Should YouTube take down Catholic videos desecrating the Eucharist? The church demands them gone.

[The Kilted Heathen]

It should remain. What if it's the users expression of devotion to beings like the Леший?

Literally burning what Catholics believe to be the body and blood of Jesus Himself, something that would get a Catholic excommunicated for life.

From firsthand experience, it doesn't get you much at all. Not even a slap on the wrist. You're just considered an "unrepentant sinner" until you go to confession and atone for it, and you're forbidden from receiving communion. You'd be surprised how lazy the church actually is these days; excommunication is a thing of the past.

It's more offensive to Catholics than burning a Qur'an or drawing the Prophet Muhammad would be to Muslims.

Somehow I doubt that. Muslims have killed over the above actions. The most Catholics do is get offended and make petitions, it seems.

 

[Quetzal]

Should the Catholic Church dictate what should be removed from social media like YouTube based on its policy of hate and bigotry?

I would begin to question intent behind the videos, but I think they should ultimately stay.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Youtube is already censoring free speech and calling anti-racist racists and fascists heroes. And is demonetizing female makeup on basis of violence.

Youtube has enough issues.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Here's the video

But I don't see any hate or hate speech..

.

Someone using a torch on a wafer actually offends someone?
Gimme a break.

 

[Father Heathen]

Really, Its right in the title.

des·e·crate
[ˈdesəˌkrāt]
VERB

1. treat (a sacred place or thing) with violent disrespect; violate:

...so they have a hatred for crackers then?

 

[Father Heathen]

And is demonetizing female makeup on basis of violence.

Eh?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I would begin to question intent behind the videos, but I think they should ultimately stay.

I think The originators were trolling for views by doing something controversial.

In reality it's just a wafer getting burnt and no real harm done.

It kind of reminds me of that crucifix placed in urine a fair time ago that a fuss was raised over. I think they also had a sculpture or portrait of the Virgin Mary made out of cow feces for which they credited it to be an art piece.

By they, I mean somebody else, not the particular people here.

I don't think burning the wafer had any artistic value or real statement behind it other than it gets people to watch it, which of course they got the attention of the church which was probably this person or groups goal.

 

[sayak83]

I think that along with freedom comes responsibility. Responsibility to consider the effect of our speech on others. Right speech is essentially measured. It doesn't mean you can't disagree but it does mean that your opponent is due a minimum of respect.

Take the Japanese Logan Paul suicide vid, or that one, or any number of such 'expressions'. All 100% free speech / 0% responsibility. There's nothing to be gained by either, apart from offloading unnecessary and hurtful stuff on other people, just for the sheer fun of it.

This is true. But a cracker becomes eucharist cracker only after its infused with meaning within the community of believers. Without this infusion, just a random person saying a random cracker as eucharist cracker and burning it is a silly antic. It's like burning a print of Mona Lisa one has bought. Saying you burnt the actual Mets name Lisa by burning its print is delusional and frankly comical. Same with burning a cracker.

 

[Jumi]

It's extremely lame someone thinks burning a wafer is an edgy anti-religious statement. And then someone decides they are offended by it?

If you believed that wafers are the flesh of Jesus, would you not be offended by it?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

If you believed that wafers are the flesh of Jesus, would you not be offended by it?

I might not because I'd think God could handle himself. God presumably wouldn't need any human assistance in handling these mischief-makers.

 

[dianaiad]

...so they have a hatred for crackers then?

If they had a hatred for crackers, then they would have filmed a video entitled 'How to desecrate a saltine." This is hate...for Catholics. Those here who utterly dismiss the very real feelings Catholics have regarding the 'host' are also showing extreme disrespect. YOU may not believe that the wafers Catholics use and call the 'host' are the literal body of Christ, but CATHOLICS do. Showing disrespect for the symbol is showing disrespect for the people who use it (and yes, I am aware that the host is more than a symbol, for Catholics. That just makes it worse).

I'm not a Catholic and I don't believe in transubstantiation. However, I also won't go see that video, and I do think that the makers of it are rude, bigoted and full of hate, and I wouldn't put any credence in anything they said about Catholics. I would simply assume that they were lying. If they told me that Catholics went to Mass on Sundays, I'd double check that information with a Catholic priest before I believed it.

However, the problem with the First amendment, or freedom of speech anywhere, is that laws protecting it are NOT there to protect those we approve of and with whom we agree. It is to protect those we don't like and don't agree with, and to protect US from those who don't like, or agree, with us.

Our only option, when stuff like this happens, is to....not look. People who publish offensive things do so in order to get the notice and the notoriety, the pats on the backs and high fives from those who agree with 'em. The only way stuff like that will stop is if they don't GET the notice, notoriety and high fives: if they are ignored.

Katspur mentioned videos of LDS Temple ceremonies. In fact, one set of those was published on youtube by a guy who lied to get a Temple recommend for the purpose of sneaking into the Temple and filming stuff. The church has NOT asked him to remove them, nor has it asked Youtube to remove them. It COULD....the man broke the law in order to get those videos. However, it has not and unless he does something far nastier, probably will not. We are used to that sort of thing, and the best way to deal with it, as long as 'it' doesn't involve personal injury and property damage, is to ignore it. Just...don't go there.

Who was it who said that the opposite of love isn't hate, but indifference? Same thing here. All that work and nobody cares? Perfect.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Eh?

Youtube is still using bots and a whole slew of things got affected . My sister got angry over some vlogger's hair videos and didn't understand the whole Google drama.

 

[Glaurung]

I'm not going to watch the video but desecrating a consecrated host is probably the most profound insult you can lay at Catholicism. It's roughly equivalent to burning a Qur'an or smashing a Hindu temple idol. Don't pretend that an act of desecration filmed for all the internet to see isn't an act of hatred or profound contempt.

Catholicism is one of the few religions it is socially acceptable to attack. Heck, they'd be facing legal trouble in many countries had they burned the Talmud or the Qur'an.

You'd be surprised how lazy the church actually is these days; excommunication is a thing of the past.

Host desecration is excommunication latae sententiae. In other words, you're excommunicated by the act alone, whether anyone else knows it or not. But you are right regarding the pitiful state of Catholic practice in much of the Anglosphere these days.

Somehow I doubt that. Muslims have killed over the above actions. The most Catholics do is get offended and make petitions, it seems.

Indeed, I'll pray for their conversion instead.

But a cracker becomes eucharist cracker only after its infused with meaning within the community of believers.

Catholic belief is that the Eucharist becomes God, literally the body and blood of Jesus, when consecrated by a valid priest. It is the worst blasphemy anyone can commit.

 

[Enoch07]

If you believed that wafers are the flesh of Jesus, would you not be offended by it?

It's symbology, even the Catholics know this.

Which is why it is extremely lame.

 

[dianaiad]

It's symbology, even the Catholics know this.

I can't believe that I'm chiming in here, but...no. What MORMONS do in the Temple is 'symbology.' What Catholics think of the host is NOT 'symbology." It is far more than symbolism. They believe that the host becomes the body of Christ in a VERY real way. Not symbolism. Actuality.

Do I believe this?

No.

But that doesn't mean I don't respect that THEY do.

Which is why it is extremely lame.

Just a note: nobody has ever changed their opinions about their own beliefs because someone has insulted them sufficiently. If the goal is to change minds and convince others that you are correct, then an honest respect for their beliefs is a great deal more likely to get them to talk to you about them.

For instance, calling their beliefs "extremely lame' is not a really effective method of beginning such a dialogue.

Just sayin'.

 

[Enoch07]

I can't believe that I'm chiming in here, but...no. What MORMONS do in the Temple is 'symbology.' What Catholics think of the host is NOT 'symbology." It is far more than symbolism. They believe that the host becomes the body of Christ in a VERY real way. Not symbolism. Actuality.

Do I believe this?

No.

But that doesn't mean I don't respect that THEY do.



Just a note: nobody has ever changed their opinions about their own beliefs because someone has insulted them sufficiently. If the goal is to change minds and convince others that you are correct, then an honest respect for their beliefs is a great deal more likely to get them to talk to you about them.

For instance, calling their beliefs "extremely lame' is not a really effective method of beginning such a dialogue.

Just sayin'.

I didn't call the beliefs lame.

I said someone lighting a wafer on fire to make an anti-religous statement is lame and boring.

I said taking offense to a wafer lit on fire is lame.

And It is symbolic, otherwise Catholics would be considered cannibalistic vampires! The wafer is symbolic of the body, and the wine is symbolic of the blood of Christ. It's symbolism, literally haha!

 

[Srivijaya]

This is true. But a cracker becomes eucharist cracker only after its infused with meaning within the community of believers. Without this infusion, just a random person saying a random cracker as eucharist cracker and burning it is a silly antic. It's like burning a print of Mona Lisa one has bought. Saying you burnt the actual Mets name Lisa by burning its print is delusional and frankly comical. Same with burning a cracker.

The thought occurred to me too, that it is probably not consecrated (who knows). But we need to consider what the vid is trying to achieve. Imagine if the vid depicted a person placing a beef sandwich on a Hindu shrine. Sure, it may not be beef in the sandwich but why is he doing it and for what purpose? It would be an arrogant, infantile and malicious act, done just for the spite of it.

This is my point with free speech; there needs to be responsibility and an awareness that free speech isn't identical with pugnacity. Some people are completely unable to see any difference, which doesn't mean that it shouldn't be pointed out to them and appropriate action taken where necessary.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

So here's a question; how do we know that a consecrated host? It's tougher than one would think to just pocket a eucharist during communion.

 

[Glaurung]

And It is symbolic, otherwise Catholics would be considered cannibalistic vampires! The wafer is symbolic of the body, and the wine is symbolic of the blood of Christ. It's symbolism, literally haha!

No, it isn't a symbol, it's real. In Catholicism the consecrated host is believed to be literally the very flesh and blood of Jesus Christ Himself. The doctrine is called transubstantiation.

So here's a question; how do we know that a consecrated host? It's tougher than one would think to just pocket a eucharist during communion.

EDIT: I misread.

It would be unlikely for someone without access to the sacristy to be able to obtain unconsecrated communion wafers.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

It would be unlikely for someone without access to the sacristy to be able to obtain unconsecrated communion wafers.

Seems like you can literally buy them online. And without transubstantiation through the blessing, it's literally just a wafer even to the faithful.