that their beliefs on this are hardly a fringe belief. If a Confraternity of Muslim Imams argued that the Mohammed cartoons, or stepping on the name of Allah, should be governmentally punished -- either by firings from a university professorship, or by criminal punishment -- many of us would condemn their views. I think we should likewise condemn the views of the Confraternity.
Related Posts (on one page):
- "Confraternity of Catholic Clergy" Calls for Punishment of Blasphemy in the U.S.:
- Censorship Envy in England:
Is there any way to legally come into possession of a consecrated host? If someone were to leave a church with one, they are taking it under false pretences. It isn't "their own consecrated host."
Particularly given that the First Amendment does give everyone the right to do those things - at least in their speech.
I think you're likely wrong in assuming the consecrated Host was in fact Professor Myers' property. I am reasonably confident that Myers is not a baptized and confirmed Roman Catholic in good standing, or the Confraternity would have pursued excommunication as the proper remedy. Assuming he is in fact a non-Catholic, Myers is not entitled to possess a consecrated Host, if I recall the Catechism correctly. Presumably he either acquired the Host by theft or by fraud (by holding himself out as a Catholic in good standing when he was not). His actions are exactly equivalent to, for example, stealing a Torah scroll from a synagogue and burning it as a protest against Jewish doctrine.
You apparently acknowledge trespass and vandalism of a religious property is actionable. Now, unless I'm missing something, a non-member of a faith who steals and destroys a sacred religious item also commits a criminal act. And to the extent enhanced penalties are available under existing "hate crime" statutes, they should be just as fully applicable in this instance as they are for desecrating or destroying any other religious item or property based on anti-religious animus (one can of course attack the general validity of "hate crime" statutes, but that's a separate and broader issue than that raised in this post).
Now, if the offended Catholics would have cared to identify the consecrated wafers from the ordinary ones I suspect Myers might well have returned them...but the fact is that Catholics can't tell the supposed actual body of their lord (a consecrated wafer) from an ordinary wafer, which is why the concern over consecrated wafers is so silly.
What is not silly is the fact that people have been murdered in the past over alleged desecration of Jesus in the form of a wafer. Myers recites a litany of such murders, proudly recorded and even still celebrated by, the Catholic Church.
Who's rights are more important? The right of wafers? The right of people not to be offended? Or the right to freedom of religion, expression and not to be murdered by religious zealots who think their all powerful god is impotent to magically protect Himself from pudgy biologists?
In all the Catholic churches I've been to, the priests and eucharistic ministers give them away to anyone who walks up in line. It's not like you have to sign an affidavit promising to consume it as the Church intends or anything.
I believe some guy got his butt in trouble by flushing a couple of his own Korans down a toilet. He was a student in NYC, if memory serves. I don't mean they were his "own" Korans, but they'd been acquired for the purpose.
We'll know the Catholics are taken seriously when arguing against this disappears and NOOOOOBODY ever mentions having the least objection to it.
In the meantime, this reaction gives the good professor the attention his wasted, useless, empty life does not otherwise generate. And validates what a commenter referred to as juvenile behavior.
Maybe just little note to Catholic students to never, ever take his classes. If his class count drops, who knows what principled concern the university will suddenly discover.
Additionally, if transubstantiation is real then all Catholics are in violation of laws concerning cannibalism and desecration of corpses. So, if Catholics want to bitch about Myers tossing some wafers in the trash then they'll have to explain how they gather weekly for what they claim is genuine mass cannibalism. What's the bigger crime, tossing some ordinary, non human wafers in the trash--as Myers contends he did--or weekly actual mass canibalism, as the Catholics contend they do?
From what I understand he didn't procure it himself, but used a host that was sent to him by others who presumably were or are Catholics. To be honest if you want to deal with it, check his blog where he gave all the details you could want on what happened.
Eugene,
They're a crank group, and are only trying to respond as they view CAIR or other Muslim groups would, for P.R. purposes.
Maybe Myers didn't commit a crime, but he should probably be fired anyway because it's clear that a practicing Catholic would have no chance of passing any of his courses. This guy engages in the most hostile act imaginable to Catholics, which is equivilent to parading around with a swastika or burning a cross, and he expects people to think it's no big deal. Whatever else, his amazing stupidity would be cause for his employer to kick him to the curb. I'd expect that any professor who went out of their way to parade around with swastikas would be asked to find another job as well, even if it was constitutional for him to do so.
Isn't this state action if the University of Minnesota is a public university?
That is a false statement. Myers doesn't teach religion in his biology class. Catholics can pass his class the same way all other students do, by learning biology. Myers' blog is his personal hobby on his own time and not part of his work for the University.
I've never been to a synagogue where, halfway through the service, they started handing out Torah scrolls from a big pile to anyone who walked up and silently held out their hand. But, other than that, you're absolutely right: taking a cracker that was offered to you for free is just like stealing a scroll that hasn't been offered to you.
As zippypinhead argues above, I wonder if this is a different situation then burning one's own copy of the Bible. Under canon law, no one is entitled to "own" a consecrated host without the Catholic Church's permission. I wonder how the civil law recognizes this precept of Catholic canon law.
Suppose this hypothetical: A group of anti-Catholics illegally obtain a consecrated host and put it up for display without the Catholic Church's permission. Would the Catholic Church be able to invoke civil law and force the anti-Catholic group to turn over the consecrated host?
Surely you mean it's "obvious."
I suppose that's accurate, but it doesn't tell the whole story.
For the benefit of the commenters here, this event occured in reaction to the Church's reaction to a University of Central Florida student who kept a consecrated host.
This student attended church, received a communion wafer, and rather than consuming it as expected, left the church with it. To my recollection He later did nothing more offensive than post a picture of it on the internet.
The church's reaction was rather extreme, calling the "theft" of the cracker a "hate crime" and issuing public statements that quite seriously called for criminal charges to be brought against the student. Further the student senate of UCF subsequently voted to impeach this particular student for this event.
At some point during this fracas PZ Myers got involved posting a blog entry entitled "It's a goddamned cracker!" and in the post he threatened to do something "Far worse" than merely posting pictures of a wafer. Subsequently apparently some of his readers at Scienceblogs sent him communion wafers.
Due in part to some of the enraged responses he recieved, Myers apparently decided to drive a rusty nail through the communion wafer, which of course caused an even bigger stink.
All in all it's a rather silly situation, but the underlying event is pretty serious. A student faces real consequences for doing something as trivial as failing to eat a communion wafer he was given.
*Blink* At first glance, the "amazing stupidity" involved in this situation inheres in the continued calls (by the Catholic Leaque, among many other organizations) for Myers to be fired and the death threats he has received for daring to express a heterodox opinion. There is no evidence whatsoever that Myers has or would discriminate in objectively grading practicing Catholics. Myers acted deliberately and provocatively, but as far as anyone can tell, completely legally. He expressed the opinion that there is no difference between sincerely held religious belief and irrational superstition and proceeded to express that opinion through the symbolic act of "desecrating" inanimate objects that belonged to him, in a way that caused harm to no one (I am not counting offended sensibilities as a harm). I placed "desecrating" in quotation marks because Myers believes that the objects are simply objects, and not imbued with supernatural powers.
Legal issues aside, is this an insensible or dangerous belief worthy of intellectual or moral condemnation, let alone threats to his safety and livelihood? People need to grow up a bit.
That people have been hurt or killed in the past illustrates the degree of provocation, and may be seen as restraint (or timidity) of modern believers.
Going back to 'Original Understanding' --or 'Original Intent'-- of the Constitution and Amendments, I would be amazed of any evidence that this type of act was intended to be protected.
No. He writes on his private time on a website that's not hosted by or endorsed by the university. If I recall correctly, the university even at some point removed a link to his blog from its site so that they would not be perceived as endorsing it.
1. It is worse. Burning a Torah is bad, but, equivalently, this is like burning the ark of the freaking covenant.
2. Your anti-catholic bigotry is showing.
3. You don't hold your hand out silently. The giver states: "The Body of Christ." To which you state: "Amen." A giver is not allowed to give it to you unless you respond in this way. Importantly, "Amen" is a raitification/assertion (see merriam-webster). You are stating, in saying Amen, that you believe that the Eucharist is the Body of Christ, and that you will treat it with the reverence the Catholic Church demands.
In other words, dear little bigot, whether it was Myers himself or one of his little minions that he asked to do this (through his website), someone lied to the Catholic Church and achieved the Eucharist via fraud, because the end result was to desecrate it and treat it as a "cracker", as you so intelligently call it.
As to how the civil law is vis-a-vis the law of the Catholic Church, I don't know.
You can buy them online for Christ's sake
I don't deny the magnitude of the offensiveness to catholic beliefs, but they're just that, beliefs, no matter how sincerely you believe them.
Had the Catholic church simply decided to excommunicate the original student for such a grievous offense as keeping a consecrated host, none of this would have ever happened. But they had to make a big deal about it and try to get civil authorities involved for an offense against religious doctrine. This is not the middle ages and the courts of the United States are not there to punish Blasphemy.
The student was a Catholic and PZ is not, so apparently the particular remedy of Excommunication may not have been available, but that doesn't change the situation.
DangerMouse: Help me out here -- you say the Confraternity is "a crank group." But then you seem to agree with them that "he should probably be fired anyway because it's clear that a practicing Catholic would have no chance of passing any of his courses. This guy engages in the most hostile act imaginable to Catholics, which is equivilent to parading around with a swastika or burning a cross, and he expects people to think it's no big deal. Whatever else, his amazing stupidity would be cause for his employer to kick him to the curb. I'd expect that any professor who went out of their way to parade around with swastikas would be asked to find another job as well, even if it was constitutional for him to do so." So you actually agree with the "crank group" that a university professor should be fired by his government employee for blasphemous actions, presumably whether they are blasphemous against Christians, Muslims, or whoever else.
So which is it? Are you a crank? Or if your views are similar to those of the majority of Christians, then wouldn't the Confraternity's views -- at least as to the need to fire professors for blasphemy, even if not to prosecute them -- be mainstream as well?
It would violate the Establishment Clause for the regular laws of property to be suspended and for the secular authorities to defer to Catholic canon law with respect to this cracker.
Treating the cracker disrespectfully is not fighting words because it does not provoke an IMMEDIATE breach of the peace. Rather, it is analogous to flag burning, which is constitutionally protected.
And no, the fact that Myers is an atheist who thinks that Catholic beliefs regarding the cracker are BS does not either make him an anti-Catholic bigot or means that he wouldn't be able to grade the work of a Catholic believer fairly.
At bottom, you either believe in free speech when your own ox is gored or you don't.
And by the way, I am agnostic and would never desecrate a communion cracker. There is no doubt that Myers showed a lack of respect for Catholics, and I think there's a lot to be gained from a basic level of religious tolerance where we do not go out of our way to gratuitously insult other people's religious traditions. But there's no doubt that Myers had the right to do what he did.
The Muhammad cartoons were directly done to show that free speech was ok, because of death threats. The writers didn't hold deep hatred for Muhammad; they just wanted to make it plain that he should be mocked if people are trying to make you afraid to do it.
However, Myers was doing this deliberately to mock the Catholic church, not for free speech. it's become a cause celebre now, but his purpose remained to attack Catholics and their beliefs in a degrading and mocking manner.
Quite frankly, Myers is showing a profound disrespect for the religious beliefs of his students. If he had stood up and said, "Muhammad is a prick. Here's a picture. Everyone who believes this guy is loony tunes," no self-respecting Muslim would have taken his class, and he would have been fired for religious bigotry.
If the U. of Minnesota fights for diversity and tolerance, Myers is an example of extreme public intolerance. He should be fired. immediately.
MCL 750.102 Blasphemy; punishment.
Punishment—Any person who shall wilfully blaspheme the holy name of God, by cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
MCL 750.103 Cursing and swearing.
Cursing and swearing—Any person who has arrived at the age of discretion, who shall profanely curse or damn or swear by the name of God, Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. No such prosecution shall be sustained unless it shall be commenced within 5 days after the commission of such offense.
MCL 750.169 Disturbance of religious meetings.
Disturbance of religious meetings—Any person who, on the first day of the week, or at any other time, shall wilfully interrupt or disturb any assembly of people met for the worship of God, within the place of such meeting or out of it, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Dude, that is exactly what Myers is doing. Read Ben P's post.
In both cases, religious zealots claimed "blasphemy" and issued death threats.
Sorry, my name's Anderson, not Richard.
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
The cracker was freely given out by the Church at a mass, and was sent by the recipient to Mr. Myers. In no sense is it anyone's property but Mr. Myers.
Property you received by fraud is not your property. Ergo, it was not Myers's property. Please go back to criminal law.
Can someone simply buy some over the internet?
My, what a forgiving Christian spirit you demonstrate.
While it's true the wafers you can easily purchase aren't said to be Consecrated, how do you know? They are 100.0000% indistinguishable from "consecrated" wafers, nor can you tell the difference. You can't differentiate the supposed body of Jesus, your lord, from an ordinary flower wafer. And if you think different I have a piece of the True Cross to sell you.
A fraud requires a false representation, made in order to induce reliance, and which actually induces reliance and results in damages. Further, even where fraud exists, you aren't always entitled to your property back; rather, damages can compensate you.
The church doesn't have a fraud claim because there was no false representation (an "Amen" is not a specific representation) and because there are no damages. Further, evne if there were a fraud claim, the church could not necessarily get the cracker back; it could get damages.
Finally, a person who RECEIVES fraudulent property is not civilly or criminally responsible for fraud unless they conspired in the fraud. Myers simply received the cracker. Thus, the Church would have additional obstacles to a claim against Myers.
Communion wafers can be bought, but the Eucharist is what happens when the wafer is consecrated by the priest during a Mass. The communion wafers are not the "body of Christ" until that point.
er, which you think, for some reason, is not a free speech issue?????? You do realize this is a legal blog, not a fantasy blog, right?
But people like Jack M. certainly help me understand Myers's motivation.
And everyone but Catholics agree that they are not the body of Christ even after that point.
I take issue with this.
As a Jew, my faith tradition is attacked by the mere existence of the christian faith, which purports to bring all the benefits of the Jewish faith and more with fewer rules and less stringent observance of those rules.
The notion that Jesus fulfilled Jewish prophecies of moshiach further maligns that tradition by actively denying the vast body of Jewish rabbinical opinion that the christian interpretation is inaccurate.
The insistence of christian apologists in trying to convert my children is grossly offensive to me, especially when those apologists represent themselves as "messianic Jews", which is really just another way of saying "not Jews".
But what I have always believed to be the case, in both the law of God and that of man, is that freedom of religion demands that all religious traditions have an inherent right to disagree with and even take offense at the behavior of other religious traditions.
I don't think Professor Myers conducted himself properly. However, I do believe he had a right to conduct himself in this fashion, even if it is offensive to those who witnessed it. If their religious beliefs are accurate, he will be punished quite effectively by God, and that should be plenty - so their demand to punish him here and now is, at the very least, some indication that they doubt their own faith.
Which I believe was his entire point. The Catholics appear to be missing it.
It seems to me that, if religion involves telling people who is and isn't going to get into heaven or hell, that it's a pretty important thing. I mean, if you're telling me I'm going to hell because I don't believe what you say, I should have every right to say, "You are a complete and utter idiot, and I hold you and your views in utter contempt." And I should have the right to express that contempt. And if you have to resort to legal action or violence to keep me from doing so, then your religion is pretty weak.
That being said, the thing that really redeems Prof. Myers' actions is the fact that he apparently desecrated a Koran as well. I mean, it's not particularly heroic offending Catholics (much less evangelicals -- it's more heroic to defend them), and if you publicly flush a consecrated host without simultaneously pissing on the Koran, you're pretty much a blowhard and a coward.
In short, I think the world could do with a few more public Koran burnings. But do it politely, just to show that you can, and that you will not be cowed.
As embodied in a wafer? Of course not. But to suggest physically harming an actual human being. Yes, I object. Myers only tossed some wafers and bits of paper into the trash. No humans were hurt or even threatened by him, so your remarks seem particularly off base.
Now that I know that, I have a subtler theological question: if, as I understand it, wafers're not "consecrated hosts" until actually in use in communion, if they're received under false pretenses as to the recipient's intent, wouldn't that "un-consecrate" them, and make them revert to plain old wafers?
As to this whole issue of whether the people who obtained and sent the crackers to Myers committed fraud, I am extremely skeptical. Obviously, there is no written agreement that they consume the cracker. You could argue that there's an implied oral agreement, but I think such an argument would fail, inasmuch as religious doctrine regarding the sacredness of the communion wafer is not binding on any person, Catholic or non-Catholic. If the primary safeguard against someone's removing the wafer from the church is a shared set of beliefs that some member of the community actually lacks, then fraud just doesn't come into it. You'd have to show some agreement between the person who took the wafer and the person who gave it to them, or perhaps between the former and the Catholic Church. I doubt you could demonstrate the existence of any agreement to do anything in particular with the wafer, but rather only an expectation of what would be done with it.
Jack M.:
Ok, so people are offended. I can understand that, on an intellectual level. Do you think this offense, or the "public spectacle" that caused it, can constitutionally be punished under secular American law, or do you disagree with the press release Eugene quotes in the post? If you do believe Myers' actions can be punished due to the offense he caused to millions of Catholics, do you also believe that any action which causes offense to millions ought to be criminally or civilly punishable? As an example, Bill O'Reilly published an op-ed in this morning's Washington Times referring to people under a certain income as "Folks who dropped out of school, who are too lazy to hold a job, who smoke reefers 24/7." In the process, he probably offended millions of liberals across the country. Should his statement be punishable?
I'm actually quite familiar with the process of Celebrating the Eucharist. However, you yourself stated why it is also irrelevant. "According to Catholic Dogma."
According to any impartial observer, the Church purchases thin unleavened wafers. At a service the Priest preforms a ceremony and then distributes the wafers to those in attendance.
You may believe they've been transubstantiated, I may believe the same thing, however, to someone who accepts none of this, the item is still just a thin unleavened wafer and has no reason to consider the post ceremony item different from the pre-ceremony item.
Jack M writes with a similar angry style to that guy who got his wife fired from 1-800-Flowers by sending a death threat to Myers using his wife's company email account.
Hmmm...I wonder...
Ok, you got me there. :) My states laws still contain references to the "crime which cannot be named in Christian Company."
Now show me evidence of an actual prosecution for the blasphemy law.
Jack, please be civil. Stop throwing the words "ass" and "bigot" around. You do not help your cause by calling people names.
Second, it is a cracker. I don't believe it to be a "host", because I do not agree with the Church that it contains the Body of Jesus or any other substance other than the ingredients to the cracker.
As for "cracker" vs. "wafer", they are synonyms. Is there something about it that makes it not a cracker?
2. Amen is a specific representation, eejit. It is equivalent to "yes." And the act of taking communion implies both catholicism and the belief system involved in it. It is equivalent to someone saying, "Are you a police officer?" and the person saying, "I would say so" or not answering but is wearing a police uniform and the person asking then entrusting the police officer with property to be returned. The false police officer who takes goods is stealing via fraud, and can't claim "oh, well, I didn't positively assert anything. No fraud."
Again, don't call me "eejit" or other names. It doesn't help your case.
I don't think a long discussion of fraud is necessary or appropriate here. But the representations have to be pretty specific. Merely saying ambiguous things, or things that might mislead people, is not fraud. It is true that silence despite a legal (not religious) duty to speak can constitute fraud, but since the Church doesn't ask people "do you intend to consume this cracker at this time and for this purpose", you can't stretch the "Amen" to be more than it is. It's simply a ritual.
3. Intentional infliction of emotional distress? Negligent infliction of emotional distress? Have you been to law school?
Long enough to know that those doctrines don't apply unless the conduct is directed to a specific person, and that under Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, it doesn't apply to parody or criticism of religious beliefs.
In order to fire him, you would have to prove that 1) there is a clear pattern of bias in the grades awarded to Catholics in his classes, and 2) that the bias is due to their religious preference. You can't fire someone for what you think they might do, they actually have to do something.
Regarding the legal status of the wafer, it seems to me that if it is given freely to someone, it becomes their property. The agreement between the parisioner and the church may be binding according to Catholic law, but this has no status at all in US civil law. If I give you a ham sandwich, with the express intent that you eat it, and instead you throw it away, it is not a violation of any law, even if I fully believed that the two of us had entered into a binding contract. After following this little controversy for some time now, I find myself wishing that someone would sue Dr. Myers, the resulting verdict (which would certainly be in the professor's favor) would be an important precedent that would clarify the legal status of church law vs. civil law.
--Monty Python
"Lies and hate speech which incite contempt or violence are not protected under the law. "
--Confraternity of Catholic Clergy
Unless they incite contempt for homosexuals wishing to marry in a civil ceremony in the state of California, apparently. $250,000 will buy a fair bit of contempt for your favorite punching bag, yes?
Jack, I think I was clear. Though I wouldn't say I was outraged by what Myers did, I do think he showed disrespect to Catholics and that our society functions better when we don't go out of our way to insult each other's religious beliefs.
That, however, is a very different issue from whether he had a legal right to do what he did.
Is it possibly for you to imagine something having value to you even though it may be indistinguishable from something that doesn't have value? If your grandfather smoked a pipe, and passed away and you kept it, and I put it on a table with the same type of pipe, would you be able to tell which was your grandfather's? If not, would it be OK if I smashed one?
—
I don't have an opinion on the firing. What I do have an opinion on is that Myers is being a jerk, and being a herk ought to have social consequences.
The hosts are not "freely given" — the communicant must say "Amen" to the proposition that it is the Body of Christ. Do we want a society where ministers have to look each communicant in the eye and make sure they clearly enunicate "Amen," because failure to do so will be seen by some as assent to sunts like Prof. Myers's
And even if they were given freely, so what? My wife might "freely" give me a gift. I'd still be a jerk if I took it and smashed it.
Not really. For the record, I think he has the legal right to say whatever he wants. I don't think he should be fired for opining on his disagreement with Catholicism, or any religion. What he should be fired for is his unbelievable stupidity and character flaws. I think he fundamentally compromised his position as a professor, by showing how far out of the way he'll go to offend, demean and destroy the most precious object of a specific group of people. He lacks the character to be a professor, irrespective of his opinions. Somebody who says "it's just a cracker" doesn't deserve to be fired. But someone who engages in a publicity stunt to purposefully hurt people and then relishes the hurt he has imposed on them is a twisted individual whose character is seriously demented. It's all legal, to be sure, but I don't think it's the role of an educator. As a government employee, he has fundamentally compromised his ability to fairly teach Catholics. A man who like him relishes the hurt he caused Catholics cannot seriously be objective in grading or teaching someone if he learns a student of his is Catholic. Opinions notwithstanding, this guy is messed up.
I want a society where: (1) people don't go out of their way to disrespect Catholics, including by pulling stunts like Myers', but (2) conservative Catholics understand that the doctrine of transubstantiation is rather distinctive and implausible to many people, and therefore don't make such a big deal about communion crackers that don't make it into parishoner's mouths.
Myers is a butthead.
Considering his attitude toward religion in general, it's, if not obvious, worth considering for an observant anything whether taking a biology class from him would be a good idea.
Recall that Duke paid up some undisclosed big bucks for one of their profs screwing with a couple of laxers. It's not that it doesn't happen. What happens is that it's hard as hell to prove. And that some profs seem to think it's a perk and what is anybody going to do about it?
And, were I a student needing biology creds at that U, I'd avoid Myers just to be on the safe side.
If this cretin is expending all this energy in his spare time--which hard-working profs claim they generally lack--what would he be doing at "work"?
If I were a Catholic and Ash Wednesday was on a day I'd be scheduled to be in his class, should I worry? Ditto other religions' public observances.
1. brought up the issue by commenting at length about the controversy caused by someone absconding from a Roman Catholic service with a consecrated Host rather than consuming it during the Eucharist as required, and specifically demonstrating his awareness that this was not a use of the Host that is permitted by the Church;
2. actively solicited someone to steal a consecrated Host and send it to him (an action every Roman Catholic knows is wrong under fundamental Church doctrine);
3. received and then destroyed a consecrated Host (and a Koran and some other unspecified religious item), and bragged about it on his blog.
Sounds like he more than meets all the elements of knowing receipt and destruction of stolen property. And his behavior is probably also chargable under criminal solicitation and conspiracy statutes to boot. Myers flatly violated criminal law. No different from burning a Torah. And fully as actionable under "hate crime" statutes and sentencing enhancements as any other destruction of others' religious symbols done out of anti-religious animus.
Incidentally, those commenters who merrily assert that Priests just give out "crackers" to anybody do not understand basic Catholic theology. Only baptized Catholics in good standing (and a few other Christian faiths in full communion with the Roman Catholic church) are permitted to receive the transubstantiated Body of Christ during Eucharist. This is printed in the missalettes available in every Catholic church pew, and is often announced from the pulpit when there is reason to believe a number of non-Catholics are present at a Mass (e.g., at most weddings and funerals). IMHO, it does not generally reflect well on one to make ignorant (but Constitutionally protected) comments about religions one does not understand.
I would be amazed if, in order to turn an action or speech I didn't like into "fighting words", all I would have to do is hurt or kill enough people to demonstrate that my target illustrated a high "degree of provocation". In a free society, when you're afraid that Dark Ages mouthbreathers might start violence over an idea, the right thing to do is to lock up anyone who initiates violence and protect their intended victims, not the other way around.
First, prove the wafers are consecrated. Keep trying. You can't.
Second, the wafers are **disposable**--designed to be freely given, used up and not returned, so your Torah analogy fails by, well, not being analogous.
You would think that an all-knowing, all-powerful deity would be able to swoop in and make just that kind of adjustment. Heck, you would think that such a deity would know in advance which cracker the heretic was going to receive and would simply prevent that one from turning into the body of Christ. That would have saved everyone a bunch of grief. But apparently God can't do that.
"The actions of an individual public university professor do not constitute government action, just as my posts on this blog aren't government action."
This makes me a bit confused. If a public school teacher decides to lead a Christian prayer in class (even if not at the direction of higher authorities, and even if students are not required to participate), I am of the understanding that this is government action and prohibited by the First Amendment. Unless I am missing something, it seems to me that desecrating the eucharist in class is more analogous to praying in class than it is to making a blog post (which has nothing to do with a professor's employment).
Ooh! I know, I know!
Civil law > cannon law in non-theocracy.
On another (Catholic) blog there was a long discussion about the level of "force" that is acceptable when the goal is rescuing the host. The legal answer (NONE) was unacceptable to the Catholics.
Because when an item is sacred to you, it gives you the right to break the laws of men. Didn't you know that?
[I]f [communion wafers are] received under false pretenses as to the recipient's intent, wouldn't that "un-consecrate" them, and make them revert to plain old wafers?
Not understanding a religious belief. That's not how it works in Catholic dogma. So no.
You would think that an all-knowing, all-powerful deity would be able to swoop in and make just that kind of adjustment. Heck, you would think that such a deity would know in advance which cracker the heretic was going to receive and would simply prevent that one from turning into the body of Christ. That would have saved everyone a bunch of grief. But apparently God can't do that.
Ah, the old Athiest argument. If God does act exactly how I think he should, he does not exist, because I know exaclty how a God should act. Nice logic.
No way. Let's be clear here. He didn't tell anyone to go steal communion crackers from a Catholic Church. He just said if someone obtained one (without specifying a means) he would desecrate it.
The one he received was obtained not by theft but was freely given to a parishoner by a priest. Nor were the legal requirements of fraud met (see above).
So, he asked someone to obtain the cracker, the cracker was obtained, and it was obtained legally. He neither asked anyone to break the law nor specified a means that was illegal. There was no criminal solicitation, and no receipt of stolen property.
Look, I can imagine cases where there was no way to obtain the property except by false pretenses. If Myers asked a reader to obtain the veil from the celestial room of a Mormon temple, and the reader obtained it, I can see the argument. But communion crackers are too freely given out to qualify.
Unless I'm very mistaken this was not done in a class of any sort, nor is Myers blog related to his teaching except in that they sometimes cover the same general subjects.
I believe it's rather more akin to if Professor Volokh were to post a video of himself doing something that's against University Policy here on this blog.
Here, Jack M, let me summarize your previous argument for you:
You've been rude from the start. Your hypocritical demands for civility are incredible. And you really do write like that angry Catholic who got his wife fired...
That may be, but that's not legally enforceable. It's too vague (can the Church sue if a parishoner receives a cracker despite being in a state of sin?), and there's no mutual consideration.
You know, I wouldn't call people names here. I don't think it gets you anywhere. Frankly, people are always going to hate Catholics. You can't fight them with the tools of Satan.
More seriously, the good old days are a bit instructive. I particularly refer you to the English Corpus Christi plays (Croxton, Towneley, York, etc.), which I think most scholars nowadays take to be anti-Lollard in orientation. (The Lollards, followers of Wyclif, were basically English proto-Protestants who were skeptical of, among anythings, the Real Presence. Wyclif inspired Hus, who was a bit more successful.) In the plays, Jews--probably standing in for Lollards--steal hosts and try to determine whether they are actually the body of Christ or not. In some, the hosts kill the thieves in gory fashions; in others, there are miracles and the thieves are converted.
Look, I'm a Catholic who would like to remain free to criticize other religious--even in terms they would consider blasphemy. I am reasonably confident my religion can withstand criticism being, you know, true and all. When other people act thin-skinned about pictures of Muhammad or the like, it makes me wonder why they're so insecure about their truth claims. So I can't come up with a reason to do anything bad to Myers. So I'll let God handle this one.
I do not believe he desecrated the host, Koran, and other materials on school property in front of students. That makes it different than leading a class in prayer.
Also, do you all think that Muslims and Dawkins have a good civil suit against the prof? It seems that offending people is now gonna get you an IIED claim. Heck, I recall seeing a nazi preaching on public access TV, maybe that can be my cash cow to pay my loans. he said really awful things that were deeply offensive to millions of people.
Here's a YouTube video of a guy accepting a host and then taking it home. It's not hard, nor is it theft. A criminal complaint brought against this guy would be dismissed.
Well, to steal a bit from Thoreau, when the law "requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then I say, break the law." I would say that if the law requires you to bow down to an injustice against your own beliefs, then yes, a person has a moral (not legal) right to break the law.
Thoreau did not state that he had a legal right to break it, but a moral one. Thoreau didn't believe in the supremacy of human-made law; he held a belief in "Higher Laws," and that human laws were a nuisance to be tolerated unless they required you to break your own beliefs of morality.
I did assume that this was done by Myers in the classroom during a Biology class. If I was wrong on this, I agree that there is no question that this is not government action.
"Vengeance is mine; I will repay."
Note that the Lord God didn't even find it necessary to call anyone an "asshole."
Not without lying to the people there, you couldn't.
It's hard to say that all that is true AND that the wafer is "property of the Catholic Church".
No, it is relatively easy. Here's an analogy: you walk into a crowded bakery. One person is manning the cash register, another is doling out treats. You get a cookie and start eating it. You start walking out. the cash register guy says, "did you pay for that?" You say yes. You've committed theft and fraud of the bakery property, although the cookie is now gone.
Here's a YouTube video of a guy accepting a host and then taking it home. It's not hard, nor is it theft. A criminal complaint brought against this guy would be dismissed.
Simply because it is not hard to do doesn't make it not theft. Plenty of homes are easily robbed and plenty of people are easily pick pocketed. Does that make it not theft? (Note to the slow: rhetorical)
An action: [a person takes the consecrated host under false pretenses]
Causes another action: [Jesus evacuates the host and it reverts to its unconsecrated state]
The Catholic answer is that Jesus could certainly choose to do so, but we have no way of knowing one way or another whether he does. But, anyway, the person who takes the consecrated host under false pretenses has no power to force Jesus to do anything that he does not choose to do. So the underlying assumption to the form of your question is false.
Assume, arguendo, that the University of Minnesota has a statement of nondiscrimination that includes, inter alia, commitments that members of the University community will not show animus against others because of their "religion . . . or sexual orientation." What, if any actions would/should the University of Minnesota take if our hypothetical Professor Myers organized an anti-gay rally off-campus, and as part of the rally, burned a California same-sex marriage certificate that had been stolen from the rightful owners by a confederate, at Myers' request? And then crowed about it on his blog?
Guess who would immediately be brought up before the faculty disciplinary committee on charges of having violated the University's nondiscrimination code?
Myers' actual behavior is not distinguishable -- legally, morally, or otherwise.
Chris, come now, be gentle with the sarcasm. I'm honestly curious.
Obviously we live in a non-theocracy and the civil law trumps canon law. And it makes sense to me that no one normally has the right to break the laws of men (civil law) for the sake of religious sensibilities. But there are civil laws which protect religious institutions, at least incidentally: for example, I don't have a right to march over to the local Protestant church and spray paint its walls. I don't have a right to go into a mosque when it is open and take its Koran and then destroy it. I don't have a right to demand a consecrated host from a priest, and then assault him and take a host from him by force if he doesn't want to give me a host. In all those instances, there would be civil protections and remedies to the religious groups. Maybe there is no civil protection in the current case and the Catholic Church can't reclaim a host from someone who obtained it under false pretenses. If so, then so be it. I was just wondering what the civil law was in this case.
I have served as an extraordinary minister of the Eucharist and was never instructed to inquire whether prospective communicants had struck any clerics, been married illicitly, failed to give internal assent to that which the Church infallibly teaches, engaged in nonprocreative sex, etc. before giving them the sacrament. I suppose all those people all misrepresented themselves. Since I had good reason to suspect that, globally, a lot of the communicants were doing so, my reliance on their representations was not reasonable, so I lost the Church's fraud claim.
You are begging the question. What constitutes "Myers' request"?
Myers didn't ask anyone to steal a communion cracker. He asked that someone obtain one. And since the Church relatively freely hands them out, it is quite easy to obtain one legally.
If they were all like Bama 1L, on the other hand, there would be no reason to give offense.
This is the one part that's significantly differentiable.
Although certainly not exact, it would be closer to allege a confederate went to the county records office and copied the certificate without the knowledge of the parties involved and presumably against their wishes.
No, that is fraud and theft. You have failed to give the consideration necessary to execute the contract (the payment). In the case of communion, no consideration is expected, nor given. Moreover, you have not lied, not that lying is, in and of itself, a criminal offense. What Catholic doctrine or canon law regard the status of "Amen" as is irrelevant. Under secular civil law, that word is not an undertaking, a promise, or a statement of intent. Thus, it cannot be false, or by itself constitute a promise that can later be broken.
zippypinhead:
The point is that Myers' confederate in the instant case didn't steal anything. He was freely given a communion wafer, and he then mailed it off to Myers. The law (the actual law, not canon law) does not recognize participation in a ritual on false pretenses as a crime. Nor does the law regard as theft the disposal or giving of an object freely imparted as theft or fraud. A lot of this confusion in this thread arises from the continued tendency to conflate Catholic law/doctrine with civil law.
No, Jack M, there is no payment involved. No theft. The wafers are handed out for free. Iit's like being given a free donut at Krispy Kreme and deciding not to eat it on the spot.
Yes, and when the beautiful women tells the sucker that she'd run away with him, except she can't as long as her lousy husband is still alive, since he'd track her down and beat her, she's not telling anyone to go kill her husband.
—-
Jack: You are not doing yourself or Catholicism credit with your involvement in this thread.
——-
I didn't realize something had to be "hard" and not capturable on YouTube in order for it to be theft.
If you leave your bike unlocked on a campus, it's still theft if someone takes it.
If you are justifying this action on the premise that consecrated hosts are easy to come by, then the natural reaction will be for Catholics to make them more difficult to come by. Just like we respond to ordinary theft by locking things down and regarding each other with greater distrust.
This is where Myers is leading us.
More seriously, the press release clearly shows that the Cofraternity understands itself (contrary to its claims) to be engaged in the same business as Prof. Myers: understanding the world around us and helping others come to terms with it. As is commonly pointed out on this blog, asking for the government to restrain the competition hardly inspires confidence in your product, does it?
You have not committed theft.
Just a Thought, sorry to be snarky. I don't think I originally understood your question.
To answer it, there is no civil law protection for the church here. If the Gideons were passing out Bibles they might be furious when I tore my copy up, but they gave the Bible to me to keep as my own property and I can do what I want with it. It may be rude, but it's not illegal.
The act of saying amen. It may be perfunctory in many parishes, but its similar to a judge asking a pleading guilty defendant if he understands that he has a right to a trial by jury beyond a reasonable double. Often this is perfunctory, but perfectly legitimate to defeat an appeal by a defendant claiming he didn't "know" he had a right to a trial.
The defendant's affirmation is the same as the person saying amen. It is enough to defeat a defense of "not committing fraud" or not knowing. Amen requires a positive act of affirmation.
That helps exonerate him, rather than incrominate him like you think. He did it specifically with the intent of commenting upon an incident in which the church was involved related to communion wafers. It's not just pointless nastiness done for no reason other than to offend.
The flaw in your argument is that you equivocate between canon law and the human law of the land. In your first point, assuming the facts to be as you state, you've demonstrated simply that Myers is aware of some aspects Catholic doctrine. In your second point, assuming the facts to be as you state, your use of the word "steal" begs the question. If the person who removed the communion wafer actually did so by furtively walking up to the altar and taking it while trespassing on the property of the church, that is likely stealing under human law. But if the person participated in the ritual and was handed the wafer as part of that ritual, in the eyes of human law, that wafer is a gift and belongs to the recipient to do with as he pleases, regardless of whether some such actions are wrong or illegal in the eyes of the Church. Therefore, to your third point, unless you have evidence to the contrary, the person who removed the wafer merely gave his own property to Myers, at which point Myers was free to do what he wanted with it, including destroy it. Not obeying the religious instructions of the Church or failing to complete an expected ritual is not fraud or theft under human law, regardless of whether it may offend someone else's deeply held beliefs.
And, yes, in case you were wondering: I am aware of all internet traditions.
Of course, the tort actions would fail, too, unless someone knows how to show the extent of the injury suffered by the alleged victim.
The point is the legal character of the act, not how difficult it is. As Dilan Esper has pointed out, this doesn't rise to the level of fraud. Nor is it theft, because the priest voluntarily relinquished possession of the object in question. His incorrect expectation that the person taking it would consume it on the spot does not transform the voluntary giving into theft.