What Should This Wafer-Stealer Do?

Use the wafer as a sex toy. Obviously.

After all, it is Jesus meat.

You can feel the long tradition of Catholic weaponized guilt dripping from those replies.

Please don’t call this person a ‘wafer-stealer’ . Chances are he was given the wafer.

It’s still stealing because he wasn’t given the wafer unconditionally. For example, at a buffet, you will be given all the food you can eat there. If you try to take some home with you, it’s stealing.

I believe PZ wanted one. So the guy can send it to him.

So, there is one thing I just don’t get in all the wafer hulabaloo… According to Catholic doctrine, this stuff is NOT the flesh of Christ, right? Because transubstantiation only takes place AFTER eating the wafer. It’s only POTENTIALLY the body of Christ: it’s Schrodinger’s Christ flesh. It seems to me that as long as nobody eats it, all is well, right. All that was “stolen” was a little disk of wheat, even according to CATHOLIC doctrine, right?

Have I missed something in all of this?

He should construct a tiny cross and nail the cracker to it.

He should also get this action on video and share it on you tube

I was confirmed a Catholic, but the Flying Spaghetti Monster forbids me from having any other starches before him, so no wafers for me.

It’s still stealing because he wasn’t given the wafer unconditionally. For example, at a buffet, you will be given all the food you can eat there. If you try to take some home with you, it’s stealing.

You are confusing theft with breaking policy. Buffet owners/managers obviously don’t want patrons taking extra food home with them, so they post notices stating ‘No Doggie-Bags’ and such at the cashiers stand. Obviously the only repercussion of taking what’s left on your plate home with you is getting asked to leave and not to return. Similarly, you cannot “steal” a communion wafer if it was given to you. The priest and parishioners might get mad at you for breaking policy, but it isn’t theft and it certainly isn’t a hate crime (or any sort of crime at all).

I kind of shrugged off the usual claims about how “the Internet is making us stupid” until I saw Yahoo Answers just now.

Yikes.

Seriously, there’s some weapons-grade stupid there.

TheDeadEye,

1. I never said “theft” and “steal” doesn’t necessarily imply unlawful.

2. I challenge your claim that a buffet owner can’t prosecute you for leaving the premises with food in your pocket.

3. Here’s another example: Suppose you had been giving money to a certain charity for a while, only to discover that the charity owner had been using the money to go to the Bahamas. Would you accept his excuse that “it wasn’t stealing because you gave me the money”?

Spook said:

Seriously, there’s some weapons-grade stupid there.

I’m going to have to steal that phrase. Weapons-grade stupid – LMAO

I totally disagree. I think tossing it in a trash can…or tossing it to the dog would be funny…and yet also show catholics something about themselves. it is not pointless to rub their nose it…rubbing their nose in a ludicrous belief is exactly the remedy for ludicrous beliefs.

You see…it is not the guy with the cracker putting catholics agsint the wall here…it is their doctrine that…pardon me while I chuckle as i write this…has them believing a stupid carcker is actually the flesh of their long dead savior.

I think that the more often otherwise rational people have to defend backwards doctrine from long dead ‘holy men’, the more of them will actually feel the pressures of logic causing them to re-consider.

Look…I will take this one step further. IF…the catholic belief was that the cracker REPRESENTED their savior…I wold say “OK, no need to attack their religious symbolism”…I would respect their views more if the silly cracker merely was a reminder or representation. That is something people accept…a likeness or a reminder. That is not silly, that is using a technique that humans use for all kinds of things. Humans use symbolism all of the time. It can be a study or learning aid.

BUT…they believe that damn thing turns into Jesus. Look at the responses. “Take it back, it is Jesus”. Excuse me…but BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Do I respect that? No. In any way shape or form? No. Not at all. It is hilariously funny…and any belief such as this still maintained should be laughed right out of existence. I would laugh in anyones face who could seriusly stand before me and tell me they actually believe that a cracker turns into jesus.

Actually…this is one of those items that I think it totally fair TO attack. I mean…it is preposterous. If you take this example and spin it into anything secular…you will find that the vast majority of people (including catholics) would not hesitate to lock the person up for his own safety and the safety of others, or at elast get them a therapist and some good meds. But…a catholic says a cracker turns into a person…and not only are we not supposed to laugh…we are supposed to have respect! Ugh…screw that. It is such an assinine belief that it should be attacked. Period.

Catholics…if you believe a cracker turns into your long dead (and quite possibly fictitious) savior…then you are patently a moron. And idiot. An imbecile. Without reservation I will tell you this. I question anyone’s ability to use rational thought in any capacity if they actually believe this.

At some point a line has to be drawn. Why even pretend to respect such a primitive superstitious, unfounded and utterly impossible belief such as this?

To correct you…What serves no point is to be critical of anyone attacking this belief. This is precisely the kind of beliefs we should attack. Loudly. Whatever makes these idiots defend crackers as true flesh of their lord publicly…whether it is someone kidnapping the jesus-wafer or PZ Meyers threatening to commit snackfoodicide…does not matter. When PZ says he will abuse a cracker…and real people begin to seriusly call for his job because of it…well, that should be all you need to know.

Enough with the wafer affair. I must say, this item has brought out the pugnacity and immaturity of a lot of you atheists. For example, this statement:

Catholics…if you believe a cracker turns into your long dead (and quite possibly fictitious) savior…then you are patently a moron. And idiot. An imbecile. Without reservation I will tell you this. I question anyone’s ability to use rational thought in any capacity if they actually believe this.

This is hyperbole solely meant to insult–that’s childish. There are many Catholics that would make you seem retarded (no exaggeration). There is no need to stoop to falsehoods to ridicule such errors. It makes you look like an ass. Feel free to criticize, ridicule, satirize, condemn, repudiate, etc., etc., but don’t be an ass. You’re making us all look bad.

OK…let’s see…

From websters:

mo·ron /?m?r?n, ?mo?r-/ –noun 1. a person who is notably stupid or lacking in good judgment.

id·i·ot /??di?t/
–noun 1. an utterly foolish or senseless person.

im·be·cile

–noun 1. Psychology. a person of the second order in a former classification of mental retardation, above the level of idiocy, having a mental age of seven or eight years and an intelligence quotient of 25 to 50.
2. a dunce; blockhead; dolt.
–adjective 3. mentally feeble.

Anyone…catholic or not…who believes that a cracker can become human flesh is:

A moron: I think it shows terribly poor judgement to accept that a cracker can become human. Moron sticks.

An idiot: I think anyone who accepts that a cracker becomes human flesh is senseles, without question, since the senses would scream loud and clear that it does not happen and is contrary to anything known in the natural world.

Imbecile: had to drop to definition 3…but yes, I think anyone (catholic or not) who believes that a cracker turns into human flesh is mentally feeble, since their mental capacities should tell them clearly that this does not or could not happen.

Further…if catholics would care to, they can find this out once and for all. Go get the best priest in the world. The pope even if needs be. Have him bless the wafer, and then run a dna test on it. Guess what…it will still be a cracker. We all know this implicitly…even the catholics know this, otherwise they would be the firt to tell us to test it. But no…they know that it will take about 30 seconds for any doctor to be able to show pretty convincingly that the cracker is still a cracker.

To me…that is the real kicker here. What they are claiming is not some “we will see when we are in heaven” kind of thing. They claim it actually becomes flesh. Well…then it should test out so. But it does not. In fact, no change whatsoever. It starts a cracker and ends a cracker. But the point is…what they claim is not left to faith or anything else…what they claim is that the change physically takes place. So, if they are NOT stupid or idiotic…if they are reasonable…then they should say, “Please, test it, for I believe it does change and it should prove to be jesus flesh.” But no…they do not. And we have every right to ridicule them for it. It is an assinine premise that deserves being ignored at best…and when people respond as they have to PJ, then they deserve ridicule.

So I stand by what I said. The definitions fit ANYONE who believes a cracker can become human flesh for whatever reason…not just the religious people who believe this…anyone. Period. If catholics happen to be the only group on the list…well…sorry. But this is not about religion…it is about how stupid it is for people to believe a cracker can turn into human flesh.

You, on the other hand, are content to cast stones at those who wish to shed light on such a totally irrational viewpoint. Feel free…but this kind of ridicule is what needs to happen…regardless of whether it offends your sensibilities or not. Maybe you fail to understand the gravity of a situation where a large number of adults collectively act irrational…in this case, attacking a kid who took a stupid simple cracker and have made him a villain. Then PZ does a bit of schtick to show how senseless they are, and they do not fail him…they respond exactly as he knew they would…they even called for his job. Those are the actions that make me feel like something needs to be said. If they are content to wreck a man’s career over this…well, they deserve the utmost contempt for holding such a preposterous view and being unable to accept that most people will rightfully think they are idiots for it.

Seriously…why am I wrong for thinking someone who believes a cracker can become jesus is stupid…when those people who DO believe it, call for the jobs of those who are critical? At some point you have to draw a line. Religious or not…if the principles are contrary to nature and what we know…it has to be OK to say so. Things like virgins giving birth, crackers becoming jesus, jesus coming to life 3 days after his death. We all know these things did not happen. If these views were slightly different…removed from religion…these people would be considered whackos. If I thought virgins could get pregnant and that people could come back to life and that crackers turned into human flesh, and there was not a religion to attribute this to, you would rightfully consider me an idiot. Even catholics would. Add religion, and they are respected and defended. Hogwash.

I am not advocating we prevent them from believing it…I am not advocating that anything be done to them for believing it (interestingly enough…it is those you defend who will tell me I am going to burn in hell)…I am merely stating that we have to be allowed to use our knowledge…that has grown vastly since these religious views were originally accepted.

They can believe…just like I can think they are morons for doing so.

Let’s be clear here…these responses (and I really did wait until late into the mess to chime in) have come about because of the reaction of catholics. The stupidity is found in their remarks about the lifted wafer. “Take it back, it is jesus” sums up the actual doctrine. The doctrine says they believe that. I am sure most do not, down deep…but the ones telling us the wafer needs to be returned because it is jesus…well, there you have it. Stupidity.

Why did i respond so harshly? Because of all of you fence sitters who, rather than marvel at the stupidity behind the cracker/god theory…you instead come out against the people pointing out the preposterous nature this. Acting like bringing light on this is pointless. How wrong! It is full of importance. It means times are changing for the better. How else do you think these things come down? It is this very process…and the fact that atheists ahve it in their power to publically make the religious look stupid for a stupid belief…well that should be viewed as very good thing indeed.

If I told you that I believed that when I prayed over my twinkie it became the flesh of Abraham Lincoln…you would most certainly consider me all of the adjectives I listed. I am quite sure of it. Why is it that if this exact same stupidity is phrased in religious context it is now defended. By atheists even. Hey…they have the right to believe whatever they want…and I have the right to commentary. But their right to believe does not over-rule my right to state just what I think of their belief. Especially when not believing this could count you as a heretic and get you killed in previous centuries. You all act like this is nothing. The state of the eucharist was the cause for many contetions that ended in death during the dark ages. Catholics have killed over this point in centuries past…so stating their stupidty now, seems rather small and insignificant in comparison. So, since they have killed people for not believing this (executed, in the name and authority of their god and church), thenI think it ok for me to call them stupid.

Can we just let this issue die already?

Also, no, the alleged transformation occurs when the priest performs his magic ritual during the Eucharistic Prayer. After all, at the Last Supper, Jesus said, “THIS is my body…” not, “this is going to be my body when it touches your tongue.”

When I was a Sacristan at the local Cathedral, wine and wafers were fair game before they were consecrated. Me and the priests would take swigs of wine, etc, without a second thought. After the magic happened, things were very different. Even the leftover crumbs were disposed of in the prescribed manner — either consumed or buried. There was even a special sink where the drain would run off into the ground rather than the sewer. We’d use this sink to clean the chalice and ciboria to ensure every drop or crumb was disposed of properly.

Of course the belief is silly, but continuing to harp on this is counter-productive just like the Blasphemy Challenge.

My answer:

If you’re Catholic, consume it.

If you’re telling the truth, it is a consecrated host, and you’re not Catholic; the most appropriate thing to do would be to bury it. Consecrated Eucharist, in the Catholic faith, must be either consumed or buried. Chances are the priest will just bury the host if you returned it to the church, so save him the time and frustration. He probably won’t consume it given that he’s not sure where it’s been or what you may have done to it.

If you don’t care enough to do the *most* appropriate thing, do whatever you want with it. You clearly believe it is just a wafer. If you decide to do something stupid, can you at least keep it to yourself? No one needs to know about it and you’d only be giving us atheists a bad name.

If you’re just trolling, grow up. Yes, you’re really clever — get over it. Yes, some beliefs are really silly — get over it. If you really want to change minds, you’ll have to do a lot better than this.

Richard Wade,

Good questions. I can appreciate your humour and curiosity. It is a very strange custom indeed. I’ll do my best to shed some more light on the issue.

As mentioned, it is the priest’s magic spell that transforms the wafers (unleavened bread) and wine (pure wine) into the literal (sic) body and blood of Christ. Though I suppose technically, the spell is only asking God to perform the transformation.. but I digress.

After consecration, the hosts remain the body of Christ until they are eaten. The Godishness doesn’t get stale, but the hosts sure do! What happens is, unused hosts are placed in a special ciborium (a special type of chalice) and locked away in the tabernacle (meaning “residence” or “dwelling place” of God) until they can be used in another mass. Consecrated hosts are only very rarely discarded (ie, buried,) as that is the very last resort. Really, it would only be in extreme situations. One example I dealt with was when a host fell out of an elderly woman’s mouth and landed on the floor. No one could be expected to eat that. Though hosts that fall from a priest’s or Eucharistic Minister’s hands are typically promptly eaten. Otherwise, all hosts are consumed.

And no, as amusing an image as it is, a host would not ascend into heaven three days after being buried. It is the body of Jesus and Jesus’ soul/spirit is already in heaven, or everywhere, or however else you’d care to look at it. “Been there, done that,” Jesus might say.

And yes, Catholics have been accused of Cannibalism quite often.

Another note about the Eucharist which you may find interesting is that it is seen as a sacrifice. Jesus’ death and resurrection was only part of the equation. At the Last Supper, Jesus offered offered up his body and blood as part of a “new covenant” between God and people. This was unique in that in the old covenant, the bond was sealed using animal sacrifices. So this time, the sacrifice was on the part of God, not humans and their livestock, and not the poor little sacrificial lamb.

It’s probably not a coincidence that one of the terms of endearment for Jesus is, “lamb of God.” So ritualistically speaking, this whole Eucharist business began as a modern version of an animal sacrifice.

Here is part of what a priest says during the Liturgy of the Eucharist (the name for the second half of a typical Catholic mass)…

On the night he was betrayed, he took bread and gave you thanks and praise. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said:

Take this, all of you, and eat it:
this is my body which will be given up for you.

When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said:

Take this, all of you, and drink from it:
this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.

I’d put it on E-Bay…

I’ll post what I posted on Wafergate.

Sometimes emotional harm is necessary. I contend that putting someone through forced drug withdrawals causes emotional and physical harm. Yet, no one is going to argue that it isn’t for the better.

Likewise, all that is happening is detoxing someone’s belief. And no one has really, truly mentioned the flip side to all of this. If the cracker is so sacred, then they are willfully admitting they are cannibals. That’s an even bigger issue. And then the ties with drug withdrawals works even better.

Yes, we all know it’s a silly belief, and by all means, ridicule it, the belief itself. But calling someone a moron, imbecile, idiot, etc. to their face for holding that belief is not “detoxifying” them, it’s announcing yourself as a jerk.

yep

Darryl said,

This is hyperbole solely meant to insult–that’s childish.

There are many Catholics that would make you seem retarded (no exaggeration).

Not if they believe this garbage.

Kyle said

Yes, we all know it’s a silly belief, and by all means, ridicule it, the belief itself. But calling someone a moron, imbecile, idiot, etc. to their face for holding that belief is not “detoxifying” them, it’s announcing yourself as a jerk.

Theists have no problem criticizing and ridiculing us. Enough is enough. They are stupid, and they will hear it from me and they will take it and like it. Period. End of discussion.

EKM,

Theists have no problem criticizing and ridiculing us. Enough is enough. They are stupid, and they will hear it from me and they will take it and like it. Period. End of discussion.

So you will take the same method that has failed to convince you, failed to sway you, failed to get you to see things from their perspective, failed to do anything other than piss you off and entrench you more deeply into your indignation, and you’re going to imitate that method and deliver it back in their faces because that’s what people who are so pissed off they can’t come up with any response that is original, creative or most important of all, effective, do. Your opponents are not going to react to it any differently than you have, so you will exactly match them in your futile anger, your frustration and your powerlessness.

After “Period. End of discussion.” You neglected to say “So there, nyaah!” (with tongue sticking out)

C’mon, EKM. I’ve seen you put ideas together in interesting ways. Surely you can do better than mirroring that which does not work. I get pissed off at their negative tactics too, but that just clouds my thinking and reduces my ability to respond in more productive, persuasive ways.

I would have thought the essential point here is the intension behind the act. He’s obviously feeling guilty about it so it suggests his intentions were less than honourable and that now bothers him. As a non-Catholic Christian I don’t care what he does with it but I would advise him to let his conscience guide him.

JohnB –

I disagree. Someone who seriously thinks that 1+1=3 is an idiot. Someone who believes in seriousness that there are leprechauns is, in fact, an idiot.

I don’t understand everyone’s issue with calling a spade a spade. It’s too PC. And it’s why things like religion have flourished in the first place. Fear of elitism. Fear of not being politically correct. Fear of bigotry. (Hell, bigotry is only truly bigotry if you are wrong. For example, if the person correcting the 1+1=3 believer was adamant about said believer’s wrongness, it would be considered bigotry, even though he’s correct. I happen to disagree with that. It’s not bigotry if you are correct in your assertion.)

Further, I’d contend that while people could condemn the belief itself it will ALWAYS be taken personally by the believer. Therefore, you are, whether you want to or not, calling them an idiot.